Now what?

[Zooropa_Fly]

If they come out with a seperate game, I could see BoX / New Game going the same way as RoF / FC.

[CountZero]

2 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

If they come out with a seperate game, I could see BoX / New Game going the same way as RoF / FC.

Does FC have any official SP content after all this time ? 

[Trooper117]

8 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Does FC have any official SP content after all this time ? 

 

Well, apart from the couple of official scripted campaigns, er, no...

There is the promised SP campaign supposedly coming along with the new map... but that could be (please insert word here) away...

[CountZero]

7 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

 

Well, apart from the couple of official scripted campaigns, er, no...

There is the promised SP campaign supposedly coming along with the new map... but that could be (please insert word here) away...

So new ww1 game but better graphics and better FM/DM + VR, not mutch other content for years to come.

Same what can be offered then for years in making by new WW2 game, exept VR is not new thing now to WW2.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

It's 1,5 month to 2023, they evolving current engine since 2007 , or even more since 2009 release of ROF , maybe it's the time to move on to the  next project because just by   upgrading current  they will not be able achieving goals they want. Plus  rewriting it's core and adjusting all content would be a mess and results would be worse (performance, stability etc.)  than start from beginning and integrate new  core concepts as fundamentals not retro fit.  All software has a limited life cycle as it was started with now old technology  limitations and concepts. It's good that one can outgrown  self from the past.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

In general terms, with all software products, you either move forward, or get left behind.  If they don't push the envelope, someone else will.  But no need for panic, it will take years.  All technical data on airplane performance, specifications, etc, will be useful in any new development. Sometimes, programs can even be converted. If so that certainly shortens the development time frame.  At anyrate, no need for panic.  It is a business. A business that wants to sell us a product we want.

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

It's 1,5 month to 2023, they evolving current engine since 2007 , or even more since 2009 release of ROF , maybe it's the time to move on to the  next project because just by   upgrading current  they will not be able achieving goals they want. Plus  rewriting it's core and adjusting all content would be a mess and results would be worse (performance, stability etc.)  than start from beginning and integrate new  core concepts as fundamentals not retro fit.  All software has a limited life cycle as it was started with now old technology  limitations and concepts. It's good that one can outgrown  self from the past.

What would goals be: more airplanes in missions ? better quality and bigger maps ? B-17s and other big complex bombers ? engines that work without engine timers and fantasy recover times ? historical ammo types ? airplanes fuel system with droptanks ? interesting SP content that keep player playing ? 100+ MP servers ?  

Or its just more eye candy and better FM that will not be mutch better then one we have as this one is suposed to be 5% offf data...

Battles with 16 airplanes in total insted 32 ? as we need to wait for future PC to be able to have more of more complex airplanes in one place ? no time dilation that is suposed to be fixed now with better PC ? 

 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

21 minutes ago, CountZero said:

What would goals be: more airplanes in missions ? better quality and bigger maps ? B-17s and other big complex bombers ? engines that work without engine timers and fantasy recover times ? historical ammo types ? airplanes fuel system with droptanks ? interesting SP content that keep player playing ? 100+ MP servers ?  

Or its just more eye candy and better FM that will not be mutch better then one we have as this one is suposed to be 5% offf data...

Battles with 16 airplanes in total insted 32 ? as we need to wait for future PC to be able to have more of more complex airplanes in one place ? no time dilation that is suposed to be fixed now with better PC ? 

 

From what I gather, things we've been asking for (multi engine bombers, complex maps, ect...long list), are just not feasible in the current engine. Exactly which and how many of those items are applicable is not known to me.  But it sounds like they need to upgrade to a more robust engine in order to do more complex things.  This is not surprising to me.   The current engine is getting old.  I believe they have pushed it to its practical limits already.

Edited November 14, 2022 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Bonnot]

8 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

But it sounds like they need to upgrade to a more robust engine in order to do more things.  This is not surprising to me.   

That's probably right , the question is : how much are you ready to pay for it  - and subsidiary : is it worth this price for mostly eye candy and some new items ????

[CAFulcrum]

Why would they give up their user/customer base on a new engine instead of upgrading it and continuing with a new "project," which I take to mean a new DLC... both would cost the same after all, but one's got a bunch of people already heavily invested in the game and ready to buy more DLCs, and the other would be asking them to abandon that and put money into something new.

