Can this be cleared up please...

[Trooper117]

The MSFS 2020 system is a great thing, but totally unsuitable for combat flight simulators...

[spreckair]

Having grown up on an air force base for the first 12 years of my life, I have been totally hooked on military aviation, and specifically WWII aviation.  I would like to have a flight sim that gets as close to flying in a WWII cockpit, in a WWII air battle, from the beginning of WWII to the end.  Right now, IL-2 in VR is the closest thing I have found to this experience.  I really love flying in IL-2, but I also recognize that it has limitations.  I cannot fly for or against large strategic bomber formations.  The beaches of Normandy are relatively empty.  The AI does not yet act like a cohesive flight.  Radio communications are not replicated.  I cannot fly in the Battle of Britain or North Africa or the Pacific.  But I do not know of any other sim that is better.  If this is the best that can or will be done, then this is what I will be flying.

 

But I am hoping that what the devs are working on will move this effort closer to the real experience.  However they do it, if so, then they will have my enthusiastic support and money.  If I have to buy a new game, then I will.  If I have to upgrade my rig, then I will.  There is a price for progress.  I think they may have to bump up the minimum requirements quite a bit to realize this, and if so, so be it.  And if so, yes there will be some who will not make the switch, but the current version will still be available for all of us.  But there may also be many others who will see the advances, buy the new game, and join the IL-2 community.  It is risky from a business standpoint, but then all progress is.

Edited January 10, 2023 by spreckair
correction

[Sutts]

I see lots of comments about 5-10 years to build a brand new sim but I don't see it that way.  The vast majority of time and effort is expended on research and modelling.  The models we have are pretty good and will be easily transferred to a new engine.  Obviously there will be a bunch of hi-res skins to produce in order to raise the bar.  Although the current engine is old, there will be large chunks of code that works well and can be ported across and other chunks that can form the skeleton of a new module.  All the knowledge and lessons of the past decade will be ready to call on too.  I really don't think the devs will want to completely ditch everything they've worked on/refined to date and consequently the development time will be reasonable.

 

I'm really hoping they put time into getting all our multiple CPU cores working hard and in that way we'll see much larger formations.

 

Whatever they choose to do, they do need to keep the cash flowing so expecting free upgrades is totally unrealistic.  The software is a tiny fraction of the hardware outlay so I don't understand people bitching about having to pay for the new sim.  If we want progress then we need to support them financially.

 

 

 

 

[SqueakyS]

1 hour ago, Sutts said:

I see lots of comments about 5-10 years to build a brand new sim but I don't see it that way.  The vast majority of time and effort is expended on research and modelling. 

 

The average time to create a new game in an existing engine is 3-5 years. Research and modeling are a small part of that but you don't see the back end work so you can't appreciate how much effort goes into creating a game. These days building a new engine has become incredibly complex. My guess is that any 'new' engine will be a heavily modified version of the GB engine or using a 3rd part engine modified for flight sims, though my money in on the former. 

 

1 hour ago, Sutts said:

The models we have are pretty good and will be easily transferred to a new engine

 

How do you think they will be 'easily transferrable'? CloD models couldn't be transferred and it has taken a lot of time and effort to transfer RoF modles so what are you basing this assumption off?

 

Anyway I really wish they would give us a clear and concise answer as to what is happening in the future. A cryptic message about a new large scale project hasn't helped at all.

[CountZero]

2 hours ago, Sutts said:

I see lots of comments about 5-10 years to build a brand new sim but I don't see it that way.  The vast majority of time and effort is expended on research and modelling.  The models we have are pretty good and will be easily transferred to a new engine.  Obviously there will be a bunch of hi-res skins to produce in order to raise the bar.  Although the current engine is old, there will be large chunks of code that works well and can be ported across and other chunks that can form the skeleton of a new module.  All the knowledge and lessons of the past decade will be ready to call on too.  I really don't think the devs will want to completely ditch everything they've worked on/refined to date and consequently the development time will be reasonable.

