Should, or can, IL-2 be modernized? (Graphics, audio)

[S10JlAbraxis]

20 hours ago, Irishratticus72 said:

I get 165fps in VR at 4k with this bad boy. Prove me wrong!

Outstanding - I just added a 3DFX Voodo standalone to my 486 50 and am running MSFS at 8k ultra settings and getting over 200FPS!

[Numl0k]

15 minutes ago, S10JlAbraxis said:

Also todays flight sims bearly scratch the surface of efficiently using the increadable power of modern CPUs and GPUs.  

 

I think this is a big one. Optimization would go a long way. I definitely feel like IL-2 isn't very well optimized at all. I know that physics simulations can be pretty taxing, but seeing the frames drop so much once you bump up the difficulty rating in SP and have more fighters in the air seems to have more of an effect than it should. 

 

Hopefully whatever the future holds, they'll bring in some folks that really know optimization. And if they build from the ground up, that would be preferable. They're probably working with spaghetti code that has features that can only be explained by people who left the company years ago.

[Irishratticus72]

8 minutes ago, S10JlAbraxis said:

Outstanding - I just added a 3DFX Voodo standalone to my 486 50 and am running MSFS at 8k ultra settings and getting over 200FPS!

If you overlcock that card, you could push it to 300+

[Aapje]

My interpretation of the Q&A session is that it's already been decided to rewrite the entire engine (which means a new, separate game). That's why they are doing the collector planes, which gives them income for relatively little extra work, even though they are also expanding the dev team. Most will then work on the new engine.

 

Anyway, the thing I miss the most in IL-2 is better AI and nicer maps.

[Cmndr613]

I've had combat flight sims starting with CFS2 on Windows 98. I deleted it off my laptop about a year ago. Outdated as it could possibly be, but still always managed to get me to fly around for an hour or so. I've also used military flight sims and UAV ground control systems. There's less ground between the two than you might think, there's more to it than graphics. Speaking of combat flight computer sims, DCS is realistic, perhaps too realistic for many with an interest in flight without the 2000 hours of combat pilot training. If you have two hours to fly your computer and it takes an hour to prepare for takeoff and get in the air, you probably won't play much. It has been said before and it is true; the more powerful the computer needed to run the software, the less software you will sell.

Il-2 is a nice mix of decent graphics, good gameplay and an easy to believe story because it really happened. If the developers spent a lot of time and money upgrading the current games, they probably would not gain many new customers. They could make a completely new game, but for what target audience?  A $60 AAA video game needing 100+G of storage is a major gaming commitment.

 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

@S10JlAbraxis

 

I was making a rhetorical point.

I too would like all those things, photorealistic graphics, 100 B17s in formation, fleets of ships that behaved like they were crewed by intelligent beings, granular systems modeling, NPC aircraft that were truly convincing in their abilities, etc... etc... etc...

 

But to expect these things in the next iteration of this title, in a form that allows the developers to make a profit, and we as players to be able to afford it, is a bit of a stretch.

 

Incremental improvement certainly is to be expected, but a change on the order of going from oil lamps to incandescent bulbs is not going to happen.

 

Sorry for being a realist, but I live in the real world.  A world where dreams are necessarily tempered by economic and technical reality envelopes, that can be stretched to an extent, but rarely if ever, shattered.

Edited December 25, 2022 by BlitzPig_EL

[ACG_Bobo]

That 486 rocks with the math coprocessor, needed for Falcon 3!
IL2 is beautiful, the atmospherics are breathtaking.

Edited December 25, 2022 by ACG_Bobo

[S10JlAbraxis]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

@S10JlAbraxis

 

I was making a rhetorical point.

I too would like all those things, photorealistic graphics, 100 B17s in formation, fleets of ships that behaved like they were crewed by intelligent beings, granular systems modeling, NPC aircraft that were truly convincing in their abilities, etc... etc... etc...

 

But to expect these things in the next iteration of this title, in a form that allows the developers to make a profit, and we as players to be able to afford it, is a bit of a stretch.

 

Incremental improvement certainly is to be expected, but a change on the order of going from oil lamps to incandescent bulbs is not going to happen.

 

Sorry for being a realist, but I live in the real world.  A world where dreams are necessarily tempered by economic and technical reality envelopes, that can be stretched to an extent, but rarely if ever, shattered.