 

It sounds more like they're going to go for an Italian theatre project.  All of the talk about the challenge of finding research and possibly discovering new data screams italian aircraft, and having 'pretty and demanding scenery' would point specifically to Malta, which is a natural spot to add a few new planes (glad/falco), give the macchi a few more italian friends and utilize a decent number of pre-existing aircraft (p40, b25, bf109, hurri2, spitV, etc.)

 

Would be pretty cool if they could even pull of an sm79.

[CountZero]

23 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

From what I gather, things we've been asking for (multi engine bombers, complex maps, ect...long list), are just not feasible in the current engine. Exactly which and how many of those items are applicable is not known to me.  But it sounds like they need to upgrade to a more robust engine in order to do more complex things.  This is not surprising to me.   The current engine is getting old.  I believe they have pushed it to its practical limits already.

From what they say limitations are not game engine but will it be profitable to spend time on it, so game engine can handle all that.

 

6 minutes ago, CAFulcrum said:

Why would they give up their user/customer base on a new engine instead of upgrading it and continuing with a new "project," which I take to mean a new DLC... both would cost the same after all, but one's got a bunch of people already heavily invested in the game and ready to buy more DLCs, and the other would be asking them to abandon that and put money into something new.

 

It sounds more like they're going to go for an Italian theatre project.  All of the talk about the challenge of finding research and possibly discovering new data screams italian aircraft, and having 'pretty and demanding scenery' would point specifically to Malta, which is a natural spot to add a few new planes (glad/falco), give the macchi a few more italian friends and utilize a decent number of pre-existing aircraft (p40, b25, bf109, hurri2, spitV, etc.)

 

Would be pretty cool if they could even pull of an sm79.

If anything is clear after last dev stram it is that they are not doing Italy in any near future.

[Trooper117]

Already stated it won't be Italy...

[Koziolek]

30 minutes ago, CountZero said:

What would goals be: more airplanes in missions ? better quality and bigger maps ? B-17s and other big complex bombers ? engines that work without engine timers and fantasy recover times ? historical ammo types ? airplanes fuel system with droptanks ? interesting SP content that keep player playing ? 100+ MP servers ?  

Or its just more eye candy and better FM that will not be mutch better then one we have as this one is suposed to be 5% offf data...

Battles with 16 airplanes in total insted 32 ? as we need to wait for future PC to be able to have more of more complex airplanes in one place ? no time dilation that is suposed to be fixed now with better PC ? 

 

Maybe all of them, maybe only some, but one thing is quite certain - none of them on the current engine.

So in general I do not have any problem with them starting over with a new content and after a few years gradually reintroducing what we have now in GB

Just because I bought BoN does not mean I do not play BoS anymore. So having in a future two different GB games is not a problem for me

But I would think long before buying a new( updated)  BoM, BoS etc in preorder right now

 

[CountZero]

11 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

Already stated it won't be Italy...

But maybe this new game that ppl expect will have better game engine so Italy tarrain and urbanisam and road/rail network will be no problem for it, or new game will just be improvments in graphics ? 

 

I do wonder why WT after all this years and profit didnt try to make WT 2 and sell all again, with better graphics and 5%+ FM boost. Why they keep making aditions to same game engine. DCS also. GB must have sean something if new game is coming insted just upgrading existing stuff like others. Especialy now.

Edited November 14, 2022 by CountZero

[=621=Samikatz]

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

It's 1,5 month to 2023, they evolving current engine since 2007 , or even more since 2009 release of ROF , maybe it's the time to move on to the  next project

 

As a comparison, MSFS still uses features from FSX. DCS' engine is an evolution of 2003's LOMAC, which is itself based on Flanker 2.0 from the 90s. Falcon BMS is based on Falcon 4.0's leaked source code but that team have continually replaced it until the only thing left is the UI, really. Look at how this sim started versus where it is today, too.

 

I don't think a blank slate is necessary in order to seriously upgrade this sim

[Eisenfaustus]

20 minutes ago, CountZero said:

But maybe this new game that ppl expect will have better game engine so Italy tarrain and urbanisam and road/rail network will be no problem for it, or new game will just be improvments in graphics ? 

 

I do wonder why WT after all this years and profit didnt try to make WT 2 and sell all again, with better graphics and 5%+ FM boost. Why they keep making aditions to same game engine. DCS also. GB must have sean something if new game is coming insted just upgrading existing stuff like others. Especialy now.

WT has a completely different economic model and except that you can fly WWII aircraft has no similarities in concept. Not a good comparison.

[DN308]

30 minutes ago, CountZero said:

From what they say limitations are not game engine but will it be profitable to spend time on it, so game engine can handle all that.