 

I'm really hoping they put time into getting all our multiple CPU cores working hard and in that way we'll see much larger formations.

 

Whatever they choose to do, they do need to keep the cash flowing so expecting free upgrades is totally unrealistic.  The software is a tiny fraction of the hardware outlay so I don't understand people bitching about having to pay for the new sim.  If we want progress then we need to support them financially.

 

 

 

 

So if i expect only new game with less airplanes same map types and no SP exept some quick mission and some scripted missions, then 2 years and its done, but if they have to build all stuff we have here again in new game, and im not talking just airplanes and maps... then that can not be build in 1-2 years time when your also updating game engine. We only last year got tactical numbers options on airplanes after 10 years... is this gona be from start on new game or its not priority... also when buying DLCs for GB your not only buying airplanes and maps your financing game upgrades... thats how improvments to GB got payed over long time. And considering that complexity of airplanes and maps would be bigger with new game, then well either get less of that per DLC or more time will take to make same amount like in GB DLCs.

Edited January 9, 2023 by CountZero

[Sutts]

1 hour ago, SqueakyS said:

"How do you think they will be 'easily transferrable'? CloD models couldn't be transferred and it has taken a lot of time and effort to transfer RoF modles so what are you basing this assumption off?"

 

I'm talking about the base 3D models here - not sure what package they modelled these aircraft in (3Ds Max?) but it's likely to be a standard format that can be reused as is or converted to whatever new format they decide on.  They may decide to improve the below-skin structure to improve damage modelling but the hardest part is already done, including all the controls.  Not sure why CloD models couldn't be transferred over.  The ground vehicle/equipment models are also pretty darn good and may only need new skins.  On the other hand, the buildings are very simple and that would take much effort to bring the environment up to modern standards.

[simfan2015]

Console users are indeed a different type of customers than those of il-2 and dcs. 

I don't think this is related to the new project at all, only that financially speaking consoles might make a lot of sense. 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

On 1/4/2023 at 11:01 PM, SeaSerpent said:

I think we are getting to the time where AI doesn’t need to be dumbed  down to 1946 algorithms and abbreivated flight models to run efficiently, but newly optimized engine running on 2 or 3 years from now computers, on faster processors will be able to handle full flight models in droves.

You might be right.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

11 hours ago, CountZero said:

I simply do not see GB 2.0 giving any big impromnets compared to GB when both will have same game engine that will have same limitations like GB have, that dont bather you i guess. So why GB 2.0 then ? is slightly better Graphics and FM/DM worth 5-10 years on no real content for GB or this new GB 2.0, or you expect that well get all we have now build in last 10 years from start in GB 2.0... i just don not get ppl who thing making same game 2 nd time is great idea, with only slightly better graphics and FM/DM to show for.

 

 

Who ever said there will only be slight improvements??? What I'm surmising is that we are looking at an entirely NEW engine based on parts of the old which are salvageable. The rest will be scrapped/shelved. That likely means a new interface and graphics engine at least, as well as DX12/Vulcan with multithreaded optimization. The limits are endless as tech will keep getting better. I don't understand this doom and gloom. What's a few hundred $ spread out over a few years for a HOBBY, *not a game? The answer is nothing and that it's cheaper than most of my other hobbies like golf, boating, traveling, etc.

10 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Actually, people have been groomed to expect a lot MORE.

 

Take the 46 AI that people here are lauding so much. It isn't good AI, it's cheating AI. One of my biggest frustrations with 46 was when a plane I was chasing would suddenly do some kind of maneuver that I knew was physically impossible. Did this make the AI harder to catch? Of course it did. Did it make me enjoy the AI more than the current AI? Quite on the contrary. The current AI has its issues, but at least it uses the same FM as the player. I'd never want to go back to the "fake-good" AI of 46.

 

Or take drop tanks. They were in 46, yes. And they *would* have been in BoX by now, if they had chosen to make them similar to how they were in 46, i.e. just an "explosive-less bomb" that adds some bonus fuel. But instead they (well, at least someone in the management) chose to completely model the whole fuel system. Why? Well, the only plausible explanation for a commercial game is because they thought the player base would not be completely satisfied with a simplified system as in 1946 and would appreciate the increased complexity of a full fuel system.