 

I did call this a wish list and said I am not holding my breath.  I think if a new product is developed with a robust framework designed for growth over the next 10 years most of the items I mentioned can be accomplished as long as people continue to spend money on flight sims (big "if" here).  I am sure these same type of conversations occurred after the release of Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe back in the 90s and look where we are now.  I am sure glad we are still not playing SWOTL.  I for one would have long since moved onto a new hobby if the state of flight sims had not evolved.  In the modern world products either progress or die a slow death.  If BOX is going to be around in 10 years, the team needs to push forward aggressively. I think that is what they were hinting at in the recent Youtube update.  There is no way around it.  Evolve or die.  

[BlitzPig_EL]

Agree totally.

[Avimimus]

Honestly, I'm pretty happy with the graphics (although the terrain could do with some improvements e.g. trenches, higher detail elevation maps, improved water).

 

For me - I'd just like a branching AI structure. Currently updates to the AI often break the AI for Flying Circus. Something like DCS is experimenting with where there are decision trees about which manoeuvres the AI is willing to consider would be a good improvement.

 

It'd also be great to see improved AI spotting (kind-of like the DCS Mi-24 AI white paper - where AI has a limited field of view and that field of view pans around over time).

 

So that would be my one priority moving forward: AI modularity (and a couple of additional full time AI programmers).

[dburne]

2 hours ago, Aapje said:

My interpretation of the Q&A session is that it's already been decided to rewrite the entire engine (which means a new, separate game). That's why they are doing the collector planes, which gives them income for relatively little extra work, even though they are also expanding the dev team. Most will then work on the new engine.

 

Anyway, the thing I miss the most in IL-2 is better AI and nicer maps.

 

The thing is, the Q & A session had no real clarity to it. Maybe I am not that smart however I leaned nothing from it.

My guess? 1C (or whomever) has not given final approval on anything.

The clarity seems to have departed with Jason.

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Lets just say the future is REALLY EXCITING!!!!!!  look at this post in about a year! 

[JG27*PapaFly]

After 8 years, the plane set is still quite limited compared to IL-2  46. Complexity might be part of that, but I believe stretching resources over WWI and II aviation plus WWII tanks, and failed experiments like air Marshall and drop tanks, is also part of it.  I don't care about WWI and tanks, and it frustrates me to have a lot of SSD space eaten up by this stuff.

I hope that with the new engine we'll see a more focused development road map, and IMO that means identifying what the vast majority of players prefers, and consistently catering to those needs. I'd be perfectly happy with a sequel that aims at one thing only for the time being: being the best WWII air combat sim with a large set of planes and theatres, and a huge flourishing community. When that goal is achieved,  it's time to develop side projects,  but not included in the main game.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

2 hours ago, pencon said:

The biggest thing  missing in this Sim is a War with  No troops  whatsoever. Or they're all hiding . Closest thing to a ground war is  some tanks  . We need some troop  strafe targets ! Perhaps  they could import some troops form Men Of War - Allied Assault

We really don't "need ground troops," we could simply switch to a more strategic war but we'd need bombers for that.

2 hours ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

After 8 years, the plane set is still quite limited compared to IL-2  46. Complexity might be part of that, but I believe stretching resources over WWI and II aviation plus WWII tanks, and failed experiments like air Marshall and drop tanks, is also part of it.  I don't care about WWI and tanks, and it frustrates me to have a lot of SSD space eaten up by this stuff.

I hope that with the new engine we'll see a more focused development road map, and IMO that means identifying what the vast majority of players prefers, and consistently catering to those needs. I'd be perfectly happy with a sequel that aims at one thing only for the time being: being the best WWII air combat sim with a large set of planes and theatres, and a huge flourishing community. When that goal is achieved,  it's time to develop side projects,  but not included in the main game.

This, Tank Crew especially should've never been made with this engine.

 

Also, I don't mind having WWI included as I like it too, but it has definitely made things harder on the devs.

[ACG_PanzerVI]

I despise DCS.  I hate the monetary model - buy a single plane for as much as a whole map and 8 planes in IL2.  Then go buy a map to fly it on.  Then go buy all the stuff to shoot at.  Then play it on a completely borked server with a zillion compromises, and no immersion. 

