This sounds like music to me

[Lusekofte]

6 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

the devs simply stop development of Great Battles.

That would be sad. Albeit much with ai has been fixed, right now it’s behaviour is rather strange. And a heap of other things need to improve within its limits. I think it is a huge mistake abandoning it all together. They should continue to improve it, I am fine with no more maps. I always hoped for improved SP experience. 
I never taken away the constant improvement made by devs from them. It always been a quality ambition 

They should continue improve, other than that I am good with something new

[343KKT_Kintaro]

2 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

That would be sad.

 

 

I'm sure we are years away from such an event (devs abandoning Great Battles' development). I may be wrong about "no more modules after Normandy", maybe they'll produce another one, who knows, but there's not reason to believe the devs won't provide the improvements you mentioned. I trust the devs will provide some new improvements to this game, Gret Battles, before they definitely drop its development. I imagine they have time... and still a few ressources for that, personnally I don't think that, in the next few years, all ressources will be invested in the new game only. Their last videos and communications were clear enough about that.

 

 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

50 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

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.

Absolutely. But both are possible readings. You're acting like you're completely sure, like it's a fait accompli. While in fact, we don't know anything for certain and every single thing the Devs have said is multi-interpretable.

 

50 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

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.

Ehm, no, that's not what he says at all. He says it'll be present in the "next project". "Next project" could just as easily refer to a new DLC.

 

50 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

"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"

He doesn't say that. He says "now we have no resources". Why say "now" if you mean "forever"?

 

50 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Please AEthelraedUnraed be logical, please be rational.

I'm pretty rational. Even though I've got my own ideas about what's to happen, I'm not pretending anything's clear. In fact, I acknowledge that the Devs have said things in an extremely unclear way that's multi-interpretable. Pretending that everything's clear and that a new game series is the only thing the Devs could mean, is what's irrational here.

 

50 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

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.

Ehm, actually, he says that he *doesn't* know. He specifically mentions that he knows that Air Marshall will not be done (which he already acknowledged, or at the very least hinted at, well before he went away); then proceeds to specifically mention that there's a possibility ("should and could") that the remaining Devs will add it to BoX. You're twisting his words here to make them suit the narrative you want.

 

50 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

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

I will concede that I perhaps went a bit far in that statement. But they literally say that they can re-use the code that's already done in their new product. That means that there's at the very least *some* similarities and compatibility.

 

2 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

How long can you harvest on an old game engine?

Given that Windows 11 is just an up-up-graded Windows NT from way back in 1993, I'd say an engine that's well-maintained and continuously upgraded could last some 30 years at least

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Ok AEthel, we'll see what happens in the future.

 

In upcoming communications, I hope the devs will be clearer about:

 

1) DLCs after Normandy. Not only Flying Circus or Tank Crew, I talk about future modules about WWII aviation like Bodenplatte and Normandy.

2) What they do mean by "next project".

3) If whether or not Air Marshall will be implemented in Great Battles... or, on the contrary, in a future game only, a game which would be incompatible with Great Battles.

4) If whether or not drop tanks will be implemented in Great Battles... or, on the contrary, in a future game only, a game which would be incompatible with Great Battles.

 

Devs will tell, and I hope they will tell soon.

 

 

[dburne]

49 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

I'm sure we are years away from such an event (devs abandoning Great Battles' development). I may be wrong about "no more modules after Normandy", maybe they'll produce another one, who knows, but there's not reason to believe the devs won't provide the improvements you mentioned. I trust the devs will provide some new improvements to this game, Gret Battles, before they definitely drop its development. I imagine they have time... and still a few ressources for that, personnally I don't think that, in the next few years, all ressources will be invested in the new game only. Their last videos and communications were clear enough about that.

 

 

 

They are in business to make money. Making money in this industry requires new products, planes, maps.

Edited December 26, 2022 by dburne

[Koziolek]

14 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Ok AEthel, we'll see what happens in the future.

 

In upcoming communications, I hope the devs will be clearer about:

 

1) DLCs after Normandy. Not only Flying Circus or Tank Crew, I talk about future modules about WWII aviation like Bodenplatte and Normandy.

2) What they do mean by "next project".

3) If whether or not Air Marshall will be implemented in Great Battles... or, on the contrary, in a future game only, a game which would be incompatible with Great Battles.

4) If whether or not drop tanks will be implemented in Great Battles... or, on the contrary, in a future game only, a game which would be incompatible with Great Battles.

 

Devs will tell, and I hope they will tell soon.

 

 

Damn, I thought this is about the Jason's Q&A on Stormbirds.

And now we are going back to an old Albert's stream ? And starting to pick on every word he said again? There are numerous other threads for this. 

Edited December 26, 2022 by Koziolek
spelling

[CountZero]

I for one are glad they are not waisting any more on Marshal especialy and on Drop tanks, it was so not needed for this game...