 

Again, we have been groomed to expect more, not less.

Your comments about the AI in 1946 aren't accurate. AI in BAT/Y-Pack/Ultrapack are absolutely excellent and perform very realistically and are programmed to complete all sorts of bfm and afm. The UFO qualities are also very much toned down and a thing of the past.

Edited January 9, 2023 by drewm3i-VR

[WitchyWoman]

3 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

 

Your comments about the AI in 1946 aren't accurate. AI in BAT/Y-Pack/Ultrapack are absolutely excellent and perform very realistically and are programmed to complete all sorts of bfm and afm. The UFO qualities are also very much toned down and a thing of the past.

Totally agree here. No one can put down BAT unless they have experience with it. +1

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

10 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Never played it, but I believe WT is best suited to mouse control. The fact that it is so easily accessible likely has a lot to do with it's success.

The amount of gear required, and the learning curve of the more 'hardcore' sims has always been a problem getting punters in.

 

I understand the 'onwards and upwards' point of view that the tech keeps getting more advanced and things in time will get infinitely better, but will they ?

If we get a new game engine that requires more hardware power to run, I'd question if there's going to be the customer base for it to survive for long.

The World isn't what it was, and isn't likely to be again.

 

As things are, I don't know if I'll be spending any more money on game modules, never mind parting with £5K on a new rig to run a new game. I'll be making do with what I already have (which is plenty).

I suspect many others will be in a similar position.

So in a genre that's already in decline, the devs should be thinking about their next move very carefully in my opinion.

This is a false assumption...a new, well optimized engine should be EASIER to run if anything, because modern cpus with 8+ cores largely sit idle in DCS/IL2 anyways because there is so much unleveraged processing power in all of these ancient sims.

10 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

One of the biggest factors is multiplatform. Playstation and XBOX users are in the majority compared to users on the PC.

THIS. If the IL2 devs are smart, they'll make a console port because that market is RIPE for the plucking. MSFS2020 normalized playing flight sims with peripherals on console.

 

Who knows, maybe instead of another 3k rig in a few years, ill be able to just get a console that will work with my flight sim gear through a firmware update and maybe by then there will be really good VR options! The future is full of endless technologies in terms of gaming tech, so I really think it just takes good vision, foresight, and planning on the part of the devs.

Edited January 9, 2023 by drewm3i-VR

[CountZero]

35 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Who ever said there will only be slight improvements??? What I'm surmising is that we are looking at an entirely NEW engine based on parts of the old which are salvageable. The rest will be scrapped/shelved. That likely means a new interface and graphics engine at least, as well as DX12/Vulcan with multithreaded optimization. The limits are endless as tech will keep getting better. I don't understand this doom and gloom. What's a few hundred $ spread out over a few years for a HOBBY, *not a game? The answer is nothing and that it's cheaper than most of my other hobbies like golf, boating, traveling, etc.

Your comments about the AI in 1946 aren't accurate. AI in BAT/Y-Pack/Ultrapack are absolutely excellent and perform very realistically and are programmed to complete all sorts of bfm and afm. The UFO qualities are also very much toned down and a thing of the past.

They clearly said no new game engine, just using same one and upgrading it, so new game will not be drastic jump some expect.

If they said they cant do map of italy for next project because its to dense and urban, and no urban areas for maps, that dont indicates big jump. Also this is not where you could see graphic differances betwen IL-2 46 and Il-2 GB, show me modern air game that have so mutch better graphics compared to IL-2 GB now. So how can ppl expect some big jump i do not understand, what FM will be 110% accurate when now its already 95% accurate acording to them ? and i bet ill still be able to do cobra in MiG-15 and dalphin around when .50 API from F-86 starts to buzz around my airplane... only big improvment you can do is DM in systems... but graphic or FM no, its already good, and maps for sure aint gona be better then ones here if they already saying urban areas to demanding even for new project.

