This sounds like music to me

[Avimimus]

21 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

I mean it’s in good hands.

Thats’s all I’m going to say.

 

Open to 3rd parties etc for one thing.

 

Spot on here - if the 3rd party collaborations work out we might see a lot of maps, aircraft, and content that we wouldn't see otherwise.

 

1 hour ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

- The "Flying Circus" series of modules will be completed... so "Rise of Flight" will be avenged (LoL).

- There will be more "Tank Crew" modules... provided that the community keeps showing interest in tanks.

- BUT... there won't be more modules after "Battle of Normandy"... because there will be the new core engine for that.

 

I guess, nevertheless, that there could be more modules after "Normandy", if serious delays happened during the development phase of the new core engine.

 

Citation? Was this information in one of the Russian language Q&A sessions? It wasn't in the English one.

 

IMHO, we could really do with AI improvements in the Great Battles engine - and it would be nice to at least have '45 East in order to cover all years.

[sevenless]

2 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

I'm sorry SeaSerpent but I disagree. Albert "Loft" Zhiltsov and Daniel "Han" Tuseev admitted in an recently published video that they struggled for years and finally ended up by failing at their attempts of implementing drop tanks and fuel systems management in "Great Battles". They said that such a feature will be available in their next core engine (the "next-gen product" mentioned by Jason in the interview we talk about here). They never said that the interaction between an aircraft carrier and a plane is impossible to model with the "Great Battles" core engine... but they admitted they dropped the idea because that would be too time consuming and financially disastrous. Such statements were made after Jason departure so let me say that Loft and Han are at least as honest as Jason is, they are not simply saying “everything is wonderful, nothing has changed, why do you ask?”, the situation, in my humble opinion, is more complex thant that and the conflict between Jason and 1CGS is a bit more subtle thant that. Jason gave some explanations, a summary of the big picture, but my suspicion is that he didn't explain everything that is related to his departure. Furthermore, Jason gave me the impression he was very cautious in this interview, and I approve that.

 

 

 

Well yes, but at the end of the day the only thing that counts for me in the long run as a customer is whether or not they plan to publish something (which will be ready in say 3 years), which is interesting for me. All announced and yet to be published collector planes are a 100% buy for me because they supplement my already existing gaming experience. So basically I'm a happy camper for the next 12 months with FC2 career being available somewhere in 2023 and the 109 G6/AS, the bubble top Spitfire Mk XIV and the IAR coming also somewhen next year.

 

If their new yet to be announced theatre has no backward compatibility or cross-usability with already existing GP modules, why should I buy it as early access before it is finished and has a playable SP career mode? Investing in a new theatre makes only sense for me as a customer if the new planes are backward compatible and from the day of release on and can be used in already existing GP modules.

 

Im really interested what their plans for the future holds, with Sicily/Malta now allegedly being out of the game.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

3 minutes ago, sevenless said:

If their new yet to be announced theatre has no backward compatibility or cross-usability with already existing GP modules, why should I buy it as early access before it is finished and has a playable SP career mode?

 

 

This is exactly how "IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad" started back in 2012-2013... unti its full release in 2014. So, today, a new core engine meaning an incompatibility with previous IL-2 titles would mean the same like Stalingrad back in 2013.

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Citation? Was this information in one of the Russian language Q&A sessions? It wasn't in the English one.

 

 

I think these items in my list come from different communication moments by Zhitsov and/or by his guys. I don't know if I could find all the sources now, there were different long videos to watch in the internet in the last fews months. But I'll try to find them for you Avivimus.

 

Out of the list, please tell me what elements did surprise you the most (I'll need to identify them in the videos, and try to provide you with the video and the timing):

 

- The "Flying Circus" series of modules will be completed.

- There will be more "Tank Crew" modules... provided that the community keeps showing interest in tanks.

- There will be more collector planes.

- There will be more collector vehicles.

- BUT... there won't be more modules after "Battle of Normandy"... because there will be the new core engine for that.

 

 

[Dagwoodyt]

Why be drawn into arguing over someone's "flight" of fancy?

Edited December 24, 2022 by Dagwoodyt

[sevenless]

4 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

- BUT... there won't be more modules after "Battle of Normandy"... because there will be the new core engine for that.

