Can this be cleared up please...

[busdriver]

 

[firdimigdi]

58 minutes ago, Rjel said:

The next project is either going to be compatible with Great Battles and a lot of us will be glad, sad or mad or it isn't going to be compatible with Great Battles and a lot of us will be glad, sad or mad?

 

Tangible proof that it can be both until observed.

[R33GZ]

3 minutes ago, firdimigdi said:

 

Tangible proof that it can be both until observed.

Quantum physics at work in IL2. You my friend are a twisted genius.... schrodinger will be rolling in his grave ?

[BladeMeister]

@Trooper117i noted the uneasiness, but I think it was a reaction to the first question asking can they fix the time diliation we currently experience in sim at times. I attribute that to what seems to be the fact of the matter in that they probably have tweaked everything that they can to try to minimalize or eliminate it, but that it is what it is and basically no more can be optimalized while still using this sim engine. That is IMHO, but what do I know.

 

S!Blade<><

[oc2209]

I watched the first ~15 minutes of the 'Brief Room' video. I hadn't intended to watch any of it before all the discussion on the board started, honestly. I figure whatever will happen, will happen. Not much point in thinking about it until it's imminent.

 

Anyway, my curiosity was piqued by all the confusion as to what direction IL-2's headed.

 

My opinion is that it's pretty clear from the language they use (in English, thus it's not a caption translation error), IL-2 is starting over on a fundamental level.

 

Several references to this, such as 'the next generation of IL-2' and 'we want to be revolutionary, not evolutionary', and that whatever's coming next will serve as a foundation for further development, etc; that all tells me that the IL-2 we're playing right now is winding down. 

 

I don't see how all of these revolutionary and foundational changes can be made, using the current engine. It just doesn't make sense.

 

This might also explain why Jason left. Maybe an irreconcilable disagreement over whether to use the current engine for another few years, or start a new one.

 

I would imagine that the new version will be largely similar in appearance and function; but obviously there must be changes 'under the hood' to allow them to make more significant changes than the current engine allows.

 

Of course I could be wrong. But common sense is screaming at us that the current engine is pretty old and funky. And that it's likely reached its development limit. I don't see how you could build upon it to still be called 'revolutionary' 5-10 years down the road.

[dburne]

All I have been able to take away from everything that has been said or written, is it will be different.

In what way we do not yet know. But it will be different. And apparently they are in no hurry to share how just yet.

[Boomerang]

Manners please! I like Albert and Daniel, there's been changes in staff & roles, and a recent release. Albert informed not to worry from the very start of the stream, so what's the problem? The least we can do show some patient consideration surely.

[oc2209]

Go to minute 7.

 

He's talking about putting stuff off for 10 years that need to be done. And how he has no other choice but to just do it.

 

"The important announcement from me, is that we don't plan on only doing DLCs as usual [...] So let's move, I say. And the team says 'let's move.' [...] The next time we want to--I think we can--present you with the next generation of IL-2."

 

I cleaned up the English a little to make it clearer, just adding more words like 'is' and 'to' and such. But his original intent is clear enough.

 

Clarification: I'm not addressing the posts immediately above me, but rather just suggesting that anyone still wondering what's going on, should look at the portion of the video I mentioned. When I started typing this post, I thought it'd get stuck on the end of my previous post.

Edited November 12, 2022 by oc2209

[Missionbug]

I think what worries many is if it does move to be a completely new sim then the existing stuff could be left as it is and that anything that is proving problematical such as the wings falling off far too easily in Flying Circus will be left in that state forevermore with even the last piece of the FC series not appearing, i.e., FC-3, as well as a few other things that I am sure others can think of.

 

 

All many would want is that at least this current series is left with any existing issues sorted out so at least things can be considered finished with any of the bugs dealt with, be that over time or immediately is not so much a problem as long as the sim is left complete shall we say even if that meant they try and do that alongside the new sim if it is where we are heading. With the current one at least fixed the other 3rd parties could at least still add aircraft maybe for those who wanted to purchase them but if not, at least all could still continue to play what does exist as long as they feel like it.

 

 

Yes, that takes time and resources but nothing hurts a future project more than leaving the previous one with outstanding major issues that will continue to plague the team going forward.

 

 

Take care and be safe.