 

The planes are gorgeous, flight models pretty good, the terrain mediocre (I honestly think IL2's NOW looks better), the maps are abyssmal, and the explosions and ground impacts look like something from last century.  I despise the sandbox concept.  I hate the buggy updates and the artificial mystery about what is/is not coming out.  IL2 has a lot of problems - lack of 4-engine bombers is a pretty big issue.  Artificial 'tech chat' engine modeling, outdated flight models, back/forth issues on damage model, with first one side griping then the other side, lack of a decent ground control for MP, etc....   But it is so far beyond DCS in immersion it isn't even close.  I can hop into an MP server - even with all the artificiality - and BE in a fight on the Eastern front that is believable and inflicts suspension of disbelief.  That is what I pay for, and that's why I still support the devs.  I sincerely hope that I won't be disappointed when they finally tell us what is next, but I know it'll be a far cry from the misery that is DCS.  

 

I honestly hope that either Korea, or a GB version of North Afrika is it (though I think they said they wouldn't do this over top of Team Fusion), but regardless, I am looking forward to hearing about it. 

 

P.S.  I did 25 years in tanks - and concur with the guy above.  Tanks has no place on this engine or in our MP servers alongside air combat.  It adds artificiality, not authenticity.  Same issue as DCS.  Cool tanks, fantastically modeled.  Totally lacking all work on crafting a realistic terrain environment from a tanker's perspective.  The KEY to any armored sim is the terrain, not the vehicle.  Additionally, tanks and planes on the battlefield did interact, but only occasionally.  Should not be the focus of a sim, and certainly not in the numbers we can put on a server.  

I despise DCS.  I hate the monetary model - buy a single plane for as much as a whole map and 8 planes in IL2.  Then go buy a map to fly it on.  Then go buy all the stuff to shoot at.  Then play it on a completely borked server with a zillion compromises, and no immersion. 

 

Edited December 25, 2022 by ACG_PanzerVI
Note on tanks in sim

[Cravis]

On 12/24/2022 at 10:10 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

The Unreal engine is wholly unsuited to combat flight simulation.

 

Sure...

 

 

But what would any defence contractor know anyway?

 

Edit: Just so people know this is simulation software for the military running on UE. Its meant for pilot training.

People got to fly it on several defence shows and as far as I can tell everyone who got their hands on it was blown away by it.

It will however never be available for endusers.

 

Anyway this disproves that UE is unsuitable for simulators.

Edited December 26, 2022 by Cravis

[racketyjack]

All told, Im pretty happy with IL2. About the finest WW2 combat sim out there. Yep, I think there could be some more ground life; birds, animals, vehicles, people, etc. I also think sound could be improved, espesially the big Merlin engines. But overall, tops in my book. While Unreal Engine looks absolutely awesome, I just hate the thought of repurchasing what I have already spent a mint on.

Edited December 26, 2022 by racketyjack

[S10JlAbraxis]

Would gladly pay $500 - $1000 for IL2 existing content updated to Meta levels of detail.  Not interested in modern since it takes far longer then I have to learn all the systems for even one aircraft but WW2 at this level of detail with AI improvments would be amazing.

 

The META product also nicely illustrates what can be achieved when modern CPU/GPU capabilities are leveraged with cutting egde software development.

 

IL2 and DCS really do not run that much better than they did 10 years ago (yes there have been nice incremental improvments but nothing really breakthrough).   Computers are levels of magnitude more powerfull then 10 years ago but the flight sim experience is essentially the same.  somewhere there is a disconnect.  I do not think simulators are really taking advantage of all that hardware can offer - not even close.  I realize this situation is due to lack of resources since this is not a highly lucrative business.  In fairness It is amazing what has been accomplished on small budgets.

Edited December 26, 2022 by S10JlAbraxis

[Numl0k]

12 hours ago, Cmndr613 said:

If the developers spent a lot of time and money upgrading the current games, they probably would not gain many new customers. They could make a completely new game, but for what target audience?

I think it would boil down to one question: How many customers could they steal from WarTh*****? I think that number may be significant. I may be biased, though. I'm one of the ones that they stole already. WT is fun and all, but I wanted something more in depth. Less arcadey. I tried the Simulator Battles, but eh, it just felt like the same game without markers. I was unimpressed. 