 

That's the key question and source of all the speculation here. And the fact that they haven't commented on that after their october video is very telling to say the least. Could have been easily resolved yet.

[DD_Arthur]

6 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

Out of the list, please tell me what elements did surprise you the most (I'll need to identify them in the videos, and try to provide you with the video and the timing):

 

 

- BUT... there won't be more modules after "Battle of Normandy"... because there will be the new core engine for that.

This bit please.

 

[kendo]

afaik there hasn't been anything definitive on that - just endless speculation from the users.

Edited December 24, 2022 by kendo

[Bumfluff]

A great pity the developers didn’t use the Christmas period to talk to the community and give some direction on the way forward. 

[dburne]

7 hours ago, von_Tom said:

It’s worth pointing out that we haven’t heard both sides and until we do (if we ever do…) it isn’t great jumping onto the side of whoever speaks first. There are lots of gaps in the information and ultimately is it really our business?
 

Also, Stalingrad and Moscow were not Jason’s babies and they were/are pretty good and worth revisiting especially with all of the game engine updates that keep coming. That suggests that future elements will also be good. 
 

The angst about the GB direction also seems too much to me. We’ll find out eventually and then, as now, people can decide what to buy or not buy. 

Merry Christmas everyone, regardless of religious belief, though if you believe in animism watch out for the spirit in your Christmas tree. 
 

von Tom

 

 

Single Player for both the initial Stalingrad and Moscow releases was horrid. IMHO though. In fact I took a long break after just having Stalingrad.

Jason got that ship steered on the right track and it then came a long way to what is offers now which I have all available now.

All I can say is I hope single player still gets the attention it has. 

[RoteDreizehn]

6 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

- The "Flying Circus" series of modules will be completed.

- There will be more "Tank Crew" modules... provided that the community keeps showing interest in tanks.

- There will be more collector planes.

- There will be more collector vehicles.

- BUT... there won't be more modules after "Battle of Normandy"... because there will be the new core engine for that.

 

 

Indeed - you nailed it. Same expectations here. They are looking for a new engine as they reached their boundaries with the GB Engine. Maybe they will built up from scratch.. It seems to be as it is the same as with clod in 2011.  So the lifecycle of GB could be completed. We will see what occurs...

Edited December 25, 2022 by RoteDreizehn

[BalticDude]

On 12/22/2022 at 7:54 AM, kendo said:

A lot of revelations in there.

 

This was interesting:

 

Can you tell us what module would you have made next for Great Battles if you were still Executive Producer?

 

I had settled on Sicily/Malta/Italy next (such a neglected theater), and then I wanted to go produce a late war Eastern Front module to cap off the GB series. Get the Yak-3, La-7 and late model P-39 in there finally.

So glad we're not getting Italy. Something else is more along my alley, such as Late-Eastern front and Pacific.

13 hours ago, CountZero said:

YES to general player Korea means MiG-15 vs F-86 like Battle of Britain was Spitfire vs 109 or PTO is Zero vs cats... or yaks vs 109s is east front...

 

Like for general player, if you say Italy, he would say ah yes there was ww2 there also...was it Malta and Spitfiers and 109s... or that Casino thing... Italians had their own airplanes, wow who would guess that... where is my 109...

I hope they DON'T do Korea. I really want ED to do a DCS: Korea over Vietnam due to their wonderful modules, but 1C can't do carriers right now and they admit it. Korea is literally carriers if you want a proper theatre. It's not ONLY MiG vs Sabre. Map size would need to be even larger and even more empty. I would much rather have Late-Eastern front and then separate Pacific expansion on a new engine.

[Gambit21]

Korea is not “literally carriers” sorry.

There were land-based.Marine Corsairs for instance.

 

 

[CountZero]

5 hours ago, BalticDude said:

So glad we're not getting Italy. Something else is more along my alley, such as Late-Eastern front and Pacific.

I hope they DON'T do Korea. I really want ED to do a DCS: Korea over Vietnam due to their wonderful modules, but 1C can't do carriers right now and they admit it. Korea is literally carriers if you want a proper theatre. It's not ONLY MiG vs Sabre. Map size would need to be even larger and even more empty. I would much rather have Late-Eastern front and then separate Pacific expansion on a new engine.

