Can this be cleared up please...

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

1 minute ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

They've described all the modules as "projects" in the past. The fact that they use the term "project" doesn't mean anything.

 

The way I understood it, is that they're doing major upgrades to the current physics engine. I can't remember them saying that they're completely going to replace it. Even if they did, it doesn't automatically mean it's a different game. If a new engine uses similar data files, you could just replace the current engine with the new one.

You can always reuse some code and data but two standards can't work in same environment , i don't see how  you can be  compatible with old content l. You need to redesign and  replace  old stuff with new higher standards. This how new game is born.

[DBFlyguy]

Until there is an official announcement detailing exactly what they meant, it's all conjectural BS from folks that have no clue what they are talking about per usual. Maybe the devs will detail it in "Episode 2" whenever that is...maybe that one will be the one with actual concrete answers to what they are actually doing.

[Koziolek]

14 minutes ago, Dennis_Nedry said:

First and foremost, we're committed to the new project tech that is already in development. At the moment our graphics engine gives us more than competitive visuals and performance. And the progress doesn't stop.

 

They are obviously just upgrading the same engine.  The question is will the upgrades cover the previous GB series.

I'm not saying you're not right about upgrading the old engine, But not because of the quote above. All they said is at the moment graphics and performance is OK but in a few years the equipment and competition will advance so to keep up they have to develop new project tech.  Will it be a completely new engine or an upgrade of existing one remains to be seen

 

The best clue for me is the previous stream where they said ( or at least I think they did ?) that a new engine is out of the question. But still it does not mean that an upgrade is going to be compatible with the old one. The changes might be to big. 

[jojy47jojyrocks]

44 minutes ago, Dennis_Nedry said:

First and foremost, we're committed to the new project tech that is already in development. At the moment our graphics engine gives us more than competitive visuals and performance. And the progress doesn't stop.

 

They are obviously just upgrading the same engine.  The question is will the upgrades cover the previous GB series.

 

This should be it or the current battle series would look more like an afterthought...left for dead.

18 minutes ago, Koziolek said:

I'm not saying you're not right about upgrading the old engine, But not because of the quote above. All they said is at the moment graphics and performance is OK but in a few years the equipment and competition will advance so to keep up they have to develop new project tech.  Will it be a completely new engine or an upgrade of existing one remains to be seen

 

The best clue for me is the previous stream where they said ( or at least I think they did ?) that a new engine is out of the question. But still it does not mean that an upgrade is going to be compatible with the old one. The changes might be to big. 

 

 

Maybe they do it like DCS....upgrade the engine like how DCS did - DCS 1.5 to 2 plus and still going on. So, it could be an engine overhaul...how that is done remains to be seen. 

Edited November 10, 2022 by jojy47jojyrocks

[AEthelraedUnraed]

27 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

You can always reuse some code and data but two standards can't work in same environment , i don't see how  you can be  compatible with old content l. You need to redesign and  replace  old stuff with new higher standards. This how new game is born.

You're assuming that:

1) they're going to develop a completely new physics engine rather than update it,

2) a new physics engine is incompatible with the rest of the engine (graphics, AI, etc.),

3) it requires a different data format and the old format cannot be converted,

4) any problems with the current physics engine come from "old stuff" that is not up to current standards,

5) a new engine requires a new game series.

 

So far, I haven't heard any indications for any of these assumptions. If even one of these assumptions ends up to be wrong, your whole reasoning falls apart.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

27 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

You're assuming that:

1) they're going to develop a completely new physics engine rather than update it,

2) a new physics engine is incompatible with the rest of the engine (graphics, AI, etc.),

3) it requires a different data format and the old format cannot be converted,

4) any problems with the current physics engine come from "old stuff" that is not up to current standards,

5) a new engine requires a new game series.

 

So far, I haven't heard any indications for any of these assumptions. If even one of these assumptions ends up to be wrong, your whole reasoning falls apart.

Do not fall apart, ech of this assumptions can be reason to build new product. Mathematics can be reused and enhance, but they need to build new aircraft to be able to use it as the new damage model. How this can be backwards compatible?

Edited November 10, 2022 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[dburne]

1 hour ago, ITAF_Rani said:

Yes ...hoping in a clear anouncement soon about future of sim and next DLC

 

This for sure - all of this vagueness is a little disappointing. 