[LuftManu]

Although I don't usually write in these speculation threads I have full confidence that Han and the rest of the team knows what they are doing (and what we like).

We are used to get instant information about everything, like our life depended on it while forgetting we have more than 60 aircraft to fly on several scenarios. I think that's a good way to wait until the team has something to show us.

 

Kind regards,

[Avimimus]

@343KKT_Kintaro - I think there are some inaccurate assumptions here. For instance, the devs have made it pretty clear that they feel the fundamental code-base/game-engine has development potential and is better suited to making a next-generation product than competing engines are. So any next generation product will be the current Great Battles engine with a new terrain system, upgrades to various other systems etc. They aren't held back by the code.

 

Btw. DCS lineage goes back to a 1995 game... but incremental rewrites of various systems have allowed it to stay in development (although I suspect that major elements of the code-base were rewritten for the 2003 LOMAC, and for Black Shark... which formed the basis for DCS).

 

I also suspect your timeline of ownership and responsibility for development of products may have inaccuracies (crediting Jason Williams a bit too much while ignoring some of the Russian devs that predate his involvement etc.)

Edited December 26, 2022 by Avimimus

[kendo]

Wading through all the latest "opinion", it seems clear to me that "next project" is most likely a reference to whatever the next module is and not a brand new sim/series. For example Moscow was the "next project" after BOS, Kuban was "next project" after Moscow.

 

And re-reading DD 332 (the one associated with the video interview) it very clearly comes over as making big updates to the current engine (and GB series), not a completely new sim /game. There is a lot of positivity in that DD, and in the various pieces of info about hiring new staff and expending the team.

 

With respect, we are all going round in circles with this. Everyone is projecting their own state of mind onto the expected outcome.

Edited December 27, 2022 by kendo

[BlitzPig_EL]

We all need to take a step back, relax and play the sim, and just wait and see how things play out, and make our decisions from there.  We still have the best WW2 air combat sim around, let's enjoy that for now.

[Lusekofte]

No no, do not step back and relax, I just got my popcorn ready 

[Trooper117]

My post does not agree with moderators and other users, so I've got rid of it...

 

Edited December 27, 2022 by Trooper117

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

We all need to take a step back, relax and play the sim, and just wait and see how things play out, and make our decisions from there.  We still have the best WW2 air combat sim around, let's enjoy that for now.

 

Absolutely. It's always amazed me how flight simmers want to waste their time writing novellas here about the game instead of actually playing the game and enjoying all the great content that it has.

[FuriousMeow]

It's wild that some in this thread speak as if they have absolute authority and knowledge of the game engine, and yet couldn't be further from fact.

 

Drop tanks are easy to do, if you half ass it - which is what a lot of games with drop tanks do. Aside from some maps and 109/190s, most of the desires for drop tanks were to run as low as fuel as possible in the aircraft tanks and have the drop tank take them to combat at which point they'd drop the tanks and be significantly lighter that the plane would be. I'd rather drop tanks be done right, rather than that gameyness happen.

[CUJO_1970]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Absolutely. It's always amazed me how flight simmers want to waste their time writing novellas here about the game instead of actually playing the game and enjoying all the great content that it has.

 

Says the guy with 15,000 posts, lol.

 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

Those who are against Air Marshall or don't understand it, need to get on Combat Box sometime and interact with the SRS Bot...Air Marshall was going to be that, with a human element on steroids. It would absolutely be an groundbreaking feature.

 

 

And we ABSOLUTELY need drop tanks and more complex fuel/hydraulic/engine cooling systems. You can barely fly a historical Cross-Channel mission in a Spit of 109 as is...

14 minutes ago, CountZero said:

How els can you pass time while your airplane is on autopilot and 8xtime on way to action point, old il-2 atleast had skip to action options...

8x wouldn't be so bad if it actually worked...4x is the most I can get with a liquid cooled 5800x3d and 32 gb of 3800mhz cl14 ram.

Edited December 26, 2022 by drewm3i-VR

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

Jason, before he left, said the game engine would eventually need to be reworked/updated, but the old rendering/graphics engine would need to be replaced Ala DCS. I believe this will be the course they take. I'll try to find the source for that comment.

 

Personally, I would support this...I love how accessible GB is but some complexity should be added. The graphics however, are very dated and should be upgraded to be cutting edge and to get good performance, I'd imagine a new engine would be needed to fully utilize things like raytracing, dlss, vulkan, etc.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

1 minute ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Jason, before he left, said the game engine would eventually need to be reworked/updated, but the old rendering/graphics engine would need to be replaced Ala DCS. I believe this will be the course they take. I'll try to find the source for that comment.

 

 

Very good, that's a constructive attitude. One person quotes me and then responds by means of a demonstrative element, demonstrative or so pretended. It's fair and square, fair enought to me.

