Can this be cleared up please...

[Avimimus]

I really do hope they are able to carry over all existing planes (rather than having to do extensive reworks)... the reasoning? Well, we're getting to the point where they'd have to start giving us really interesting planes because they've modelled most of the obvious ones. For instance, Ar-196, Fw-189, Fi-156... would all be more interesting then rebuilding a Bf-109G6 at slightly higher fidelity.

[Patricks]

Ki64, A6M Zeke, Hellcat, Wildcat.... 

[BMA_FlyingShark]

40 minutes ago, DragonDaddy said:

I have had the same feeling since the live stream. It’s what they’re not saying that concerns me. 

Same here.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[Eisenfaustus]

45 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

because they've modelled most of the obvious ones. For instance, Ar-196, Fw-189, Fi-156... would all be more interesting then rebuilding a Bf-109G6 at slightly higher fidelity.

Yes for the ultra hardcore simmers regularly active on this forum that sounds great. For a business man wanting to sell his product to as many customers as possible that sounds like a nightmare I guess. 

[BladeMeister]

To answer the OP: No this cannot be cleared up. It has been long enough, move along.....these are not the droids you are looking for...

Move along.

 

Blade!<><

[Eisenfaustus]

4 minutes ago, BladeMeister said:

To answer the OP: No this cannot be cleared up. It has been long enough, move along.....these are not the droids you are looking for...

Move along.

 

Blade!<><

I find your lack of faith disturbing. 

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

For instance, Ar-196, Fw-189, Fi-156... would all be more interesting then rebuilding a Bf-109G6 at slightly higher fidelity.

 

No offense, but those are the sorts of planes that third-party modelers take on instead of the main development team. I'd love to have an Fw 189 (don't think one has ever been properly done), but I know it would have to take a very specific set of circumstances for it to happen. Look how long it took for the C-47 to be built - and that's a plane that is far, far more recognizable. ?

Edited November 30, 2022 by LukeFF

[Avimimus]

On 11/30/2022 at 12:28 PM, LukeFF said:

No offense, but those are the sorts of planes that third-party modelers take on instead of the main development team. I'd love to have an Fw 189 (don't think one has ever been properly done), but I know it would have to take a very specific set of circumstances for it to happen. 

 

Well, so long as I get one someday!

 

On 11/30/2022 at 12:28 PM, LukeFF said:

 Look how long it took for the C-47 to be built - and that's a plane that is far, far more recognizable. ?

 

I don't know about this to be honest. The C-47 is memorable as a DC-3 derivative with plenty of post-war service. But you have to be an aviation buff to really appreciate its impact (or a logistics buff). It may not be that recognisable.

 

In contrast, I think many people leafing through a book on the Luftwaffe saw the twin-boomed, tiny engine, glass-house 'owl' and remembered it... because of its unusual appearance. So I'd argue it is more recognizable.

 

P.S. I also think people would be attracted to it because of its strangeness even if they aren't familiar with it too. This is a major argument for why an Gulf of Venice/Isonzo map might be viable - the Caproni Ca.4, the Macchi M.5, Caudron G.4, Hansa Brandenburg D.I "Starstrutter" ... a lot of these planes were so distinctive in appearance that they tend to sell themselves (and the module with it).

[LukeFF]

22 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

I don't know about this to be honest. The C-47 is memorable as a DC-3 derivative with plenty of post-war service. But you have to be an aviation buff to really appreciate its impact (or a logistics buff). It may not be that recognisable.

 

In contrast, I think many people leafing through a book on the Luftwaffe saw the twin-boomed, tiny engine, glass-house 'owl' and remembered it... because of its unusual appearance. So I'd argue it is more recognizable.

 

Seriously? ? C'mon, the DC-3 or C-47 - whatever you want to call it - is far more recognizable in whatever form it's seen by the public. They're a quite common sight at airshows and quite a few are still in some form of service not just in North America but around the world. 

 

By contrast, the Fw 189 was a highly specialized plane that is only really known for what it accomplished in the East, and only a few scraps of them remain to this day. To say that it's arguably more recognizable because some people saw it while leafing through a book is...bizarre.

 

22 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

This is a major argument for why an Gulf of Venice/Isonzo map might be viable - the Caproni Ca.4, the Macchi M.5, Caudron G.4, Hansa Brandenburg D.I "Starstrutter" ... a lot of these planes were so distinctive in appearance that they tend to sell themselves (and the module with it).