 

If anything is clear after last dev stram it is that they are not doing Italy in any near future.

Yes, and why? Because Italy is a huge city all over the country… ?

Someone ever had a look on Sicily or around Monte Cassino? Normandy is more populated.

 

Rubbish

 

It’s just like doing a B-26 Flyable… « too much work »

Edited November 14, 2022 by DN308

[simfan2015]

We may only be talking about a game-concept.

They may not yet be able to put their cards on the table ?

If it is an enhancement of the "old" engine then we may hear about it quite soon.

Otherwise it may take a bit longer.

What I would like to know is whether they will further enhance the existing GB series funtionality -or- only finish the promised collector items. 

At this time nothing may be written in stone. 

 

Edited November 14, 2022 by simfan2015

[spreckair]

1 hour ago, Bonnot said:

That's probably right , the question is : how much are you ready to pay for it 

Well, how many IL-2 1946 owners paid for IL-2 GB?  If a new product is better than the old, yes, I will buy it.  If it is a new product, let's hope that it is really a lot better than IL-2 GB; a marginal improvement may not sell enough to be commercially viable.

[Fabioccio]

In the keybind settings there are fields for up to 8 aircraft engines (or 6? Not sure) and up to 8 crew positions. Why would they put a keybind option if the game engine doesn't support it?

[Avimimus]

On 11/9/2022 at 2:47 PM, gn728 said:

Lol - here's a crazy idea - maybe tell your customers what that is - so they can give you money......

 

On 11/9/2022 at 3:00 PM, Gambit21 said:

You know - they’re not idiots.

 

Well, I think the basic principle is that there is a certain rate at which they can produce products - and thus a limit to how many times per year they can offer pre-orders. So it probably makes sense that they wait to announce the pre-orders until closer to delivery. That said, I know the feeling - I'd like to potentially have more to order.

 

Of course, if they were RSI/CIG... they could just announce more pre-orders faster than they could deliver - and end up with some vehicles still unbuilt eight years after people ordered them. But perhaps that isn't the best practice. Still though, I'm looking forward to pre-ordering the two next Collector Planes and Flying Circus Vol. III... as well as hints on the next module.

 

10 minutes ago, Fabioccio said:

In the keybind settings there are fields for up to 8 aircraft engines (or 6? Not sure) and up to 8 crew positions. Why would they put a keybind option if the game engine doesn't support it?

 

Preparation for the future? The old Il-2 1946 had similar binds for many years before anyone created content to use it. X-Plane lacks support for a sufficient number of engines in comparison (my Saunders-Roe P.192 requires me to control jets in groups of three! Of course, it has 24 of them.)

Edited November 14, 2022 by Avimimus

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

3 hours ago, CountZero said:

From what they say limitations are not game engine but will it be profitable to spend time on it, so game engine can handle all that.

 

 

I don't recall reading that.  

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, spreckair said:

Well, how many IL-2 1946 owners paid for IL-2 GB?  If a new product is better than the old, yes, I will buy it.  If it is a new product, let's hope that it is really a lot better than IL-2 GB; a marginal improvement may not sell enough to be commercially viable.

Jump from il-246 to il-2 GB was big, i do not see anything that big exept jump to level of MSF2020 but in IL-2 ww2, anything els is to small to force players away from GB that have most of stuff in it that new game cant add for so many years. SO thats why i highly doubt this idea that they are talking about new game and not about improvments to this game and what is in GB.

You would have to be big optimist thinking slightly better graphic and 5% more accurate FM is what will make ppl abandon working game. IF CloD was succes, ppl wold not even get to idea of lanching something like BoS at that time, BoS could be popular because CloD fail and there was nothing like it that works, BoS fill in the space it ocupies now. Today there is no empty space or need betwen WT, TF CLOD, GB and DCS... MSF2020 raised the bar, but its civil aviation, combat aviations would have to match it to brand them self as somethingnew enought. 

Just now, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

I don't recall reading that.  

In enigma video they say they can do B-17s, no game limitations, in their stream they say they can do fuel system and DT, no game limitation just they waisted year time on wrong aproch, time dialation they say is not game engine problem players need better PC... and so on...

[oc2209]

2 minutes ago, CountZero said:

 

You would have to be big optimist thinking slightly better graphic and 5% more accurate FM is what will make ppl abandon working game.

 

You keep saying the 5% thing like it's an established fact that it'd be so minimal. 

 

How about a much more convincing damage model? With fuel lines and internal structure that can't eat 5x30mm hits to the same unbreakable location?