[kendo]

It's really quite funny how people are reaching - with justification - completely different conclusions on all this.

 

Must admit I'm confused myself - totally unsure what they meant.

 

It should be a very simple thing for the devs to clarify this and I hope they do so soon.

 

After all, this is taking valuable time and energy away from pointless speculation on what the next theatre will be ? 

53 minutes ago, Koziolek said:

I'm not saying you're not right about upgrading the old engine, But not because of the quote above. All they said is at the moment graphics and performance is OK but in a few years the equipment and competition will advance so to keep up they have to develop new project tech.  Will it be a completely new engine or an upgrade of existing one remains to be seen

 

The best clue for me is the previous stream where they said ( or at least I think they did ?) that a new engine is out of the question. But still it does not mean that an upgrade is going to be compatible with the old one. The changes might be to big. 

 

You're right actually - they said very clearly and pointedly in that previous stream that the engine did not need to be replaced - it was capable of near endless updates to keep it current.

Strange thing to say if within weeks they decide to junk the old one and start afresh. 

[1PL-Banzai-1Esk]

...

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by 1PL-Banzai-1Esk
...

[356thFS_Melonfish]

Clearly we divide ourselves into two camps, form strange religions around either the upgrade or a new product and fight a holy war using a series of thunderdomes in prime locations around the planet.

 

Alternately, we let them show us what they're up to through the medium of dev updates.

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by Melonfish

[kendo]

Nice self portrait there 1PL-banzai-1esk, you handsome chap!

[1PL-Banzai-1Esk]

2 minutes ago, kendo said:

Nice self portrait there 1PL-banzai-1esk, you handsome chap!

Cheers ?

[spreckair]

I agree that there is far too little clarity to form any solid opinions right now.  I heard one of the speakers mention APIs and other tools, which make it sound to me that the current code might not be flexible enough for future developments, but this could also include a total overhaul or adapting portions of the current code to become more modular and adaptable.  

[percydanvers]

I think the real question people mean when they talk about a new "engine" is whether or not it will be a new IP or another BoX. You can have a totally separate game based on an iterative development of an engine - this is pretty common practice. Skyrim and Oblivion run on the same engine, but feel like totally separate ones at a surface level. 

I think we should ask why we want a new engine or even a new IP instead of another BoX.

• What capability will this undertaking give us that is outside the reach of BoX?
• How will it overcome the limitations of BoX that prevented it from achieving this?
• Is it worth 1-3 years of getting the new engine or engine version past the inevitably buggy release?
• Is it worth ~5 years before it reaches the level of content we had with BoX?

I desperately hope it's another BoX and not a new engine or IP. I am reminded of the hell ARMA is in with Reforger, and, talk of ARMA 4 not withstanding, I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel for that series right now. 

[J2_Trupobaw]

Fact: they said that new project will include major overhaul of physics, damage and graphics.

 

Fact: They said not all features (like fuel tanks) will work with old planes until these planes are refactored to use them.

 

Fact: the communication was vague.

 

Conjecture: The new project will be standalone product, third after RoF and BoX

 

Another conjecture: it will be major incremental overhaul of existing title, like DCS 2.0.

[BOO]

I took it to mean multi core and vulkan being worked into the digital nature engine in simple terms.
 

Agree with @Trooper117 that it’s an easy matter to clarify. 
 

I also like a bit of mystery though. 

[[DBS]Browning]

The answer might be "it's both".

 

IL-2 GB was a new project compared to ROF, but before long almost all ROF content will be in IL2 GB; updated. Perhaps it will the same again. A new project that includes the old.

Edited November 10, 2022 by [DBS]Browning

[BraveSirRobin]

I’d be surprised if they’d announce 2 new collector planes for a game engine that is being abandoned.  

[DBFlyguy]

Suggestions on doing a dev live stream that is a bit more informative for customers that take time out of their workday to tune in:

 

From a very small (maybe 3 guys total) development team, still a ton of solid information packed into an hour along with live audience Q&A:

 

And from a larger dev, but again a ton of solid info packed into an hour ( a couple minutes over) and still time for live audience Q&A:

 

@Han @Wardog5711

[=621=Samikatz]

Might be a language thing, I'm pretty sure they've used "new project" to refer to individual expansions before, so I wouldn't assume this game is being abandoned

 

I guess all we can do is wait for confirmation, though

[DBS]

I'm hoping for one more GB and then onto a new project.