 

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

[oc2209]

52 minutes ago, Missionbug said:

I think what worries many is if it does move to be a completely new sim then the existing stuff could be left as it is and that anything that is proving problematical such as the wings falling off far too easily in Flying Circus will be left in that state forevermore with even the last piece of the FC series not appearing, i.e., FC-3, as well as a few other things that I am sure others can think of.

 

Yes, that takes time and resources but nothing hurts a future project more than leaving the previous one with outstanding major issues that will continue to plague the team going forward.

 

Well, there was mention in the video of wanting to make IL-2 'encyclopedic' in its scope. So, that implies to me that maybe WWI and tanks will still be developed.

 

Since the team is expanding, there is also a possibility that these 'legacy' products will continue to be worked on by a small number of people, but that the 'next generation' of IL-2 will become the primary focus where most of the new manpower is applied.

[MajorMagee]

Perhaps WW1 Eastern Front?

[CountZero]

39 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

Well, there was mention in the video of wanting to make IL-2 'encyclopedic' in its scope. So, that implies to me that maybe WWI and tanks will still be developed.

 

Since the team is expanding, there is also a possibility that these 'legacy' products will continue to be worked on by a small number of people, but that the 'next generation' of IL-2 will become the primary focus where most of the new manpower is applied.

Han said in video that in 3-4 weeks he can anounce next 2 collector airplanes. Who wuld buy new collector airplanes (it takes 1 year to build one they said) for game that is not gona be their primary focus of thouse new 50 man team in as close as next year. 

Why would they waist their time making new airplanes for GB if aim is some other game? it dosent make any sence. How many airplanes they made for RoF since IL-2 BoS was teams focus in 2013 or new FC was anounced ? i bet its 0, (didnt bather to check or falow RoF).

If new game is anounced, this game is tosted, and then good luck finding ppl to fund new game and wait for many many years for proper campaigns, career, all advanced stuff we here waited for so long to be added here, with only new airplane with slightly better graphic or FM/DM to atract them... 

Edited November 12, 2022 by CountZero

[dburne]

44 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Han said in video that in 3-4 weeks he can anounce next 2 collector airplanes. Who wuld buy new collector airplanes (it takes 1 year to build one they said) for game that is not gona be their primary focus of thouse new 50 man team in as close as next year. 

Why would they waist their time making new airplanes for GB if aim is some other game? it dosent make any sence. How many airplanes they made for RoF since IL-2 BoS was teams focus in 2013 or new FC was anounced ? i bet its 0, (didnt bather to check or falow RoF).

If new game is anounced, this game is tosted, and then good luck finding ppl to fund new game and wait for many many years for proper campaigns, career, all advanced stuff we here waited for so long to be added here, with only new airplane with slightly better graphic or FM/DM to atract them... 

 

 

Hardly any of this is making much sense anymore and apparently that is now how 1CGS wants it to appear. A bunch of conjecture on what the devs may or may not be doing. It is ridiculous imho. Well if this is the focus you wanted your customers to have at this time regarding their beloved IL-2 sim, congrats in your accomplishing that. 

 

Seems to me someone needs to step up and grab the bull by the horns so to speak.

 

Edited November 13, 2022 by dburne

[BladeMeister]

2 minutes ago, dburne said:

 

 

Hardly any of this is making much sense anymore and apparently that is now how 1CGS wants it to appear. A bunch of conjecture on what the devs may or may not be doing. It is ridiculous imho. Well if this is the focus you wanted your customers to have at this time regarding their beloved IL-2 sim, congrats in your accomplishing that. 

 

Easy friend. The positive is that we know they are serious about caring IL2 forward. That is a very good thing. Rereading the message by Han really seems to point to renewed efforts to move the GBS forward. While I have to think at some point 1C will move the engine forward, similar to when ED went from stopping at 2.4 and making the break to 2.5 upgrade new start, 1C may be hinting at such a move. In the mean time there is no reason to be to upset now. A little frustration, understandable, but no need to stress.

 

S!Blade<><

[Eisenfaustus]

47 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Who wuld buy new collector airplanes (it takes 1 year to build one they said) for game that is not gona be their primary focus of thouse new 50 man team in as close as next year.