IL2 has a depth to it in historical accuracy, as well as flight model, as well as just fidelity to everything they possibly can. But it's still dumbed down just enough for me to be able to grasp it. I tried DCS and went through about 30 minutes of a tutorial and still had no idea how to even turn the plane on. That may be some people's cup of tea, but it's a little too in depth for me. I don't want to print out an 875 page manual for every plane I'm interested in. I want to use the magic of Soviet technology to convert Germans into fireballs, I'm not trying to learn to fly a plane in real life. IL2 strikes a great middle ground, while just so happening to be set in a time period that fascinates me. 

 

I think if they really want to make a push to be the undisputed champions of the middle ground, they'll have to find a way to bridge the gap and appeal to the WT crowd. I hope to everything good that they don't go FULL casual, and still keep the focus on the semi-hardcore sim side, but find a way to make the "training wheels" more prominent. Right now I'm still in that transition phase where I'm having an absolute blast in single player, but multiplayer is just too intimidating. I need navigation, I need friend/foe markers, I need help not blowing up my engine when I get too focused on a dogfight. But it seems like the majority of populated servers are all using hardcore rulesets. I'm sure one day I'll build up to the point where I can navigate by landmarks and compass headings, and be able to tell a BF109 from a Yak from 1km, but I'm not there yet, and I could use a little bit of hand holding.

[Strewth]

IMHO.

Just a simple question, even discounting the CPU/GPU requirements:

Does MSFS or DCS have late 1930's/early 1940's imagery for their sims?

Then it pretty much explains itself then. Imagine the squawking to be heard if we had to fly in over modern motorways and sky scrapers to navigate and land.

They do a good job considering it all has to be hand crafted and not just pasted from a recent satellite image.

Cheers.

 

[simfan2015]

Indeed Strewth. The big issue... Maps! 

MS FS without Bing maps would never have been possible. 

Numl0ck... War Thunder. Let us hope 1C will not go for the WT way of getting ROI... Pay to Win. 

I always loved the way we got a 1930 1940 era theatre and planes that fit in it the way 1C did it with GB! 

Il-2 GB and CloD have always offered so much for the small price of entry ...also in fact for the GB collector planes and vehicles. 

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by simfan2015

[GasTeddy]

On 12/25/2022 at 12:10 AM, LukeFF said:

 

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but at some point those with decrepit computers are going to have to make a hard decision about upgrading. They can't support those with the lowest of low-end hardware forever. 

 

 

I know there is a limit for everything and proper run of a game or sim depends on many issues. This mill I use now was struggling in the beginning but when found proper settings, fps stays easily over 60 and graphics are more than enough for me. I'm not the one who whines about wrong kind of reflection in one of dashboard gauges or similar things.

 

Someone more knowledgeable correct me if I'm wrong, but is it so that games and sims normally use just one of processors cores? My old pc had very powerful 8-core processor, which run many demanding programs really well but was struggling with relatively undemanding sims and games. When it crashed and I built new mill from leftovers, I used 4-core one from different manufacturer but almost same performance specs and performance in sims is in a totally different level.

On 12/25/2022 at 11:28 AM, LLv24_SukkaVR said:

 

But why should others suffer because someone doesn't have powerful enough PC? Why drag down the progress because some guy is too cheap/poor/lazy to buy a new pc? This game doesn't revolve around you my friend.

 

Sorry jos meni vähän ihon alle.

[Lusekofte]

29 minutes ago, GasTeddy said:

 

 

I know there is a limit for everything and proper run of a game or sim depends on many issues. This mill I use now was struggling in the beginning but when found proper settings, fps stays easily over 60 and graphics are more than enough for me. I'm not the one who whines about wrong kind of reflection in one of dashboard gauges or similar things.

 

Someone more knowledgeable correct me if I'm wrong, but is it so that games and sims normally use just one of processors cores? My old pc had very powerful 8-core processor, which run many demanding programs really well but was struggling with relatively undemanding sims and games. When it crashed and I built new mill from leftovers, I used 4-core one from different manufacturer but almost same performance specs and performance in sims is in a totally different level.

 

Sorry jos meni vähän ihon alle.