 

consols, lol they can bearly do support for PCs, what 100-200 team will do also consols or other not PC stuff, now that is delusional on next level of delusional... youll be lucky if theyll be able to get their hands on modern PC parts in nest 2 years, lol consols 

 

[dburne]

In other words everything is clear as mud lol.

[itsmecamille]

I don't share any optimism about seeing the IL2 next iteration being focused on consoles. Doesn't anyone here remember the IL2 Birds of Prey/IL2 Birds of Steel spinoffs (and their horrible campaigns...) and how this came to PC as... War Thunder? I don't want another Gaijin - no thanks. That would be one of the worst possible outcome in my opinion. Having said that, some flight sims can be adapted tastefully to consoles - MSFS has shown that recently, so it's not totally impossible to do, but I certainly would be worried if we're getting a console focus next (and I reckon it's a risk).

[AEthelraedUnraed]

3 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Your comments about the AI in 1946 aren't accurate. AI in BAT/Y-Pack/Ultrapack are absolutely excellent and perform very realistically and are programmed to complete all sorts of bfm and afm. The UFO qualities are also very much toned down and a thing of the past.

I'm not familiar with BAT or the others. I suppose they're mods? If so, I've got two questions:

- Does the player use the same FM as the AI? Yes or no?

- Are they fairly recent mods (i.e. similar in age to BoX)? If so, then they're not relevant as my post was specifically in response to comments regarding the difference between old and new games (i.e. between 1946 and BoX, not some kind of modpack and BoX) (or more specifically, in response to some conspiracy theory on how the modern customer base is supposedly "groomed" to accept a lot less). However, they'd nicely illustrate my point how the modern customer base isn't satisfied anymore with the quality offered by old games, i.e. stock 1946. Vice versa, if they're already old mods, then my point also still stands as that'd mean that the customer base back then also accepted a lot less than was possible at the time. 

[JG7_X-Man]

[DBFlyguy]

2 hours ago, dburne said:

In other words everything is clear as mud lol.

Now, now... it's only been two months since that "very informative" live stream... and this thread hasn't hit 15 pages yet... things will definitely be clear once we hit 15 pages ?

Edited January 10, 2023 by DBFlyguy

[PB0_Roll]

26 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I'm not familiar with BAT or the others. I suppose they're mods? If so, I've got two questions:

- Does the player use the same FM as the AI? Yes or no?

- Are they fairly recent mods (i.e. similar in age to BoX)? If so, then they're not relevant as my post was specifically in response to comments regarding the difference between old and new games (i.e. between 1946 and BoX, not some kind of modpack and BoX) (or more specifically, in response to some conspiracy theory on how the modern customer base is supposedly "groomed" to accept a lot less). However, they'd nicely illustrate my point how the modern customer base isn't satisfied anymore with the quality offered by old games, i.e. stock 1946. Vice versa, if they're already old mods, then my point also still stands as that'd mean that the customer base back then also accepted a lot less than was possible at the time. 

It doesn't use same FM. If I didn't tell you and you played, you wouldn't know, and THAT is the important thing.

 

46 mods were already great when BoS had unlocks, they only kept getting bigger, occasionally better. BoS had a real slow start when people still flew 46 in 100+ players online events.

 

Modern customer base is more divided as ever about what can be accepted, but it also has to be remembered hen IL2 (first one, 2001) appeared on the scene, it had weird bank stability in its FM, and a battle couldn't accomodate more than around 30 planes at the same time and on average PC. So back then indeed having better plane models and cockpit already cost much, when compared to EAW.

 

 

[Lusekofte]

41 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

things will definitely be clear once we hit 15 pages

Well 

 

I

 

chip

 

in,

just 

 

to

 

get

 

there

 

faster

[Robli]

5 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Does the player use the same FM as the AI? Yes or no?