 

Drewm3i-VR, what you said above is very interesting, thank you very much. Do you think Jason meant that future modules, after such an update, will be compatible with the series as we know it, from "Battle of Stalingrad" (2012) to "Battle of Normandy" (2022)? Because that's the real question... So I hope that this source you look for will throw some light on the matter. Again, thank you Drewm3i-VR.

 

 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

34 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

Very good, that's a constructive attitude. One person quotes me and then responds by means of a demonstrative element, demonstrative or so pretended. It's fair and square, fair enought to me.

 

Drewm3i-VR, what you said above is very interesting, thank you very much. Do you think Jason meant that future modules, after such an update, will be compatible with the series as we know it, from "Battle of Stalingrad" (2012) to "Battle of Normandy" (2022)? Because that's the real question... So I hope that this source you look for will throw some light on the matter. Again, thank you Drewm3i-VR.

 

 

He didn't clarify, but I didn't get the sense they they were abandoning the core compatibility and platform that has been built, but rather expanding/improving and building on it with a new graphics engine.

 

With Jason being out, I'm not sure what the plan now is or what has changed, but personally I think totally abandoning what has been built with GB would be really daft and dense and would likely be commercial suicide. By all means revamp, optimize, and rewrite certain parts of the code, but don't start from scratch when there is no real competition from anywhere.

 

I'll also add, that with GB filling the IL-2 always (with the exception of CLoD) filling the niche between sim-lite games like Warthunder, EAW, CFS and study-sim and military-grade sims like DCS, it is important to have cutting-edge graphics, effects, maps/terrain and the ability to create an authentic and immersive battlefield environment... and this is where GB is becoming increasingly outdated with its limited game play opportunities, inability to simulate massive numbers of ai and human controlled units (online), and limited graphical capabilities that have been taken as far as they feasibly can IMO.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Thank you for your kind response, drewm3i-VR. Development companies always looked for the replacement of their software, and they do not consider this is a suicide, on the contrary. LucasArts launched "Battlehawks" in 1988, then "Their Finest Hour" in 1989, then "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe" in 1991... every step was a new game, not a suicide. Today, development phases are way longer than in the 1980s, I know, but companies keep the same principle: they exploit one game... until they create a new one, and at some point the older game is abandoned. By the way, during the period 2006-2011 Maddox Games really ran to its suicide when trying to do what they always did: creating their next game, but it's a different story and, as I said on a previous post of mine on this thread, 1CGS will be very cautious trying not to end the same.

 

 

[kendo]

13 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

This is a forum... you go to a forum to discuss things, that's what they are for... no one needs to 'take a step back' .

If people think the forum is just going around in circles, then leave the forum, don't keep visiting threads that you think are just rehashing things.

In the past, right here in these forums, things eventually got fixed or changed or problems answered because people kept to their guns and kept pushing the point.

 

 

What's the point of endless 'discussion' that doesn't advance anything or go anywhere.....mainly becasue there isn't enough information to come to a clear conclusion.

 

And I don't buy the excuse that the complaining and pressuring is needed as that is what gets things fixed. Usually things get fixed only when they find a slot to work on something they were always going to do anyway. All the endless banging on does is annoy everyone.

 

 

14 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

I don't know how many times I said things like "we'll see" or "time will tell". I keep intervening in the thread only to respond to others... which should be fair enough to every body here since forums are made for that, for discussing things. "Everyone is projecting their own state of mind onto the expected outcome" is a normal phenomenon in a discussion forum and shouldn't be bypassed, don't you agree with that?

 

 Yeah, I'm doing it too

Edited December 27, 2022 by kendo

[kendo]

How did that advance anything? You still disagree. And we still don't know who's right.

 

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Says the guy with 15,000 posts, lol.

 

Guess where most of those posts are, champ? The beta testing forum. 

[kendo]

?

 

You and drewm3i-VR disagree is what I meant. 

 

 

 

[Avimimus]

37 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Guess where most of those posts are, champ? The beta testing forum. 

 

Admittedly, over the years I recall a few times where you were a bit grumpy. Of course, those of us on the receiving end might have sometimes deserved it (a bit at least).

 

I'll agree though that forum drama is a small part of that 14.8k though - also thank you for your service in the selfless (and often very tedious) role of beta-tester: I'm sure that I, and a lot of people, appreciate it. The fact that so many patches come out so polished is partly due to good programming, but I'm sure a lot of it is due to work of beta testers that we aren't even aware is happening.

[FuriousMeow]

6 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

Nobody spoke on behalf of the coders, nobody pretends to have absolute authority and knowledge of the game engine. Zhiltsov and Tuseev were quoted thus the coders were quoted. Avivimus and I have different views on what the devs really wanted to say and only time will tell who's wrong and who's right. What's wrong with dropping the subject and let the time settles the question? Unbelievable...