 

Not a chance, sorry. Yes, I'm aware that war nerds know that WWI was more than just the Western Front but to the larger worldwide audience, WWI = France, trench warfare, poison gas, the Red Baron, and no-man's land. Trying to model a bunch of obscure planes (the G.4 is the only one that would remotely make sense spending time on) flying over an area of the front that honestly no one really cares about (i.e., to make a profit on the venture) is a recipe for disaster.

 

Not to mention:
 

Quote

The KD had a deep fuselage, which gave a poor forward view for the pilot and tended to blanket the small rudder, giving poor lateral stability and making recovery from spins extremely difficult.

 

and

 

Quote

The D.I entered service in autumn 1916. Its unusual arrangement of interplane bracing gave rise to the nickname "Spider", while its poor handling gave rise to the less complementary nickname "the Coffin".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansa-Brandenburg_D.I

 

Yeah, no thanks.

Edited December 1, 2022 by LukeFF

[BraveSirRobin]

31 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

I don't know about this to be honest. The C-47 is memorable as a DC-3 derivative with plenty of post-war service. But you have to be an aviation buff to really appreciate its impact (or a logistics buff). It may not be that recognisable.

 

In contrast, I think many people leafing through a book on the Luftwaffe saw the twin-boomed, tiny engine, glass-house 'owl' and remembered it... because of its unusual appearance. So I'd argue it is more recognizable.

 

Sorry, but there is no possibility that any German aircraft that isn’t a Stuka. 109, 190, or 262 that is more recognizable than a C-47.

[DBFlyguy]

What was Trooper asking about again? ? I'm actually surprised and kinda confused that this thread actually hasn't been banished to the "developer assistance" section where all ignored things go do die yet ?

 

Also...below, behold a DC-3, military versions during WWII were typically referred to as C-47's,RD-4's, Dakota's, Skytrains etc...and despite being still flown today all over the world, featured in several movies, tv shows, flights sims (including arguably the most popular flight sim on the planet currently)... they are hard to recognize apparently...especially compared to obscure Luftwaffe scout planes... /s

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by DBFlyguy

[dburne]

3 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

What was Trooper asking about again? ? I'm actually surprised and kinda confused that this thread actually hasn't been banished to the "developer assistance" section where all ignored things go do die yet ?

 

 

 

It was obviously a question that could have been answered very easily with one word:

No.

 

That is why it is now on page 8 and continuing. There is no will by those involved to clear it up. At least yet.

Edited December 2, 2022 by dburne

[CountZero]

if ppl are more disciplined and posted atleast once a week in this topic we would be on page 15 in no time, and have our answer.

Were still only on page 8 , so normaly ... condition is not met for devs to answer question of topic.

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

 

I don't know about this to be honest. The C-47 is memorable as a DC-3 derivative with plenty of post-war service. But you have to be an aviation buff to really appreciate its impact (or a logistics buff). It may not be that recognisable.

 

 

 

Every aircraft in every cartoon when I was a little kid looked more or less like this...

 

 

 

 

I cant' imagine anything more recognizable or more iconic.

 

 

[DBFlyguy]

31 minutes ago, dburne said:

 

It was obviously a question that could have been answered very easily with one word:

No.

 

That is why it is now on page 8 and continuing. There is no will by those involved to clear it up. At least yet.

Definitely agree! But we might as well have fun with the topic while it lingers...

 

27 minutes ago, CountZero said:

if ppl are more disciplined and posted atleast once a week in this topic we would be on page 15 in no time, and have our answer.

Were still only on page 8 , so normaly ... condition is not met for devs to answer question of topic.

this guy gets it ?

Edited December 2, 2022 by DBFlyguy

[Avimimus]

I'm not going to fight with the C-47A fanbois... come Lisunov Li-2 release they might hunt me down with that single ShKAS

 

Seriously though, I'll concede if we can also acknowledge that the Fw-189 is weird enough looking to be memorable.

[AndyJWest]

If 'looking weird' is a valid criteria for modelling stuff, shouldn't the Abteilung Flugzeugbau der Schiffswerft Blohm & Voss get a mention? Maybe the new module should be IL-2 Great Battles: The Battle against Symmetry, Aesthetics, and Common Sense. Finding adequate content from the Allied side might be difficult, but I'm sure they could come up with something. Just as long as it isn't the Blackburn Roc...

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by AndyJWest

[BladeMeister]

2 hours ago, CountZero said:

if ppl are more disciplined and posted atleast once a week in this topic we would be on page 15 in no time, and have our answer.

Were still only on page 8 , so normaly ... condition is not met for devs to answer question of topic.

I thought it was 12 pages we had to reach? Quit moving the bar dammnit!!! Now we will never get there! Sheeesh! Does bigger font move us along any quicker?