 

How about more torque modelling? How about more complex takeoff and landing? I can land a 109 blindfolded and drunk, and it's not because I'm the world's greatest pilot.

 

Do you think the developers are happy with the significant realism gaps that currently exist? Shouldn't we want them to always strive for more detail and accuracy in both the flight and damage models? Don't we constantly whine at them to that effect?

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

10 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Jump from il-246 to il-2 GB was big, i do not see anything that big exept jump to level of MSF2020 but in IL-2 ww2, anything els is to small to force players away from GB that have most of stuff in it that new game cant add for so many years. SO thats why i highly doubt this idea that they are talking about new game and not about improvments to this game and what is in GB.

You would have to be big optimist thinking slightly better graphic and 5% more accurate FM is what will make ppl abandon working game. IF CloD was succes, ppl wold not even get to idea of lanching something like BoS at that time, BoS could be popular because CloD fail and there was nothing like it that works, BoS fill in the space it ocupies now. Today there is no empty space or need betwen WT, TF CLOD, GB and DCS... MSF2020 raised the bar, but its civil aviation, combat aviations would have to match it to brand them self as somethingnew enought. 

In enigma video they say they can do B-17s, no game limitations, in their stream they say they can do fuel system and DT, no game limitation just they waisted year time on wrong aproch, time dialation they say is not game engine problem players need better PC... and so on...

Old saying, "Believe nothing you hear, and only 50% of what you read".

 

Even if what you say is correct, why wouldn't they position themselves to take advantage of the latest and greatest engine sooner, rather than later?  Wait until someone else beats them to the punch?  I still believe they are thinking in the right direction.  Who knows, maybe major portions can be easily ported over (as was done with ROF)?   If so, they can be in position to challenge any new comers, and dominate the genre.

 

Change is inevitable.  Better to be one of the first to imbrace the new technology, than one of the last imo.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 hours ago, CountZero said:

You would have to be big optimist thinking slightly better graphic and 5% more accurate FM

This is speculation, and under rating by you. The graphics might be much better as some more knowledgeable members pointed out before same with FM  and DM.  Same goes with terrain deformation, trenches etc . There is many technical limitation as said by developers which were not solved during years of engine evolution..

You would like to have  wake turbulence in MP but what if that is not possible without rewriting, replacing whole netcode and as this is connected to other parts, they also be rewrite, so in the end you would have everything new with some portion of legacy code which is as good as it gets.  

 

 

And your argument of adding few % of accuracy to FM is not worth it , if margin of error is  3 to 5% that  is enough regarding speed , climb rate etc. But this is not about that but about plane behavior in extreme situations and effects of propeller wash , flaps  etc. 

Edited November 14, 2022 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[CAFulcrum]

6 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

Already stated it won't be Italy...

Okay okay, but hear me out... Malta isn't technically in Italy, right?  Same could be said of Sicily?  It could just be misdirection by the devs!?

[Gambit21]

[CountZero]

47 minutes ago, CAFulcrum said:

Okay okay, but hear me out... Malta isn't technically in Italy, right?  Same could be said of Sicily?  It could just be misdirection by the devs!?

In their stream he say Malta also when he talks why no Italy... 

Now, if ppl who belive that devs are anouncing and talking about new game engine for new game... why would they in video talked about how hard it is to model towns, roads, vulcanos and italy, shouldnt this new game engine be able to make maps like we see in MSF2020 ? shouldnt they be able to say, ok for our next project we can do Italy if people suport us , we just cant do it in this game ? like they said for their next project they can do PTO. And is this PTO for this game or new game ?

 

 

 

This is what new game is suposed to look in 2022+, are we realy to belive they gona make maps like this, are you gona present new game in 2023-24-25-26 or when ever we are suposed to get it with maps that look like we have now in game ? maps look how we have in game now is ok for 10+ old game from 2013 this is, not for new 2022+ game.

Edited November 14, 2022 by CountZero

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

I think you will just have to wait and see..

 

Formal plans and announcements, are not the same thing as discussions.  

Edited November 14, 2022 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Enceladus828]

25 minutes ago, CAFulcrum said:

Okay okay, but hear me out... Malta isn't technically in Italy, right?  Same could be said of Sicily?  It could just be misdirection by the devs!?

They said Malta was also out. At 46:22 in this interview when asked about "Battle of France, Malta, Italy", the response was "at the moment it's impossible". If people get together to do most of the work required for a Siege of Malta installment then the devs can help them, finish the work, release it, and considerable income goes to these people. The other option is to just wait.