 

6 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

. It's a WWI aviation game in disguise, this is what it is and this is why the devs struggled that much trying to implement operational drop tanks on every plane in the game (amongst a few other features). They struggled to implement drop tanks... as a universal and easy-to-set feature as it should be in any ideal and normal WWII aviation game. "Battle of Stalingrad" and therefore the whole "Great Battles" series are nothing but a pair of crutches, a WWI game that was chosen back in 2012 as a replacement for "Cliffs of Dover".

 

This, and quite a bit more of what you post, is quite authoritative as if you know. You don't, just because DTs weren't incorporated doesn't have anything to do with it "being WWI in disguise." In fact, WWI planes had single internal fuel tanks. Many of the WWII GB aircraft have multiple tanks and they are modeled, in placement and weight as well. It's just so much misinformation and you state it as if from a point of knowing, but you don't.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

8 minutes ago, FuriousMeow said:

Many of the WWII GB aircraft have multiple tanks and they are modeled, in placement and weight as well.

 

 

I know that. But that's not the point. The point is that the devs spent more than a year trying to make that all affected aircraft in the game are able to drop their drop tanks if they are types of such a capacity back in the 1940s. Please watch this video from 41'39'' to 46'22'':

 

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

How many of you have killed a helicopter in DCS with a properly dropped fuel tank from a BF-109K4?  Newbs.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Just now, SeaSerpent said:

How many of you have killed a helicopter in DCS with a properly dropped fuel tank from a BF-109K4?  Newbs.

 

 

Says the guy who bullseyed the compressed air tank in the very mouth of the beast...

 

 

[Avimimus]

Hmm... well, I think we agree that cooling down and rewatching the Briefing Room video would probably do us all some good.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

LoL, what "flights of fancy", kendo? I'm repeating for a loooong time now on this thread: "What's wrong with dropping the subject and let the time settles the question?"

 

 

[Missionbug]

Having got this far through the thread I am not sure if I am suicidal or homicidal.

 

Take care and be safe.

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

[Koziolek]

8 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

The problem, kendo, is that there are fanboys here in this Great Battles forum who are not happy reading that their favourite game is imperfect or incomplete.

 

 

I don't know. It seems to me like the only thing we do lately is to criticise and try to point what is wrong with the game. Or what should be changed

I know of only one person for whom the game is perfect and who is totaly blind to all the flaws and other people criticism. And it is not even this game ?

[Dagwoodyt]

If there is an insatiable need for attention, the temptation to migrate to a more active forum is apt to prove irresistible.  ?

Edited December 27, 2022 by Dagwoodyt

[MisterSmith]

19 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

This is a forum... you go to a forum to discuss things, that's what they are for... no one needs to 'take a step back' .

If people think the forum is just going around in circles, then leave the forum, don't keep visiting threads that you think are just rehashing things.

In the past, right here in these forums, things eventually got fixed or changed or problems answered because people kept to their guns and kept pushing the point.

 

 

No, we are not going to go round in circles when we diverge this far from the topic. I'm in the middle of a substantial cleanup here. The topic is the Stormbirds article. Not CloD, past injustices elsewhere, or newly perceived ones. Back on topic please.

 

Smith

 

OK, the initial cleanup is done. There was so much editing, I almost hit "hide" on my own post rather than "edit." Leave the interpersonal stuff at the door........ALL OF YOU, please. I will complete a deeper dive, later, when I have time. There will likely be more edits. Get back on topic. This is an important enough thread that I wont lock it. 

 

Smith

[Koziolek]

15 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

 

And we ABSOLUTELY need drop tanks and more complex fuel/hydraulic/engine cooling systems. You can barely fly a historical Cross-Channel mission in a Spit of 109 as is...

You are absolutely right, but as it looks like it is not coming soon, maybe a fast solution could be adding more fuel. Add the amount it would be in the drop tank to the full tank of a plane and you have a longer range. 

Could it be that simple?

[BlitzPig_EL]

No, unless you add the drag of the invisible drop tank, and it's invisible mounting shackles and associated hardware.  So that is not a viable solution.

[Koziolek]

14 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

No, unless you add the drag of the invisible drop tank, and it's invisible mounting shackles and associated hardware.  So that is not a viable solution.

I'm aware that it's not even close to what people want but it kind of solves the problem of range of some planes on Normandy map

 

or at least it could be added as a mod - you don't like it you don't use it

Edited December 27, 2022 by Koziolek

[JonRedcorn]

I don't mind the forum debates raging on its the posts making nearly confident claims on the future of the title, the company or whatever the case is that kinda of irk me. Most of it is misinformation, or just plain wrong. Mainly with who's acquired the company. No issue in debating the possible future but don't come in here shooting off about how exactly everything is going to play out. Nobody knows besides the people in the company.