 

S!Blade<><

[Avimimus]

49 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

If 'looking weird' is a valid criteria for modelling stuff, shouldn't the Abteilung Flugzeugbau der Schiffswerft Blohm & Voss get a mention? Maybe the new module should be IL-2 Great Battles: The Battle against Symmetry, Aesthetics, and Common Sense. Finding adequate content from the Allied side might be difficult, but I'm sure they could come up with something. Just as long as it isn't the Blackburn Roc...

 

My reaction to this (a full body shudder) is definitely why, while not every idea I have is bad, I should never be put in charge of a company like this. I could fill out that roster.

 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

The team could spend years on French aircraft alone.

[Lusekofte]

I personally would like to have some dubious looking French aircraft to play with. 
 

C 47 became the template for modern aviation. I believe it is the plane any child in the world make it first drawing of. 
 

FW 189 would have a place in this sim if recce , artillery spotting got some effect in this sim. 
 

U2/PO2 , JU 52 and C 47 shows an admirable dedication for historical aviation by the developers. I am grateful for that. 
 

I think personally they work hard to get this new platform or base station or software or whatever one can call it into a working order. Before they announce anything. 
If nothing we have can be reused we are looking at 3 year minimum development. Where it starts with 2 planes and we get a new every 6 month. All this while having access to what we have. 
 

Honestly, I see no sacrifice in this. You get something totally new, probably capable to lots of people in servers.  And probably a smoother experience with possible more complex models

Edited December 2, 2022 by Lusekofte

[[CPT]Crunch]

'Most senior officers regard as the most vital to our success...the bulldozer, the jeep, the two and a half ton truck, and the C-47'. General Dwight D. Eisenhower - Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe

[BlitzPig_EL]

Logistics is the ultimate weapon.

[Missionbug]

Logistics wins the peace as well as wars, without it economies and armies are powerless.

 

 

The issue is that far too many in multiplayer just want to blow stuff up and pay no heed to portraying real historic events, it could also be argued it is not possible in a sim such as we have to do that effectively but still there is a place for those aircraft like the Ju-52 and C-47 for those who wish to play that particular aspect of the war.

 

 

Take care and be safe.

 

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

[dbuile]

30 minutes ago, Missionbug said:

far too many in multiplayer

This is an interesting crux.  I would've thought the real future of the game is in tools/features for detailed, customizable multiplayer server campaigns (ACG and FTC to extremes).  So, I was surprised to hear (was it in Enigma's interview?) the majority of players engage in single-player mode.  AI behavior is a big killers for me in single player; and AI seems much more difficult to develop. 

 

I'm curious if the dev team would rather provide for multiplayer, but know the only way to sell a game is for the majority of single player gamers?   

 

Oh, and P.S.   As for this compatibility/non-compatibility question:   

• If the future game (however far away that might be) is NOT compatible, I imagine I'll keep playing BoX until then. 
• If it IS compatible, I imagine I'll keep playing BoX until then.

Edited December 2, 2022 by dbuile
add a carriage return for the P.S.

[DBFlyguy]

[Trooper117]

Yes, I know... I asked a simple question when I started this thread, and that was on Nov 10th... just a yes or no would have been sufficient.

Wardog, good guy that he is even passed it up the chain, but still no answer over a month down the line.

They could have replied with either:

1. Yes, it will be compatible with all your existing content.

2. No, unfortunately it will not be compatible with existing content.

3. We are not sure at the moment, but we are working hard to make it compatible.

 

I have not asked for the next projects title. I couldn't care less at this juncture... but it worries me that they can't just come out with an answer on compatibility.

Are they worried that people will leave the game in droves if they don't like the answer?

I don't think that will happen anyway as most people have a lot invested in the game as is... but if they don't come clean if it is bad news, and they don't tell us for weeks ahead, I think that might have a knock on effect.

For me , if the new project is stand alone, well, so what?... I won't be throwing my teddy bear in the corner any time soon. Most of us are mature grown up people on the forums and we will just get on with it I suspect.

 

Still, the lack of news on this is something that not only here on our forums, but is also being asked on Russian forums as well needs to be answered. 

 

[remco3]

Answer 1 would make everybody happy. Answer 3 I can understand and repect. Both these anwers are not given. You should know the answer now…..

[CountZero]

or they dont care if few ppl on forum are confused, and they are just sticking to their plan of relising stuff and preparing for next DLC.

 

[Lusekofte]

So I gather it is still not cleared up

[BladeMeister]

Can we just skip to page 12 please? I am dying to know how this will be sorted......

...errr, .....it is still page 12 we are shooting for correct?

Guys?.....Anyone???