Msfs and DCs became more. Smooth. Also GB has becomes smoother over the years. 
They say multi core should be supported soon in DCS. Still is not. DCS can easily be bottlenecked by ram and cpu. But still, need relevant gpu 

[GasTeddy]

11 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

Msfs and DCs became more. Smooth. Also GB has becomes smoother over the years. 
They say multi core should be supported soon in DCS. Still is not. DCS can easily be bottlenecked by ram and cpu. But still, need relevant gpu 

 

 

Mine is ASUS Strix GeForce GTX970, 4Gb. Microsoft Windows 10 Pro, processor slightly overclocked Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3570K CPU @ 3.40GHz 4/4 and motherboard ASRock Z68 Extreme4 Gen3 with latest available BIOS, RAM: 16 GB. So far runs ok.
 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

On 12/24/2022 at 7:18 PM, DD_Arthur said:

The short answer to the above is no - in my opinion.

Sorry, have to vehemently disagree here.

 

It always puzzles me why people think a different engine will somehow magically upgrade the game, and how that wouldn't be possible with the current engine.

 

1C owns their current engine. They have all the code, and can improve parts or add features however they want. We've seen it before, e.g. with the new clouds, the pilot physiology, the DM upgrade, etc. There wasn't anything stopping them then, and there isn't anything stopping them now.

 

Note that upgrading/replacing particular parts doesn't make it a different engine. For instance, BoX started with pretty much the same engine as RoF, but when basically every part was upgraded or replaced, they said "Hey let's call it Digital Warfare instead of Digital Nature". That doesn't change the fact that Digital Warfare is a severely upgraded RoF engine.

 

Now we have established that the current engine can be upgraded, let's take a look at a new engine. A new engine can be either home-made or bought. As upgrading for instance the graphics part doesn't magically make it a different engine, a "new engine" really means starting all over again. A humongous amount of work, and for questionable returns. After all, what part of the current engine couldn't be simply upgraded instead? AI can and has be upgraded, same with graphics, same with DM. One thing that is a specific problem with the current engine is how it struggles with large amounts of AI, but as the Devs have explained that is a design choice so wouldn't magically be different with another engine.

 

A ready-made engine (Unity/Unreal) has the advantage that they don't have to program the engine itself. However, they still have to program all the AI, FM, DM, etc. etc. Also, ready-made engines give precious little opportunities for upgrading engine parts that aren't suitable. You're basically stuck with what you started with, and if that's not good enough, too bad.

 

The only reason when switching engines becomes useful, is if either your current engine isn't upgradable because of spaghetti code, design choices or because it's so severely outdated that upgrading it is as much work as starting again, or if you need to start all over again anyhow because your assets (textures/3d models) are outdated. The fact that the current engine has already been upgraded as much as it is makes me believe the current code is well-written and easy to upgrade, and the assets are still of good quality (especially the BoN ones).

 

Actually, now that I think of it, what exactly is the part of IL2's current engine that people think cannot be upgraded and requires a different engine?

 

46 minutes ago, GasTeddy said:

Someone more knowledgeable correct me if I'm wrong, but is it so that games and sims normally use just one of processors cores?

That's not the case at all. Any program, game/sim or otherwise, will want to use as many cores as possible, though it has to be specifically programmed and optimised to do so, and that can often be hard.

[Lusekofte]

42 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

the pilot physiology,

Is like the parameters on engines based on inadequate complexity. 
While improved on some things made worse on other. 
I think they came to an end with what they can do, and wish to do more. 
We all know what happened with Oleg ambitions of improvement. I hope they learned something. 
This really can go both ways

[CountZero]

3 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Sorry, have to vehemently disagree here.

 

It always puzzles me why people think a different engine will somehow magically upgrade the game, and how that wouldn't be possible with the current engine.

 

1C owns their current engine. They have all the code, and can improve parts or add features however they want. We've seen it before, e.g. with the new clouds, the pilot physiology, the DM upgrade, etc. There wasn't anything stopping them then, and there isn't anything stopping them now.

 

Note that upgrading/replacing particular parts doesn't make it a different engine. For instance, BoX started with pretty much the same engine as RoF, but when basically every part was upgraded or replaced, they said "Hey let's call it Digital Warfare instead of Digital Nature". That doesn't change the fact that Digital Warfare is a severely upgraded RoF engine.