 

i don't know how the flight models were coded, but the old 1946 AI was definitely more "human-like" than BOS AI used to be. The "same flight model" is quite irrelevant, if the AI behaviour is so obviously robotic, just doing eternal turns or ganging up on player etc. I understood that BOS AI also got some improvements now, but initially the lousy performance of BOS AI compared to 1946 was very clear.

Back in the day most online wars used HSFX mod, which also included separately selectable "Expert Mode" that made flight models more realistic, but I don't know how it affected AI flight models. The real fun was flying with or against other humans, of course, but AI filled the holes, if needed.

[Trooper117]

11 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

If the IL2 devs are smart, they'll make a console port because that market is RIPE for the plucking.

 

Thank you god for not putting this clown in charge of the devs...

[Wardog5711]

Quote

Thank you god for not putting this clown in charge of the devs...

 

Lets back it down a notch...

 

[453=Whittle]

58 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

 

Thank you god for not putting this clown in charge of the devs...

 

That's kind of what I thought when I read your "no multiplayer" post. ?

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

2 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

Thank you god for not putting this clown in charge of the devs...

Yes, it's very smart business to make high budget games with extremely long and complicated development cycles for niche markets.

 

Again, this comment shows you have no knowledge whatsoever of the current sim ecosystem. Consoles now have a host of peripherals like sticks, pedals, throttles, and even vr headsets that work with them and they do this right out of the box at that, which is very helpful for even more advanced players. They are also more affordable and pack a great punch in terms of processing power and graphics performance. The latest consoles are superior to most rigs under 2k. This is why MSFS2020 is on console and it is a huge hit there. A proper combat flight sim on console would absolutely kill it.

 

This does NOT mean that the sim shouldn't be designed for PC, but rather a console port would be a great business opportunity and a great opportunity to grow this tiny community and yes, I'm all for that if it means more investment into the hobby I love. This is a potentially major untapped market.

21 minutes ago, BladeMeister said:

I am just curious Trooper, what does the hammer signify?

'Hit the nail on the head?'

 

S!Blade<><

On his own head, apparently ?.

Edited January 10, 2023 by drewm3i-VR

[Wardog5711]

One last reminder to keep things topical, and civil.

If I receive any more complaints about this thread, I will lock it.

 

 

[Lusekofte]

11 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Yes, it's very smart business to make high budget games with extremely long and complicated development cycles for niche markets.

It is a shame if this game degenerate to a console game. IL 2 has been there once. Biggest mistake ever. 
You can call this genre what you like , put it on a phone to play. It is still a niche. Covid made this genre more popular but it is over. 
You need to do more than copy wt. 

If you want to ruin a game with this potential and make it a wt copycat , why don’t you just play wt? What you suggest leave only you and the rest has to be recruited from wt

[dbuile]

6 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Yes, it's very smart business to make high budget games with extremely long and complicated development cycles for niche markets.

So, if the IL-2 team is moving forward with the project, are you thinking they're doing so without paying attention to their own numbers?

[Noisemaker]

6 hours ago, Wardog5711 said:

One last reminder to keep things topical, and civil.

If I receive any more complaints about this thread, I will lock it.

 

 

I'd like to complain!

 

 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

7 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

It is a shame if this game degenerate to a console game. IL 2 has been there once. Biggest mistake ever. 
You can call this genre what you like , put it on a phone to play. It is still a niche. Covid made this genre more popular but it is over. 
You need to do more than copy wt. 

If you want to ruin a game with this potential and make it a wt copycat , why don’t you just play wt? What you suggest leave only you and the rest has to be recruited from wt

You clearly didn't read what I said...where did I say make a warthunder clone or to make IL2 any less of a sim? Warthunder sucks and I have no interest in playing tanks/vehicles in my WW2 flight sim...You are gaslighting me.

 

MSFS2020 is on XBOX, is it any less of a sim on PC for that? 

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, drewm3i-VR said:

MSFS2020 is on XBOX, is it any less of a sim on PC for that? 

The Xbox part is not a sim

[dbuile]

5 hours ago, Noisemaker said:

I'd like to complain!