In Q&A Jason said hes plan was Italy and then Late east front, so thats not what well get from this Devs. There is no need for carriers for Korea if your doing MiG alley, you need map of 350x300km , yes its deserted, and only few big citys are more like big vilages then urban centers, so perfect for this game, front was static, and you have all important bases and targets on map size of BoN map, from Dingdong in china, Pingpongyang in N.Korea and Seul-oni-chan in south, you even dont need 3 engined bombers like B-29, as they were doing night bombings, you can have MiG-15 in all mods, Yak-9P, La-9, Tu-2, Bf-109, IL-10 for N.Korean+China/Russia and F-86 in few mods, F-84 in few mods, F-51, F4u or F9F that Marines used from Kimpo area bases and even A-26 if you wont to pretend there is some bomber players in game, and so on... Then Yak-9P La-9 IL-10 Tu-2S will be used by WW2 crowd that still stays waiting for never existig PTO, to sim late war east battles on Reinland map being east front map... like Kuban was used to sim channal map and so on...

[LukeFF]

9 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Dingdong in china, Pingpongyang in N.Korea and Seul-oni-chan

 

If you're going to make a crazy argument, at least get some of the spelling of the place names correct.

[Qcumber]

Has anyone suggested or speculated on the Battle of Manchuria? (1945 USSR-Japan). 

[sevenless]

9 hours ago, dburne said:

All I can say is I hope single player still gets the attention it has. 

 

I know. I bought BoS on release back then and abandoned it. I only came back when BoK AND the new singleplayer career was released. Else I would never ever come back to this game. If they try a new stunt with the next release, they will have to wait for me buying that until the reviews are out.

[CountZero]

11 minutes ago, Qcumber said:

Has anyone suggested or speculated on the Battle of Manchuria? (1945 USSR-Japan). 

 

 

Do you see the scale of the front its bigger then whole Europe, what part of fast moving front would you select to do, and where would 109 be in planset ?

[Alexmarine]

3 hours ago, CountZero said:

 where would 109 be in planset ?

 

Not a single 109 in sight, just flight simmers enjoying the moment 

[Ribbon]

On 12/22/2022 at 9:43 PM, Trooper117 said:

Apparently PTO will come after the next secret project...

Don't believe it until i see it, could be as well marketing trick to keep the playebase and sales....and later give more excuses as they did so far.

 

Those expetations used to make me buy everything in order to support team, but when they went with BoBp and two other games instead PTO i learned my lesson; hold your expetations low and buy only what you're interested in, saved me  ~400$ in il2 so far.

Same goes for other games and publishers.

 

When it comes to next gen dlc or game i don't care who the owner is, i'll first wait reviews and gameplay vids before jumping the train.

Deciding factors; new gameplay (naval ops, bombers), groundbreaking visuals/maps, bugs and vr performance.

[BlitzPig_EL]

2 hours ago, Alexmarine said:

 

Not a single 109 in sight,

 

What a breath of fresh air that would be.

 

Be sure.

[Avimimus]

12 hours ago, BalticDude said:

I hope they DON'T do Korea. I really want ED to do a DCS: Korea over Vietnam due to their wonderful modules, but 1C can't do carriers right now and they admit it. Korea is literally carriers if you want a proper theatre. It's not ONLY MiG vs Sabre. Map size would need to be even larger and even more empty. I would much rather have Late-Eastern front and then separate Pacific expansion on a new engine.

 

Except they don't really, right? They do study sims of specific aircraft without including appropriate AI opponents (or maps). There is an obsession with getting an aircraft correct for a specific year, but the environment it flies in is never correct to that year. At least with Great Battles they build the theatre map/campaign, AI vehicles/objects, and opponents to produce something somewhat historical.