 

Now we have established that the current engine can be upgraded, let's take a look at a new engine. A new engine can be either home-made or bought. As upgrading for instance the graphics part doesn't magically make it a different engine, a "new engine" really means starting all over again. A humongous amount of work, and for questionable returns. After all, what part of the current engine couldn't be simply upgraded instead? AI can and has be upgraded, same with graphics, same with DM. One thing that is a specific problem with the current engine is how it struggles with large amounts of AI, but as the Devs have explained that is a design choice so wouldn't magically be different with another engine.

 

A ready-made engine (Unity/Unreal) has the advantage that they don't have to program the engine itself. However, they still have to program all the AI, FM, DM, etc. etc. Also, ready-made engines give precious little opportunities for upgrading engine parts that aren't suitable. You're basically stuck with what you started with, and if that's not good enough, too bad.

 

The only reason when switching engines becomes useful, is if either your current engine isn't upgradable because of spaghetti code, design choices or because it's so severely outdated that upgrading it is as much work as starting again, or if you need to start all over again anyhow because your assets (textures/3d models) are outdated. The fact that the current engine has already been upgraded as much as it is makes me believe the current code is well-written and easy to upgrade, and the assets are still of good quality (especially the BoN ones).

 

Actually, now that I think of it, what exactly is the part of IL2's current engine that people think cannot be upgraded and requires a different engine?

 

That's not the case at all. Any program, game/sim or otherwise, will want to use as many cores as possible, though it has to be specifically programmed and optimised to do so, and that can often be hard.

Also there is no big jump in competition to make need for something totaly new... next step if its not on level of MFS2020 but WW2, its not worth doing when what you havenow is good enough and nobody els in aircombat sim is pushing for something extra.

[JG27*PapaFly]

5 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Actually, now that I think of it, what exactly is the part of IL2's current engine that people think cannot be upgraded and requires a different engine?

I learned that following features would be very hard or impossible to implement with the current engine: complex fuel management / drop tanks,  carrier operations, freely positionable "floating" runways (like the ones which were widely used in IL-2 46). There was also much talk about deficits in the way AP vs explosive ammo works. The lack of realistic gun convergence,  and the inability to fire certain weapons alone (e.g. MK-103 on the Henschel) might also be engine limitations. All these features were present in IL-2 FB 18 years ago.

[simfan2015]

I do wonder whether creating a next gen flightsim / Battlefield engine is even feasible if all stuff that I read here is to be implemented into it. How many people, how many years, how much expertise and funding would be required to get it done in just a few years!? 

IMHO It simply is no option for *any* small team. 

Then if they ever get that superb game engine ... only then can content for it be created. 

I am really curious what the

1c dev team has in store for us. 

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by simfan2015

[Sybreed]

Just now, simfan2015 said:

I do wonder whether creating a next gen flightsim / Battlefield engine even is feasible if all stuff that I read here is to be implemented. How many people, how many years, how much expertise and funding would be required to get it done in just a few years!? 

IMHO It simply is no option for *any* small team. 

Then if they ever get that superb game engine ... only then can content for it be created. 

I am really curious what the

1c dev team has in store for us. 

 

 

Like with msfs... best case scénario would be to have Microsoft commission a dev to make a new combat flight simulator and provide them with a lot of funding. 1C would be a good candidate, but them being Russian in the current political climate...

[blitze]

Well, for VR I am happy-ish with how the current engine performs and would more like to see improvements in AI and Comms.

 

Bloom issues are my main pet peeve visually.  As a sim goes, Il2 BoX series has been a great itch scratcher for my flying.  It is quite detailed without being a click fest and can provide some great combat experiences in VR.  Not interested in MS FS and DCS - well, I liked to an extent Flaming Cliffs as it was a similar - jump in and get rolling experience to Il2 but there has not been much happening on developing that module and I am not interested in mouse clicking my way through a Modern Jet Startup Routine.

 

The Il2 Devs have done well in the last few years and stupid politics aside, I can't see why they can't continue to deliver in the future. 

 

My wishlist:

AI improvements which tie into my second wish

Decent Comms - in flight and also from Ground Controllers

Better SMP or multi CPU core utilisation to allow for a richer battle field immersion.

Continuing improvements and updates to visuals and modelling over time.

 

One thing I greatly appreciate with the GB Series is that improvements to the tech with module releases are applied to all existing content.