Depending on the specific plane - I would. GB stays currently the finest WWII flightsim available - and as the potentially new flightsim does not feature WWII in Europe - which to me is the most interesting setting - I will probably keep playing it for a long time. So buffing up finance by adding a little content to the old sim makes sense. Especially if the team gets larger there might be people hired specifically for this. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

15 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Depending on the specific plane - I would. GB stays currently the finest WWII flightsim available - and as the potentially new flightsim does not feature WWII in Europe - which to me is the most interesting setting - I will probably keep playing it for a long time. So buffing up finance by adding a little content to the old sim makes sense. Especially if the team gets larger there might be people hired specifically for this. 

 

Agreed. I think there's still space for content there and perhaps the sim continues on.

 

My theory, in my head at least, continues to be that Great Battles continues with WWII while the new sim engine may debut with a Korea War title thus maintaining some separation. They could then go back to WWII after that which would give some space.

There will probably be a delay in the cycle if this is what's happening... could be 3 years before the next title emerges from early access.

[CountZero]

36 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Depending on the specific plane - I would. GB stays currently the finest WWII flightsim available - and as the potentially new flightsim does not feature WWII in Europe - which to me is the most interesting setting - I will probably keep playing it for a long time. So buffing up finance by adding a little content to the old sim makes sense. Especially if the team gets larger there might be people hired specifically for this. 

They were able to make IL-2 BoS only because IL-2 ClOD was sutch an epic fail, so there was no WW2 modern game exept WT. There was need from players for new ww2 sim back then.

With all problems we have in IL-2 GB now, game is far from broken, so it would be hard sell to abandon it and do some new game version without graphics on par with what MS2020 gives, and even then its hard hilll to climb, when ppl have working and not broken WW2 sim in IL-2 GB.

Edited November 13, 2022 by CountZero

[sevenless]

2 hours ago, CountZero said:

Who wuld buy new collector airplanes (it takes 1 year to build one they said) for game that is not gona be their primary focus of thouse new 50 man team in as close as next year. 

Why would they waist their time making new airplanes for GB if aim is some other game? it dosent make any sence.

 

Many People who enjoy singleplayer would. I myself could very well imagine myself to buy several planes lacking from the already published scenarios as collectors.

They need to generate cash-flow for the next 3 years until their product is finished, because if it is not compatible with the already published modules or if it is compatible, but the planes cant be re-used in already published career modes and are worthless for the singleplayer until map and career mode of the final game are finished, their revenue until the product is finished will be slim. 85% of their userbase is singleplayer.

[oc2209]

3 hours ago, CountZero said:

Han said in video that in 3-4 weeks he can anounce next 2 collector airplanes. Who wuld buy new collector airplanes (it takes 1 year to build one they said) for game that is not gona be their primary focus of thouse new 50 man team in as close as next year. 

Why would they waist their time making new airplanes for GB if aim is some other game? it dosent make any sence.

 

On one hand, I totally agree with you.

 

But on the other hand, I don't see how 'revolutionary' advances could be applied to the current engine. I just don't.

 

You might say, oh, he's just hyping the product. No, the word choice is very clear. Rather than being 'evolutionary,' they want to be revolutionary.

 

An evolution is a very clear relation to what we already have. Just another DLC with incremental improvements would be exactly that: evolution.

 

Also, let's get real for a minute. If the next development cycle was just a regular DLC like usual, why would they be taking so long to reveal it?

 

As for continuing to produce content for the old IL-2 and other series, that would be logical as a way to generate revenue while the upcoming 'next gen' game is being made. And to help finance the personnel expansion.

[Guest deleted@83466]

You probably know that English grammar is more fluid, and therefore more worth reading, if you have more than one or two sentences per paragraph.

[Gambit21]

I think some of you are reading too much into Daniel’s words at this juncture. I took “revolutionary’ to mean simply not just another Yaks or Spitfires vs 109’s release…but rather something completely different. Not some drastic, never before seen functionality in the game engine.

 

I’m sticking with one of my early interpretations of “new”  (and also prop based) from the earlier thread. 
 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2022 by Gambit21

[Guest deleted@83466]

“It reminds me of the heady days of Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin when the world trembled at the sound of our rockets. Now they will tremble again - at the sound of our silence.“. - Captain Marko Ramius.