[Sky_Wolf]

This interview with Jason confirms the worst. Rather than make another Great Battles theatre for Italy, which is what Jason wanted to do and which was the next logical move, the devs have decided to make a new game series after getting a ton of money from a Chinese software developer. Thinking back to the interview with the devs after Jason left, with the arrogant bulls*%t excuse for not doing Italy because there are too many houses to model and the claim that "believe me, we are not in this for the money", it just seems off. Add to that the lack of communication with the community since Jason left and the loopy new moderator/middle man/lapdog, it simply doesn't look good. Happy to be proved wrong. 

[Koziolek]

6 minutes ago, Sky_Wolf said:

 the devs have decided to make a new game series after getting a ton of money from a Chinese software developer. 

Which Chinese software developer? What money?

[Sky_Wolf]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tencent

[Koziolek]

CLoD not GB

[danielprates]

33 minutes ago, Sky_Wolf said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tencent

 

Cool headquarters building tho. Looks like something out of DeusEx.

[Irishratticus72]

12 hours ago, CountZero said:

In Q&A Jason said hes plan was Italy and then Late east front, so thats not what well get from this Devs. There is no need for carriers for Korea if your doing MiG alley, you need map of 350x300km , yes its deserted, and only few big citys are more like big vilages then urban centers, so perfect for this game, front was static, and you have all important bases and targets on map size of BoN map, from Dingdong in china, Pingpongyang in N.Korea and Seul-oni-chan in south, you even dont need 3 engined bombers like B-29, as they were doing night bombings, you can have MiG-15 in all mods, Yak-9P, La-9, Tu-2, Bf-109, IL-10 for N.Korean+China/Russia and F-86 in few mods, F-84 in few mods, F-51, F4u or F9F that Marines used from Kimpo area bases and even A-26 if you wont to pretend there is some bomber players in game, and so on... Then Yak-9P La-9 IL-10 Tu-2S will be used by WW2 crowd that still stays waiting for never existig PTO, to sim late war east battles on Reinland map being east front map... like Kuban was used to sim channal map and so on...

Lol, that B29 suffered a power plant failure along the way?

[DD_Arthur]

1 hour ago, Koziolek said:

Which Chinese software developer? What money?

Yes, 1C have received a cash injection by selling off a lot older properties to Chinese software company Tencent.

 

Luckily for us they seem to be reinvesting this money into the titles they still own; like GBS.

 

Han - in his new roll as series producer - has said they have the funding to invest in expanding the team and reworking the engine to make it more capable.

 

Not sure how this can be construed as “the worst”.

 

[Lusekofte]

19 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Yes, 1C have received a cash injection by selling off a lot older properties to Chinese software company Tencent.

 

Luckily for us they seem to be reinvesting this money into the titles they still own; like GBS.

 

Han - in his new roll as series producer - has said they have the funding to invest in expanding the team and reworking the engine to make it more capable.

 

Not sure how this can be construed as “the worst”.

 

My guess is, Han knows what to do, if he want more programmers in. 
But how sure is he of the outcome ? I mean we got no information. For me it is a win win situation, 

1) I might get the step up I want

2) It goes a road I do not like to follow, and I can move on. Thing is I want change

[Avimimus]

Is it not the case that 1c and 1cgs are different companies now? So the tencent/fulgrim situation applies to Il-2 Cliffs of Dover, but not the Great Battles series (nor the team behind it)?

 

 

20 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

I think these items in my list come from different communication moments by Zhitsov and/or by his guys. I don't know if I could find all the sources now, there were different long videos to watch in the internet in the last fews months. But I'll try to find them for you Avivimus.

 

Out of the list, please tell me what elements did surprise you the most (I'll need to identify them in the videos, and try to provide you with the video and the timing):

 

- The "Flying Circus" series of modules will be completed.

- There will be more "Tank Crew" modules... provided that the community keeps showing interest in tanks.

- There will be more collector planes.

- There will be more collector vehicles.

- BUT... there won't be more modules after "Battle of Normandy"... because there will be the new core engine for that.

 

The completion of Flying Circus (i.e. Vol.III and Vol.IV) are something I hadn't seen mentioned. The impression I got was that we'd see more collector vehicles if the current pair sold well, however they seemed to indicate that Tank Crew II would be a decision of their partners (which might be influenced by profitability), not them.