 

As for Tanks - haven't gotton interested in them in Il2 but I used to have a blast playing combined arms maps in Red Orchestra with Tanks and Infantry.  Tanks without Inf are sort of lacking but I do understand the idea of implementing Tanks within the framework of an Eastern Front flight sim - the war was much more about support and ground pounding compared to much of the Western European Air War.

 

Anyway - onwards and upwards.

[Livai]

On 12/24/2022 at 7:01 PM, Sybreed said:

I've been trying to get a few friends to play IL-2 again but I've met with negative responses. Their reason? "The game looks old and I'd rather play DCS or MSFS at this point".

 

With old you mean the Graphic Style from IL-2 Great Battles. It is the same as in Rise of Flight but improved. Some people don't like this Cartoon Graphic Style from IL-2 Great Battles. Every Game has his own Graphic Style you can like it or not.............

 

Look at the Graphic from DCS 1.5 when DCS started to evolve. DCS Graphic was not eye-candy when DCS started.........

 

On 12/25/2022 at 4:58 PM, Jaws2002 said:

All this is a financial decision, done by 1C, immediately after CLOD was released. They chose to abandon that advanced engine, that could do everything we miss in this game, for the cute, but utterly limited ROF engine.  I knew back then that we are going to lose ten years of progress with that move, but that was their decision.

  Heavy bombers, large formations, better texture and materials handling, vastly superior lighting, at least back in the day, working comms, they had it all, but threw it in the garbage. 

 Now we are back to square one, over ten years later, and we still don't have those basic features.

 

It is always interesting when you see/read how companies with big wallet throw many $$$ into something a new Game Engine whatever but then change their decision to lock it and do something new. On the other side you hear or read from the same or another company we can't do this or this because we need more money or we need better & more qualified staff, really confused................

 

We will see how CloD Blitz and IL-2 Great Battles improve over time...............

[Jaws2002]

1 hour ago, Livai said:

 

With old you mean the Graphic Style from IL-2 Great Battles. It is the same as in Rise of Flight but improved. Some people don't like this Cartoon Graphic Style from IL-2 Great Battles. Every Game has his own Graphic Style you can like it or not.............

 

Look at the Graphic from DCS 1.5 when DCS started to evolve. DCS Graphic was not eye-candy when DCS started.........

 

 

 

 

 I agree with you.

The Il-2 GB has a kind of cartoonish style, it always did. The landscape and aircraft materials/textures were always weird and reacting strange to light.   I always had the feeling they are aiming for some abstract artistic look, instead of realistic natural look.

     CLOD the same. it started looking amazingly realistic and since then it turned into a gray washed out artistic representation.  CLOD started better than even DCS, but while DCS dramatically evolved, CLOD went back.

 

1 hour ago, Livai said:

It is always interesting when you see/read how companies with big wallet throw many $$$ into something a new Game Engine whatever but then change their decision to lock it and do something new. On the other side you hear or read from the same or another company we can't do this or this because we need more money or we need better & more qualified staff, really confused................

 

 

 I see why they dumped CLOD engine, but it was still a monumentally stupid move. Had they done it two years earlier, it would have made sense, not two months after release, after the invested so much work and money in a brand new, powerful engine.

 

 If you look back at how much more popular both, DCS and FS2020 are compared to Il-2 GB, it proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that quality sells better than games made on dated limited,, but relatively more inexpensive engines.

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by Jaws2002

[AEthelraedUnraed]

3 hours ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

I learned that following features would be very hard or impossible to implement with the current engine: complex fuel management / drop tanks,  carrier operations, freely positionable "floating" runways (like the ones which were widely used in IL-2 46). There was also much talk about deficits in the way AP vs explosive ammo works. The lack of realistic gun convergence,  and the inability to fire certain weapons alone (e.g. MK-103 on the Henschel) might also be engine limitations. All these features were present in IL-2 FB 18 years ago.

Wrong on most of these:

- Complex fuel / drop tanks: are already being done, and were nearly finished when Andrey Petrovich left. Difficult? Sure, because it's a complex system. It'd be difficult to do realistically on any engine.

- Carrier ops: per what the Devs themselves have said, not necessarily difficult, and certainly not impossible, just a *huge* amount of work.