 

The GB engine clearly can't handle scale well enough and I think we're at a limit of new experiences in terms of mission variety, and to a lesser extent, locales to do the missions. Not to mention the AI seems fundamentally broken.

 

I can understand the more limited scope to focus on the FM and realism of the aircraft, but at this point are people going to keep paying for BoWherever when the missions are exactly the same and the AI is still dire?

 

Take Normandy for example. The map makes sense from a sandbox/multiplayer perspective. But the actual tactical air war? Kind of a nothing burger, at least for the luftwaffe. They were up another 20k feet trying to stop the bombers.

 

 

 

 

[Jaegermeister]

Well I'm glad this is all cleared up then...

 

What Albert said was;

Don't worry

The important message is the Team is not planning on just doing DLC as usual

They will present "the next generation of IL2"

 

What Han said is that they are beginning production of...

1) A new graphics engine

2) A new GUI engine/interface

3) Improved physics model with more detailed damage model

4) A new design theme with new aircraft, already in production, and new theme and map landscape for which research is already in process.

This is planned to be the new realistic flight simulator

 

You guys can interpret this any you want, but it's clear to me that we will be moving to a new interface in the next release, not just a new map and additional planes.

[Mekyro]

I guess what people are worried about, myself included, is if they'll be able to use existing maps and planes under this new content umbrella or if it's a standalone launcher. No real sense in worrying about it, but I guess I run high strung, ehheh.

[Jaegermeister]

3 hours ago, Mekyro said:

I guess what people are worried about, myself included, is if they'll be able to use existing maps and planes under this new content umbrella or if it's a standalone launcher. No real sense in worrying about it, but I guess I run high strung, ehheh.

 

I doubt it. A new graphics engine by definition means a new game.

 

Edit... as has been pointed out, this is a matter of opinion and semantics.

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by Jaegermeister

[Koziolek]

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I’d be surprised if they’d announce 2 new collector planes for a game engine that is being abandoned.  

IF ( big if) it is a completely new engine not compatible with the old aircrafts it will be in 4-5 years from now. I wouldn't have any problems with buying a few more planes in a year or two to play with in the meantime

[Mekyro]

15 minutes ago, Jaegermeister said:

 

I doubt it. A new graphics engine by definition means a new game.

Yeah. I thought maybe they were talking about how DCS has done it in the past. Like, DCS used to have 2-d Cockpits, etc, and has kept all their stuff in their as it iterates. you may be right

[CountZero]

19 minutes ago, Koziolek said:

IF ( big if) it is a completely new engine not compatible with the old aircrafts it will be in 4-5 years from now. I wouldn't have any problems with buying a few more planes in a year or two to play with in the meantime

where did they say new game engine in 4-5 years, so if what they said about PTO that they could do after next DLC, is suposed to be in this new game engine then... and not in GB, no way its like that. What for next 4-5 years then, who would buy anything for game that will be caned like RoF is in favor of FC now.

It realy makes no logic that they are talking about any new game exept new DLC for GB and upgrading GB game engine, not making new game separate from GB, next or in 4-5 years... im realy puzzled how ppl got to conclusion after all what was said before in enigmas video and now this last one that they plan to do stuff for GB and parallel prepare to make new game that would be separate from GB.

Why would ppl buy next DLC for GB or next 2 collector airplanes for it when no one would be playing it in MP or even suport it in near future. You would go do something els in WT, DCS or whaere not and wait this 4-5 years to see what is this new game, not spend money on game they dont plan to support.

Edited November 10, 2022 by CountZero

[I.JG3_CDRSEABEE]

1 hour ago, BOO said:

I took it to mean multi core and vulkan being worked into the digital nature engine in simple terms.
 

Agree with @Trooper117 that it’s an easy matter to clarify. 
 

I also like a bit of mystery though. 

Multi core is definitely needed now that we have such powerful gpus

[Koziolek]

2 minutes ago, CountZero said:

where did they say new game engine in 4-5 years,

they did not, but next DLC on the old engine won't be earlier than 2 -2,5 years from now, so the new (or  upgraded) engine in another 2 -2,5 years

[migmadmarine]

I take it we have literally zero people who understand Russian here who can go see how it was presented in their, ya know, native language?

[Koziolek]

I would say that a simple one sentence post from one of the devs would clear all that speculation

But, then where would be the fun ?