 

But the one that I'm most curious about is the the last one: They've talked about adding more systems modelling to the damage model (i.e. more hitboxes for things like electricals) and substantially redoing the terrain engine... but I haven't seen anything making it clear that this would lead to a break in compatibility. I haven't seen anything to suggest the existing aircraft wouldn't eventually be updated to work in the next product.

[DD_Arthur]

37 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

Thing is I want change

Yeah, so do I.  

[343KKT_Kintaro]

 

7 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

The completion of Flying Circus (i.e. Vol.III and Vol.IV) are something I hadn't seen mentioned.

 

 

Jason quit... so now, if the devs stick to the "Flying Circus" plan... in my opinion there won't be a fourth volume, most likely three volumes with Ugra Media (source) and 10 aircraft among the collector planes (30 + 10 = the 40 flyables of "Rise of Flight"). I spent hours looking for the source of this info, I mean "Loft" and "Han" , but I didn't find it back. You can try yourself if you're patient and watch the following videos:

 

 

September the 23rd, 2022 (one guy I don't know who he is, Daniel "Han" Tuseev, Andrey "Loft" Zhiltsov)

 

October the 7th, 2022 (Enigma, Andrey "Sneaksie", Daniel "Han" Tuseev, Anatoly Subbotin)

 

October the 21st, 2022 (Andrey "Loft" Zhiltsov, Viktor Sechnoy)

 

November the 9th, 2022 (Daniel "Han" Tuseev, Andrey "Loft" Zhiltsov)

 

 

The videos in Russian allow YouTube subtitles are set in English, you'll get a quite bad automatic translation it will contain the main substance of what it is said.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

The impression I got was that we'd see more collector vehicles if the current pair sold well, however they seemed to indicate that Tank Crew II would be a decision of their partners (which might be influenced by profitability), not them.

 

 

I had the same impression, one of these Russians must say that in one of the above videos, I'm almost sure.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

But the one that I'm most curious about is the the last one: They've talked about adding more systems modelling to the damage model (i.e. more hitboxes for things like electricals) and substantially redoing the terrain engine... but I haven't seen anything making it clear that this would lead to a break in compatibility. I haven't seen anything to suggest the existing aircraft wouldn't eventually be updated to work in the next product.

 

 

Well, in the above linked videos, every time the devs say things like "this will never work in the Great Battles series but will be fully operational in the next project", this is exactly what they mean, "the next project" will be a new game with a new core engine and incompatibility with Great Battles will be unavoidable. For example, on this video Wardog relays one question from the community (the drop tanks thing) and, then, Loft and Han respond they won't get the drop tanks for Great Battles, at least not for all the aircraft, so they decided to abandon for Great Battles... because they have now a mathematical system that will work in "the next project". As a conclusion, it is obvious that "Great Battles" and "next project" are incompatible software.

 

If whether or not we'll have a new Great Battles module after Normandy (not FC, not TC, I'm talking about WWII aviation), a new Great Battles module before the "next project" (the new game) is released, this, in my humble opinion, will depend on delays in the development of the new game. If 1CGS (Zhiltsov & friends) think they can release the new game by 2025 or 2026 I'd be surprised they invest time and ressources in a new module. I remember a video where one of these 1CGS guys said that there woudn't be more GB modules after Normandy but I didn't find it back. Could be one of the above linked videos, or may it's elsewhere.

 

 

[DD_Arthur]

42 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

I remember a video where one of these 1CGS guys said that there woudn't be more GB modules after Normandy but I didn't find it back. Could be one of the above linked videos, or may it's elsewhere.

 

So no source for this whatsoever.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

18 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

So no source for this whatsoever.

 

 

I'll keep searching. In the meanwhile I'll keep collecting more "haha" emojis, on these forums some specialise on giving them.

 

 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Well, in the above linked videos, every time the devs say things like "this will never work in the Great Battles series but will be fully operational in the next project", this is exactly what they mean, "the next project" will be a new game with a new core engine and incompatibility with Great Battles will be unavoidable.

That's pure conjecture. Anything they've said that can be construed as meaning anything of the sort, can just as well be interpreted as meaning it's simply another DLC.