 

[Bonnot]

the gunner said : bigger guns have longer range and more firepower,

the engineer said : heavier guns require more space,

the architect said : i'll give you space if you give me more powerful engines,

the captain said : Ok but this requires ad hoc armor,

the Admiral said : well, we need at least 3 BB and escort to operate effectively,

the Lords of the sea : Splendid , but we need some money now, steel, energy, electronics, platinum .......

    You can transpose the story to Tanks, Airplanes, Bus, Dinosaurs  etc....  bigger is better  until a  Million £  Battleship is sunk by a floating mine worth a thousand $............

 

I don't say that IL 2 is not better than 1946  but,  my experience along some 40years of computer gaming  teachs me that I'd to buy games who were not so often best, then  I'd to buy computers who were not able to run the old games ( on which i'd added lots of scenarios etc...) rending all obsolete -with printer, scanner etc...-and I'd to learn new operative systems every time !

 

Now, really when I watch the quality of the Screenshots and Videos here and the overall quality of GB,  I wonder what improvements justify discarding all that stuff for  ?????

[CountZero]

2 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

I think you will just have to wait and see..

 

Formal plans and announcements, are not the same thing as discussions.  

but then what would we do on forum, complain about engine timer techchat bug. This is more civil then that.

[oc2209]

59 minutes ago, CAFulcrum said:

Okay okay, but hear me out... Malta isn't technically in Italy, right?  Same could be said of Sicily?  It could just be misdirection by the devs!?

 

Sure. And I'll be flying Yak-3s over Berlin in the next DLC.

 

I mean, sure, Berlin's a large urban area. But since 80% of it is rubble by 1945, they don't actually have to model the buildings, right?

 

Genius!

 

Just paint the terrain where Berlin was supposed to be, with greyish smudges. Make the terrain bumpier than normal; that's the rubble part. Have a few shells of buildings sticking out as landmarks.

 

And then smoke. Lots and lots of smoke.

 

I'm half-joking, but this is more or less what they did with Stalingrad.

[BlitzPig_EL]

[Cloyd]

White Sun, Blue Sky - Redux?

 

Count me in!

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

36 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Now we're talking.   Cool artwork.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I sure hope so.

 

Been wanting this theatre since forever.  Fits all the clues more or less.

 

Only time will tell, but as long as everyone else is speculating, I guess I can too.

 

You could have a campaign running from December 1941 till the end of the war.  And if you were VERY ambitious, it could go from 1937 to the end of the war.  Also many multiplayer opportunities as well.

 

Spans the technological spectrum from the last of the biplanes right on up to the late Mustangs, Spitfires, and the IJAAF hotrods like the Ki 84.

Edited November 15, 2022 by BlitzPig_EL

[Lusekofte]

49 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I sure hope so.

 

Been wanting this theatre since forever.  Fits all the clues more or less.

 

Only time will tell, but as long as everyone else is speculating, I guess I can too.

 

You could have a campaign running from December 1941 till the end of the war.  And if you were VERY ambitious, it could go from 1937 to the end of the war.  Also many multiplayer opportunities as well.

 

Spans the technological spectrum from the last of the biplanes right on up to the late Mustangs, Spitfires, and the IJAAF hotrods like the Ki 84.

After they dismissed Italy, and almost confirmed PTO as second next. I think you might be right. I myself hope for some RAF Beufighter  in that area

[CountZero]

I dont know why would they do Burma or anything not involving Zero in their first expansion to Asia. If they plan to do anything in Asia but cant do carriers, why pick wors options then Guadalcanal or New Guinea or anything els where you can start with Zero vs American navy/marine stuff and no carriers, why start with worst option and risk not enticing enough players to buy it so you cant do then PTO. Also when they say PTO im sure they count whole asia part of war into that. 

 

When they moved fromeast front, they started with Bodenplatte, with best posible chance of succes and return to it again in next DLC, they didnt start with Battle of France or some other stuff. This is what start move away from europe with some obscure title insted best posible one in asia.

 

Also when did game change to Great Battles happend ? if i remenber it was after BoBp or during it production.

EDIT: I check and name change happend when Jason took over and anunced his first projects BoBp+FC+TC back in 2017.

So that can be reason why they keep saying GB and new/next project when talking about next DLC, maybe they gona make name change again with next DLC anouncment as now Han is project lead of next part of game.

Edited November 15, 2022 by CountZero