 

 

?
 

 

Edited November 13, 2022 by SeaSerpent

[Hotaru_Ito]

47 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

If the next development cycle was just a regular DLC like usual, why would they be taking so long to reveal it?

 

This is what has me interested. If the answer was that they're NOT ending GB and starting a new series, there's no reason for them not to confirm this and shut us all up about it. On the other hand, if the answer was that they ARE doing so, they can't really say that before the official announcement.

 

Personally I'm not too bothered one way or the other, as long as the new product is at least somewhat compatible with the old--as Rise of Flight was with GB, for example--so third-party mods and add-ons like PWCG can continue into the new series.

 

I do hope they aren't planning to eventually sell us the same stuff again. The only reason I bought into FC for full price was for VR, to be honest. A rehashing of Battle of Moscow, Stalingrad, etc. would have to have at least that level of new functionality for me to be interested--something a little more dramatic than better physics and swimming pilots--more like much larger numbers of planes in action at once, or a seriously improved career mode. Otherwise it might make the "wait for a sale" pile, but it'd never be a day-one purchase or preorder.

[JG7_X-Man]

If Great Battles is to evolve the game engine needs to be updated. Developers like Tobii has ditched vJoy where IL-2 still uses Vjoy. There are a host of other things that have already been mentioned to explain why this is a good idea.

To me GB would be a step above the rest if it went to say a "First Person" so we were not tied to an object (Aircraft/Tank/Vehicle) giving us the ability to walk around on foot and interact with objects.

Here is an example of that's possible:

 

 

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, sevenless said:

 

Many People who enjoy singleplayer would. I myself could very well imagine myself to buy several planes lacking from the already published scenarios as collectors.

They need to generate cash-flow for the next 3 years until their product is finished, because if it is not compatible with the already published modules or if it is compatible, but the planes cant be re-used in already published career modes and are worthless for the singleplayer until map and career mode of the final game are finished, their revenue until the product is finished will be slim. 85% of their userbase is singleplayer.

So then you would have 85% ppl not buying into new game, and staying in fully functional GB with all they need here. Thats why im comparing it to how when IL-2 clod failed you had nothing to stay by, it was broken, there was need for new game... now there is no need for new game, how can you justifie that risk, where ppl can just stay and not buy into new game until its on this level of varaity, but by that time you cant fund new game for long. So you end up with failed lanch of new game because there is no need for it now.

 

[MajorMagee]

11 hours ago, CountZero said:

They were able to make IL-2 BoS only because IL-2 ClOD was such an epic fail, so there was no WW2 modern game except WT. There was need from players for new ww2 sim back then.

With all problems we have in IL-2 GB now, game is far from broken, so it would be hard sell to abandon it and do some new game version without graphics on par with what MS2020 gives, and even then it's a hard hill to climb, when ppl have working and not broken WW2 sim in IL-2 GB.

So , you are hoping that they struck a deal with Microsoft to produce CFS4 on the MS2020 engine?

Edited November 13, 2022 by MajorMagee

[Luftschiff]

Okay look - 

 

There are many, many very good developmental reasons to make the next project a standalone branch. I don't mean economical, I mean it will be infinitely easier to develop something sound and good this way. We do not know if this is what they intend to do, I was firmly in the no-camp a few days ago but given how many updates they seem to intend to do, it seems the only feasible way to me deliver that in a survivable timeframe. Updating so many core modules of the engine so fundamentally without breaking IL-2:GB in the progress is going to be very difficult without twice the amount of developers and time - and you really don't want to break a live project.

 

The best way I can put this is, if I was a developer on GB faced with this amount of upgrades, a new clean branch is certainly what I would want.

Now, they ARE upsizing the team considerably, so most likely they still intend to keep supporting GB, and develop content for it, while the groundwork for the next project is made. It's also entirely possible that some or all of the upgrades will gradually trickle through to GB, but at much a slower pace. It is also very likely that content made for GB could trickle up at a much faster pace later. Point is, I really don't think GB is abandoned. Some of its tech may have reached road's end, however.

Personally, I think if the developers want to move, I support them moving on. 
We don't know yet, but If that's what's coming, I think it's a good call and I look forward to it.
We got Great Battles from RoF after all, and ultimately that was a good thing.