 

Let's take the specific case you mention. This is the transcript (the most important line in bold):

Quote

...completing the technology doesn't mean that it's automatically spreading for all aircraft in our game. we have 85 or more airplanes at the moment and you need to adjust, to configure, the fuel system for all of them and this is a big bunch of work. And actually this work was planned and it was included in the schedule of Andrew's work. Unfortunately this part of work was not completed at all, so now we have no resources to finish this task for Great Battles. But this work which Andrew has done will not fall into a black hole's events horizon, right. Actually we plan to finish with work and it will be used for our next project...

 

You read this as saying that "it won't be done in Great Battles, but in the next project that is hence separate from Great Battles. This series is ending".

I read it as saying "now, at this very moment, we have no resources to finish this task for Great Battles, but by the time work has started on the next GB module we will have. I know we promised the fuel systems for BoN already, but there's no funding and you'll only get them in a few years from now when the next module is released. Sorry for the delay, but you'll eventually get it".

 

Also, even *if* it does point to a completely different product line, the fact that they can finish/re-use all the work that has already been done to make fuel systems work inside the current engine means that it's not all that different from the current engine and there's likely a high degree of compatibility.

Edited December 26, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Still hoping he teams up with Dameon Slye to produce Red Baron 4 .  ?

[BraveSirRobin]

2 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Still hoping he teams up with Dameon Slye to produce Red Baron 4 .  ?

Slye tried a Red Baron reboot that was just an arcade game.  Then tried a reboot of the reboot that apparently has fallen into a black hole.  So probably not unless Slye drops off a crate full of money at Jason’s office and then lets him make all the decisions.

[Lusekofte]

If you think about it. How long can you harvest on an old game engine? 
An how long can you do it in a new. Would it ever pay off?  

[dburne]

12 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

Yes, 1C have received a cash injection by selling off a lot older properties to Chinese software company Tencent.

 

Luckily for us they seem to be reinvesting this money into the titles they still own; like GBS.

 

Han - in his new roll as series producer - has said they have the funding to invest in expanding the team and reworking the engine to make it more capable.

 

Not sure how this can be construed as “the worst”.

 

 

Easily construed that way  - there is no clarification or clear statement. Just talking in circles.

Edited December 26, 2022 by dburne

[343KKT_Kintaro]

7 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

That's pure conjecture. Anything they've said that can be construed as meaning anything of the sort, can just as well be interpreted as meaning it's simply another DLC.

 

 

Pure conjecture? Time will tell. I do not pretend I'm absolutely right and you're absolutely wrong. My reading of Zhiltsov's statements is different than yours, that's all.

 

 

7 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Let's take the specific case you mention. This is the transcript (the most important line in bold)

 

 

I'm perfectly aware of what Zhiltsov says exactly. In connection with the drop tanks being implemented in "Great Battles" series, at no point Zhiltsov says something like "Sorry for the delay, but you'll eventually get it". He says that... referring to the next game, not to Great Battles.

 

My transcription of what it is said in the video, as follows.

 

The community produces one question and Wardog relays such question at timing 41'40'' in the video.

 

Zhiltsof immediately says (to Tuseev) "give me one minute" and then responds as follows:

 

Dear friends, you need to understand that IL-2 is not just a game, yes?, this is for us more a scientific, yes?, approach, and a scientific project, because... then you are working in a modern... as a modern programmer, you allways can google some math. If you just don't remember how to do a quaternion, or how to do any mathematical ideas, yeah?, or any... if you wanna look how this task will be done by other people, yes?, you just can google it. Then at doing IL-2, the only information about "how to do this?" you can only find at office, yes?, that's all. So sometimes we wanna learn something, learn how to do things and we don't know how to do things, we need to start doing this thing, this is how we do it in the old times, you start doing something and understand that everything is wrong. So this is the situation, like last years, we understand we wanna do this and we open big science project: "how to doing this?" Because we don't underst... even understand how to doing this. We spanned more than a year in attempts doing this and we fail. This is the honest answer: we fail, we cannot do this. We don't know how to do this. Yes, we just need to try again, and again, and again... but as I said, one year we need to find answer of all what we are doing wrong. This is reality when you are doing such a complex things. Daniel? Do you have any comment?