You'd like to complain?  Look at these shoes, I've only had them 3 weeks!  And my back hurts, and...

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, Lusekofte said:

The Xbox part is not a sim

It uses same FM so its sim no mather if its on xbox or nitendo switch or iphone flown by moving the phone up/down left/right slide to side, shake up to get gear down, and so on...

 

2 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

You clearly didn't read what I said...where did I say make a warthunder clone or to make IL2 any less of a sim? Warthunder sucks and I have no interest in playing tanks/vehicles in my WW2 flight sim...You are gaslighting me.

 

MSFS2020 is on XBOX, is it any less of a sim on PC for that? 

Problem with them making new project consol and PC one is in team size, not that game would be less sim if played on xbox or ps5 and so on... small team like here can not make game for PC and consols, im sure they would do it in hart beat if they could... its not stupid idea, but i highly doubt they have the size to do it, so its delusional to expect GB 2.0 for PS5

[Lusekofte]

29 minutes ago, CountZero said:

uses same FM so its sim no mather if its on xbox or nitendo switch or iphone flown by moving the phone up/down left/right slide to side, shake up to get gear down, and so on...

It might use the same fm. A fm you need to dl and sometimes pay for to improve. 
xbox planes got far less options and it is so different that I would not consider it as same. 
If people wish to do this ind GB. I say it will be a birds of pray 2. 
I oppose this idea, because it will take this franchise miles further away from my wishes. I do not oppose it for any other than selfish reasons. I have no idea if it is an economically good idea.  But for me it would be a final goodbye. 
In my point of view, I think they evolve this concept they have to a higher level. 
more complexity within the systems means not more complexity flying it. I think they will keep the easy access ability, but have better dm , engine parameters, fuel system and weapons. I think they want to distance themselves from DCS but yet compete when it comes to graphics, spotting and war simulation. I really are optimistic for their ambitions and hope they are down to earth and doable within a reasonable timeframe 

Edited January 10, 2023 by Lusekofte

[RossMarBow]

Yea I really hope they are porting GB to ios/android that is really what the community wants.

This is a DCS community quality thread. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

On 1/10/2023 at 10:57 PM, Lusekofte said:

The Xbox part is not a sim

Why, you can use gamepad in il2, that not make it less sim. The FM engine is the same on consoles and PC. 

[CountZero]

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

Why, you can use gamepad in il2, that not make it less sim. The FM engine is the same on consoles and PC. 

I play with gamepad dcs and il-2 for years and had no problem in sp or mp, even vs tm8s on sticks with extentions and uber expencive stuff i can do anything they do, with gamepad in so caled sims, if that makes games less sim then we do not have sim game on pc lol

 

 

this video is same for air games, it talks about car sims but its basicly same thing...  

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 hours ago, CountZero said:

I play with gamepad dcs and il-2 for years and had no problem in sp or mp, even vs tm8s on sticks with extentions and uber expencive stuff i can do anything they do, with gamepad in so caled sims, if that makes games less sim then we do not have sim game on pc lol

 

 

this video is same for air games, it talks about car sims but its basicly same thing...  

 

Yes , i was aware that you use gamepad and also you are good player, even more , i remember you at top of the lader flying P40 at WOL quite time ago. That alone is an achievement. 

[RossMarBow]

The game should really have properly setup ready to play controller setups for xbox and ps4 controllers.

 

I tried out AC myself 
Setting up controller was hard with bonky settings
Then setting up the car was another level of pain
And then most of the multiplayer races I did someone wiped me out

Edited January 17, 2023 by RossMarBow

[352ndOscar]

On the subject of “controllers” and “platforms”:

 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

We (the BlitzPigs) still play AC, and ACC, on occasion.  We race among ourselves with the field filled with AI sometimes.  True it has a steep learning curve, however it's easier than flying, but requires more constant concentration.  We do shy away from "open" multiplayer servers because they are often filled with kids who somehow haven't got the message that motorsport is not a full contact sport on purpose.