- Positionable runways: you can already position runways anywhere you like. Furthermore, it's already possible to land on objects.

- Ammo: has been tweaked a lot already, just like the whole Damage Model.

- Gun convergence: this has also already been tweaked, and there are mods that change it. Certainly possible to do in the current engine.

 

The inability to fire certain weapons alone is the only thing that *might* have anything to do with the engine. Although there too I suspect that it's more a question of how much time/money they want to spend on something of questionable importance, rather than an engine limitation.

[JG27*PapaFly]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Wrong on most of these:

Where are the goods then? It's been 8 years and although there have been tweaks here and there,  we still wait for fundamental features that should have been there from the get-go. That's when a "can be done with a huge amount of work" becomes the equivalent of "can't be done with the current engine". I'm really frustrated by the fact that we have a gazillion ways to control radiators, cooling flaps, and trim,  but have to make due with arcade fuel and convergence systems. And I strongly suspect that the complexity of cooling flaps and trim only exists at the front-end, and that there is only one cooling and one trim system at the back end.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

24 minutes ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

Where are the goods then? It's been 8 years and although there have been tweaks here and there,  we still wait for fundamental features that should have been there from the get-go. That's when a "can be done with a huge amount of work" becomes the equivalent of "can't be done with the current engine". I'm really frustrated by the fact that we have a gazillion ways to control radiators, cooling flaps, and trim,  but have to make due with arcade fuel and convergence systems. And I strongly suspect that the complexity of cooling flaps and trim only exists at the front-end, and that there is only one cooling and one trim system at the back end.

 

With the exception of the runways, which is already possible, I don't dispute that the things you mention are not in the game right now, at least not in the unmodded game. A serious question, and not meant to attack you or something so please do not take it as such, why do you think that the fact that those things aren't already in game is a result of a bad/outdated engine, rather than for reasons of budget/time/priorities/lack of research data? And why do you think that a new engine would make programming those things easier, given the same budget and time?

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

I'm more okay with as "steady as she goes" pace for development.   Keep what's there and add whatever improvements can be added over time.  

If the whole thing can be ported into a new game engine, then do that on an aside.  If it goes well, then the devs can decide whether to sell it as a new version or 'grand-father in" exisiting owners.

[DD_Arthur]

13 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Sorry, have to vehemently disagree here.

 

It always puzzles me why people think a different engine will somehow magically upgrade the game, and how that wouldn't be possible with the current engine.

Please feel free to vehemently disagree…..but I’m not sure what we’re disagreeing on.

 

That the developers will further enhance the present game engine would seem much the most probable course of action open to them.

After all, they’ve done it before successfully and I see no reason they can’t keep it evolving.

 

The OP’s question was essentially can this be done to produce a ‘new’ game that retains the previously purchased assets, campaigns, etc. of GBS?

 

I don’t think it can.
Back in 2013, Rise of Flight content was not compatible with the new Battle of Stalingrad game;

a game built on a development of the Rise of Flight engine.

I think it will be the same with the next iteration of IL2.

 

I’d debate this more but I fear it will become another “the thoughts of Kintaro” type thread where we all lose the will to live.?

 

 

 

[FuriousMeow]

25 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Back in 2013, Rise of Flight content was not compatible with the new Battle of Stalingrad game;

a game built on a development of the Rise of Flight engine.

 

Well, the FM was brought over so I think its more of financial than compatibility. I'm sure the 3D models could have brought over, but they were pretty old by the point the WW1 module was decided on.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

The OP’s question was essentially can this be done to produce a ‘new’ game that retains the previously purchased assets, campaigns, etc. of GBS? I don’t think it can.

And that's what we're disagreeing on

 

Much of RoF is in fact compatible to some large or small degree - usually large. Some of the "advanced" terrain editing stuff I'm working on uses tools originally created for RoF, that still work for the BoX maps. The 3d models use a custom format that's only slightly modified from RoF. There is legacy code and scripting from RoF everywhere. As you undoubtedly know, the flight models for FC were converted from RoF originals.

 

As FuriousMeow states, the only reason the 3d models themselves weren't re-used is that those are pretty dated by now. Eventually, the current 3d models may become dated as well, but the models for the BoN aircraft are of a very high quality that is still good enough for years to come, without any need to redo them.