 

Then Tuseev says:

Euhh... mm... what can I say? Euhhh... so... [he laughs]... euhh... unfortunately, as you know, euh... our [two or three incomprehensible words, but he refers to Solomykin] has left our team, it was [Andrey] Petrovich, and, actually, before he have, he is really good guy, and he put all of his efforts to complete this task before he was exit and he was very close to this objective but... euhh.. mm... he not have completed it for 100% and the trouble is that actually became complete this after him but, actually, completing the technology doesn't mean that it's automatically spreading for all airplanes in our game because 85% or more airplanes at the moment and you need to adjust, to configure the fuel system for all of them and this is a big bunch of work and... euh... actually this work was planned and was included... euh... in the schedule of end of work. But unfortunately this part of work was not completed at all, and euh.. so, now we have no ressources to finish this task for Great Battles. But this work ["vish?"] end to have done, this work will not fall to black hole "Event Horizon", right?, actually we plan to finish this work and... euh... it will be use it for our next project and our next project will have fuel systems, it will have fuel tanks, drop tanks, it will have gorgeous...

 

Then his boss (Zhiltsov) interrupts him and says:

 

Yes, we have experience, and we have a mathematical system, so now it's almost resolved.
 

[End of quotation]

 

So Zhiltsov means this feature will be present in their next simulator but not in Great Battles because they didn't manage to make it works for all aircraft in the game. It's a choice. They could have chosen to implement the feature in the game so that P-51s can drop their tanks and 109s cannot (I invented the example for argument's sake), but they didn't chose that because, first reason, they know that both the forums and 1CGS would be invaded by the whining complaints of the community, this time in a much more intense level, and, second and most important reason, they allways say they "only make hardcore simulators", in other words they don't want their "Great Battles" game ends its days as a cripple (go back to Zhiltsov's answer, "IL-2 is not just a game"). My reading of this whole section in the video, from 41'40'' to 46'22'', is that we won't have drop tanks in the Great Battles series but we'll have them in the "next project". "Next project" doesn't refer to any new DLC in the Great Battles series... this refers to a new core egine and game...  because if so... then the devs wouldn't be saying "we have no ressources to finish this task for Great Battles". Please AEthelraedUnraed be logical, please be rational.

 

In the Stormbirds interview we are commenting here, Jason says "I know Air Marshal will never be done now, but I feel the team should and could add Drop Tanks to the most common planes which used them. Another thing on my list for my remaining two years that didn’t happen". So Jason says "I feel the team should and could add Drop Tanks to the most common planes which used them" because he knows it: drop tanks are no longer included in the Great Battles schedules. If whether or not a few aircraft will finally include them, I don't know, but for the moment, the devs seem they have made a choice which is "if not drop tanks for everybody, then drop tanks for nobody".

 

 

7 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

You read this as saying that "it won't be done in Great Battles, but in the next project that is hence separate from Great Battles. This series is ending".

 

 

I'm not saying it's ending, I'm saying that sooner or later "Great Battles" will join "1946" and "Cliffs of Dover" as secondary games in the minds of the affected companies (1CGS and 1C Company mainly). You still can find '46 fans and modders out there, please do not tell them their game is dead. And in fact it's not, whatever other games' fans say. So 1CGS won't spend more ressources in Air Marshall, nor in drop tanks... not for Great Battles. We'll have such features in their next game, whatever the first chosen theater is, whatever the name they give to it (it amuses me to call it "IL-2 Sturmovik 4").

 

 

7 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Also, even *if* it does point to a completely different product line, the fact that they can finish/re-use all the work that has already been done to make fuel systems work inside the current engine means that it's not all that different from the current engine and there's likely a high degree of compatibility.

 

 

This is a pure conjecture of yours. It's much more a wish in fact... isn't it?

 

 

30 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

If you think about it. How long can you harvest on an old game engine? 
An how long can you do it in a new. Would it ever pay off?  

 

 

We are living right now the transition period between Great Battles and its younger brother, an embryo in mommy's belly. Seems logical to me that both games will be commercially exploited during the transitional period and that, at some point, when the baby sees the light of day, the devs simply stop development of Great Battles.