[FuriousMeow]

Han summed up the podcast himself:

In the summary he constantly says improvements and changes, there's nothing about "new" anything. As for why RoF didn't go into BoS initially, its because that was never the plan. The BoS series was completely just WWII. When they decided to bring RoF over, they kept the same flight models, and had a third party build more detailed 3D models and maps.

 

[=621=Samikatz]

I think it would be foolish to develop a new game that can't use the existing content, anyway, and I bet the devs know this. The playerbase is already niche and you would just be competing with yourself and dividing that already small niche, plus the content we already have is already pretty fantastic, it's not going to look terrible any time soon. I think the situation will be closer to a "Great Battles 2.0" one than a new completely separate generation

[CUJO_1970]

You don't just walk away from a decade of content creation.

[Gambit21]

1 minute ago, CUJO_1970 said:

You don't just walk away from a decade of content creation.

?

[CountZero]

I think they need someone who speeks english explain what they say so we can avoid having to guess everry time they have live stream what they realy ment lol do they mean next DLC or next game when they keep saying next project, to me this is clearly next DLC not next game project. 

 

So droptanks and fuel system is not able to be added as its not finished with previous project timeline and funds, BoN.

And they plan to work on adding it with next project, DLC for GB, timeline and funds.

This is how i understod what they said.

Not that Fuel system and DT cant work in this game engine so they can be added only when they do new game engine in new game.

[CUJO_1970]

6 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

?

 

I had to check what finger that was ?

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

I doubt it. A new graphics engine by definition means a new game.

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

Do not fall apart, ech of this assumptions can be reason to build new product. Mathematics can be reused and enhance, but they need to build new aircraft to be able to use it as the new damage model. How this can be backwards compatible?

I think there may be some kind of misunderstanding about what a game engine is, exactly. A game engine is basically just the superset of several "engines" such as the graphics engine, physics engine, sound engine, gui engine, etc., nothing more. It's important to emphasise the following here:

- A different subset engine doesn't mean that there's a different superset game engine, just that one subengine has been replaced.

- Much of what makes up a different engine is pure semantics. You could separately upgrade all the subsets of the game engine, while still calling the superset the same thing as before (v2). Or you could upgrade just the sound engine, and call it a completely different engine.

- A different subset engine doesn't mean that the data files are incompatible. Both Unity and Unreal support FBX, while they're completely different engines. They probably have very different formats internally, but that doesn't have *any* effect on their capability of reading FBX files because they have got some kind of converter. Similarly, a different IL2 engine doesn't necessarily have any effect on its ability to read files describing e.g. the armour thickness at a certain point. Even *if* you move to a different engine, it doesn't automatically imply incompatibility.

 

In conclusion, even if they plan to completely replace one subset engine, it doesn't say anything about whether or not it'll be a new series.

 

So far, I haven't seen any conclusive remarks even to the effect that they will completely replace one of the subset engines, rather than upgrade it, much less to the effect that doing so would make it incompatible with the current series. If anyone knows of some (time-stamped) quotes, please share it. Otherwise I cannot regard any posts to that effect as anything else than pure speculation.

Edited November 10, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Vishnu]

5 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

This could all be solved by a quick clear cut message from someone from the team... in fact they could have made things totally clear on the stream, but they didn't.

This. 
 

X 10

[[CPT]Crunch]

6 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

There is also this concept that 'we' the fan base should make things ourselves to enhance the game further... maps, vehicles, planes etc, if people out there have the required skills. I did however think he was referring to the existing GB series, as when the stated promised items already in development came to fruition, that would be it for the GB series as is now...

Obviously, there can be misconceptions on what was said, that's why people need clarification from the devs.

I perceived more of a new base rebuild, tuned for modular plug ins of all the new stuff.  The new graphical interface including a new system of key commands and controls for more in depth systems on a per aircraft basis one would hope.  This would in the long term open up the flood gates for equipment and aircraft including the heavies.  Think DCS style plug ins but built to the IL-2 engine flooding in from 3rd parties, quickest way to everyone's favorite.  Not only aircraft, ships, and fighting vehicles, but new complex maps.  Expect the first releases to be a simple test bed to get it working right, from than on the rest is more up to us. 

 

The power and control is in providing the meeting hall, the hook is in allowing active participation and say through contribution, and the abundance of constant quality content offered brings in the real cash flow with many consumers of that quality.