 

Edited November 13, 2022 by Luftschiff

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, MajorMagee said:

So , you are hoping that they struck a deal with Microsoft to produce CFS4 on the MS2020 engine?

Only way im buying new ww2 sim at this point is if IL-2 GB stops updating AND new game is on MFS2020 graphic level, and 50 man team aint gona make new MFS2020 for ww2 if they cant make proper looking map of Normandy in 3 years time. And MFS2020 aint gona add guns bombs and so on.

So most likely thing is that IL-2 GB will continue with updating its game engine if posible, and continue making stuff for it if ppl buy next DLC fo it.

This is not like time where you can make big graphic and FM jump betwen Il-2 1946 (IL-2 clod was broken and abonden at time) and Il-2 GB, so you atract eye candy and FM ppl easy, and can servive for long time with lack of content or more airplanes at start.

Edited November 13, 2022 by CountZero

[AEthelraedUnraed]

10 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I think some of you are reading too much into Daniel’s words at this juncture. I took “revolutionary’ to mean simply not just another Yaks or Spitfires vs 109’s release…but rather something completely different. Not some drastic, never before seen functionality in the game engine.

 

I’m sticking with one of my early interpretations of “new”  (and also prop based) from the earlier thread. 

I think he did mean something more special than just a few interesting aircraft, but I completely agree that many are probably reading too much into Daniel's words. I took the "we don't plan on only doing DLCs as usual" to mean that they want to develop technologies that improve the sim as a whole, not just technologies that are necessary for whatever module they'll do next. That is, they don't want to just create a few planes and a map and call it a day, but they want to improve the visual quality, flight model and damage to such an extent that they completely blow all competition completely out of the water (a bit ambituous perhaps).

 

But yeah, one *could* read more into it. They didn't explicitly say they're keeping the current generation; they didn't explicitly say they're not. I think they probably didn't even realise that what they said could be interpreted in different ways. So for now, let's not cry bloody murder because IL2 BoX is supposedly closing down, because there are no clear indications that it is. Let's keep the panic for after a less ambiguous announcement, if still applicable then

[czech693]

10 hours ago, CountZero said:

So then you would have 85% ppl not buying into new game, and staying in fully functional GB with all they need here. Thats why im comparing it to how when IL-2 clod failed you had nothing to stay by, it was broken, there was need for new game... now there is no need for new game, how can you justifie that risk, where ppl can just stay and not buy into new game until its on this level of varaity, but by that time you cant fund new game for long. So you end up with failed lanch of new game because there is no need for it now.

 

This will probably get me a bunch of harsh comments, but I think they need to change the business model.  Selling aircraft models has a limit.  I've bought models I didn't care for (Ar234, Me262, Gotha, HP 400) just to support the business.  Eventually, they will run out of models that sell.  So, I think they need to implement a monthly maintenance fee.  I would buy into that if the priorities were:  1)Fix FM, DM and other issues with the existing models;  2)Build more maps and improve existing maps;  3)Build new models and add "variations" to existing models.  A steady income would keep them afloat, otherwise they will reach a peak like ROF and support will stop while they restart a new sim.

[Trooper117]

7 minutes ago, czech693 said:

So, I think they need to implement a monthly maintenance fee. 

 

If they did I'd never buy anything from them again...  

[Eisenfaustus]

35 minutes ago, czech693 said:

So, I think they need to implement a monthly maintenance fee.

Would immediately kill any interest I ever had in the series. 

[BMA_FlyingShark]

1 hour ago, czech693 said:

So, I think they need to implement a monthly maintenance fee.

Maybe they should also ask a monthly fee joining the forum.

 

Have a nice day.

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2022 by FlyingShark

[JG7_X-Man]

You guys bring up some very good points - I like the idea of all aircraft be available as AI. However, if you want to fly an aircraft, you have to pay for it and the map you plan to fly it on too, just like DCS - developers need to make money too.

Edited November 13, 2022 by JG7_X-Man

[Lusekofte]

14 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

You guys bring up some very good points - I like the idea of all aircraft be available as AI. However, if you want to fly an aircraft, you have to pay for it and the map you plan to fly it on too, just like DCS - developers need to make money too.