 

 

Awww, Come on Man???

 

S!Blade<><

[Killroy-98]

To answer the OP's original question, I don't know. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Jaegermeister]

I have it on good authority that the answer to the original posted question is "yes".

 

Now move along, this is taking up valuable space.

[FeuerFliegen]

So my opinion regarding the future of the sim, is that regardless of the planes, the FMs, DMs, maps, graphics, etc., they need to focus on giving us ways to actually play the game; basically the exact opposite of when FC1 came out and there was nothing to do but fly around and dogfight or attack ground targets

 

Unique roles for both SP and MP; something more unique than a repetitive SP career mode; more interaction with AI and substantially better AI; maybe focus on a unique way for us to do co-op MP; not simply depending and hoping that the 3rd party will give us stuff to do like the various MP servers have, or PWCG... that, in my opinion is where they truly need to innovate and come up with some unique ideas.

 

I think they had the right idea trying to implement things like "Marshall Mode" even though that doesn't seem like it will ever happen in the current sim.

 

They also need to do as much brainstorming as possible before developing the new engine, as the current engine has WAY too many limitations for the most simple things, simply because the engine was built a specific way many years ago.  We don't want to be in a position 2-5 years after the new engine comes out, and some great new, maybe even simple idea can't be implemented because it would require a complete rework of the gaming engine, but would have been relatively easy if they had just thought to do that from the start.

[Eisenfaustus]

11 hours ago, CountZero said:

or they dont care if few ppl on forum are confused, and they are just sticking to their plan of relising stuff and preparing for next DLC.

 

They are communicating with us. They recruited a professional community manager. They answered some questions in their stream. So - they are caring for the community - which makes this silence regarding the OP's question even weirder.

[Trooper117]

1 hour ago, Eisenfaustus said:

They answered some questions in their stream. So - they are caring for the community - which makes this silence regarding the OP's question even weirder.

 

Yes, spot on... and I have nothing but praise for how Wardog has slotted into his role here to keep us as informed as he can... but I have to say, if Jason was still here, he would have jumped on this thread with both feet and sorted it by now.

Why on earth Loft or Han have not put this to bed is a total mystery...

[Lusekofte]

31 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

Why on earth Loft or Han have not put this to bed is a total mystery...

Wonder if it is an economical question. Or if it is a question of who distributing it or producer issues. 
Might be problems around ownership. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

4 hours ago, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

the current engine has WAY too many limitations for the most simple things, simply because the engine was built a specific way many years ago.

With all due respect, but that's pure guesswork and conjecture. Yes, there are limitations. But:

• Some of those limitations come from design choices rather than engine problems, like the time delay on high plane/vehicle counts as explained by the Devs themselves in their latest interview. Those design choices are separate from the implementation (i.e. engine) and as long as the Devs think those choices are still valid (and from the same interview, it looks like they do), then those aren't actually engine limitations at all.
• Who's to say that the specific parts of the engine where limitations exist can't be improved separately? We've seen massive improvements in the fields of graphics and AI, as well as complete reworks of whole systems (e.g. pilot physiology model). Those didn't require a new engine.

As well as what's pointed out above, there are some issues with writing a new engine:

• Writing a new engine is a massive undertaking. This in itself would likely take years, especially if they need to rewrite basically all of the features the current engine has. So either we're looking at a massive delay until the next module (do they have the funding for that?), or the engine will be even more limited in features as the current engine, or very significant parts of the current engine will be re-used, in which case it becomes very debatable whether it's a new engine at all.
• A new engine would likely make it incompatible with their current products. They'd have to either spend time and money to convert everything to the new format (see the part about "massive delay" above), or release their new product without the 80 or so aircraft, 7-ish maps and plethora of ground vehicles they've got now. The latter option would make them their own biggest competitor (unless they'd do something massively different, which I doubt since they already ruled out the Pacific): why buy the new game, while the old game offers more content and is still graphically up-to-date?

That's why I think it's highly unlikely we'll see a new engine. We'll definitely see improvements and possibly complete reworks of various parts of the current engine (as the Devs themselves have said), but there's just no way I see them write a new engine.

[Ghost666]

4 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

Yes, spot on... and I have nothing but praise for how Wardog has slotted into his role here to keep us as informed as he can...

Yes, Yes, totally agree with this! The man is doing a GREEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAT Job!

 

[Wardog5711]

Thanks, just send money.  Gift cards are nice too.

Anyhow, the silence related to this thread comes from the top down.

YES, they are aware of it. NO, I cannot talk about it. 

Getting it to 15 pages or whatever else, won't change the outcome.  ?