If you go that path. You Are in a totally other ballgame. With a complexity and beta up to several years. 
I got enough with one such study sim.  I would choose only one. 
If the complexity goes so far that it takes years for each module, this is the only way to finance it. But then you loose a base of customers 

Edited November 13, 2022 by 216th_Lusekofte

[JG7_X-Man]

8 minutes ago, 216th_Lusekofte said:

If you go that path. You Are in a totally other ballgame. With a complexity and beta up to several years. 
I got enough with one such study sim.  I would choose only one. 
If the complexity goes so far that it takes years for each module, this is the only way to finance it. But then you loose a base of customers 

 That is a risk indeed.

[Rjel]

I can't see anyone wanting to pay a monthly maintenance fee. I certainly don't. How many posts do we see on a regular basis asking when the next sale is? A lot of people aren't even interested in the game unless they can get it on the cheap. While I understand the economics behind it, it doesn't really help the devs when it comes to financing the next installment. Instead of a monthly fee to play, I'd rather see the price of each new theater increased slightly as compensation to further development. The price of each  new theater has stayed at the same point since the original Stalingrad release I believe. We all understand simple economics. The price we paid in 2013 would be over $110 USD today based on inflation. Still a pretty good value to my mind.

Edited November 13, 2022 by Rjel

[BlitzPig_EL]

Rjel, judging by a lot of posts over the years I say a whole lot of people here don't have the vaguest idea of how simple economics works.

 

Just sayin'.

[oc2209]

18 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

You probably know that English grammar is more fluid, and therefore more worth reading, if you have more than one or two sentences per paragraph.

 

I separated the lines for emphasis.

 

Seriously, find somebody else to pick on. Your shtick with me is getting old. Stopped being funny a while ago, so I don't think you're even trying to be funny anymore. Just hostile and petty.

 

18 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I think some of you are reading too much into Daniel’s words at this juncture. I took “revolutionary’ to mean simply not just another Yaks or Spitfires vs 109’s release…but rather something completely different. Not some drastic, never before seen functionality in the game engine.

 

I’m sticking with one of my early interpretations of “new”  (and also prop based) from the earlier thread.

 

Bold added for clarity.

 

The new damage model is supposedly going to be much more detailed. That automatically qualifies as 'never before seen functionality', since we've never had a truly detailed damage model. Also, when they talk about more detailed physics: these are all things that I think they know how to handle now, and can design differently--from the ground up.

 

Trying to endlessly retool this same old engine doesn't allow for the same possibilities.

 

If it was as simple as updating the engine we already have, there would be absolutely no need to talk about it in these terms, with all the surrounding mystery and confusion that has directly resulted.

 

All they'd need to say, is: 'the next DLC will have tons of improvements that we've been working on for years, but finally they're all ready to come together.'

 

That's not what they're saying.

[CountZero]

Is there any competition to this game ? WT DCS CloD ? are they making new game engines or drastic advances ? i think no, its just work as useal and using what is there, upgrading that.

So why make new game, you have stable player base, just promis them you can make PTO after next DLC they gona buy next DLC so they can get what they wont after it, say your upgrading game so there wil be 10-20$+ on price of premium, standard stays same.

Why risk sliting comunity, for something that is not needed in near future. if there is competitor who is making some revolutionary advances then ok but what we have now there is no need for separate game from this one.

 

Its like deciding to make next graphic card 60% better then previous one, insted milking this for 3 generations with 20% advances every time, like all your competitors are doing.

 

1 hour ago, Rjel said:

I can't see anyone wanting to pay a monthly maintenance fee. I certainly don't. How many posts do we see on a regular basis asking when the next sale is? A lot of people aren't even interested in the game unless they can get it on the cheap. While I understand the economics behind it, it doesn't really help the devs when it comes to financing the next installment. Instead of a monthly fee to play, I'd rather see the price of each new theater increased slightly as compensation to further development. The price of each  new theater has stayed at the same point since the original Stalingrad release I believe. We all understand simple economics. The price we paid in 2013 would be over $110 USD today based on inflation. Still a pretty good value to my mind.

Premium should be atleast 99.99$ 10 airplanes map and useal SP stuff, but they should opt for Standard of 49.99$ and 6 airplanes map and useal SP stuff, insted how its now.