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

[TheSNAFU]

I am in agreement with those here that believe what need to be done is to optimize the engine to take full advantage of multi core multi thread cpu’s and modern gpu’s. This is particularly necessary for vr users. Many of us run CPU’s pushing or exceeding 5 ghz with 3 and 4 series Nvidia gpu’s and yet have to turn down settings, reduce ai loads and still struggle to maintain 90 fps. The time delineation is horrible at times. The game simply does not leverage the horsepower we currently have. I do not need better graphics, dm or audio. Although radio chatter totally blows and needs to be completely redone. Chatter from 20 year old sims are better than what we have in the original chatter. 
 

Greatly enhance the engine especially for much better vr performance and fix radio chatter/commands and I’d be happy for years to come. I’d pay a module level price for that. 

Edited December 27, 2022 by TheSNAFU

[Skycat1969]

11 hours ago, Jaws2002 said:

 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.

 

Popularity be related to a low preference for warbirds among MSFS players, according to a recent annual poll by Navigraph: 

https://msfsaddons.com/2022/12/23/navigraph-survey-results-are-out-msfs-the-most-popular-simulator-ga-and-airliners-are-the-favorites-and-more/.

The write up is an interesting read.

[simfan2015]

Creating an entire new game engine with new content for it is the best way to bankruptcy (unless someone with very deep pockets wants it to happen and is willing to wait 5 to 10 years for it). 

Further enhancing the existing engine and content seems to me the only logical way to proceed!? 

But there may be a lot of things we do not yet know. Maybe the work on a new title started years ago, or they bought the IP from another company...??? 

Edited December 27, 2022 by simfan2015

[THERION]

1 hour ago, Skycat1969 said:

 

Popularity be related to a low preference for warbirds among MSFS players, according to a recent annual poll by Navigraph: 

https://msfsaddons.com/2022/12/23/navigraph-survey-results-are-out-msfs-the-most-popular-simulator-ga-and-airliners-are-the-favorites-and-more/.

The write up is an interesting read.

 

Interesting read - but it's also quite sobering to see that IL2 Great Battles is not even mentioned in this survey... 

[Oyster_KAI]

1 hour ago, THERION said:

 

Interesting read - but it's also quite sobering to see that IL2 Great Battles is not even mentioned in this survey... 

Was put into the same group as War thunder..... This is something that must be escaped.

[Koziolek]

1 hour ago, THERION said:

 

Interesting read - but it's also quite sobering to see that IL2 Great Battles is not even mentioned in this survey... 

GB is not treated as a simulator, probably

[simfan2015]

It seems that survey is solely about the modern jet sim era, that is why il-2 is not included. 

It is also clear to me that the Xbox game pass is the main reason ms FS 2020 has no real competition. BTW... every "free to play" game on steam tops any other game and most of those also get far more and favourable reviews and comments. People love free stuff more than anything ?

 

Edited December 27, 2022 by simfan2015

[Juri_JS]

4 hours ago, THERION said:

 

Interesting read - but it's also quite sobering to see that IL2 Great Battles is not even mentioned in this survey... 

I am not surprised, I've meet several FS 2022/X-plane player's who had never heard of Il-2. I think the main reason is that the civilian aviation sim sites and magazines mostly ignore it.

[Koziolek]

1 hour ago, simfan2015 said:

It seems that survey is solely about the modern jet sim era, that is why il-2 is not included. 

It is also clear to me that the Xbox game pass is the main reason ms FS 2020 has no real competition. BTW... every "free to play" game on steam tops any other game and most of those also get far more and favourable reviews and comments. People love free stuff more than anything ?

 

yeah, that too, but look how high DCS is. And it is everything but cheap

I think the modern jets are the factor. I would say if you counted only ww2 planes in DCS it would be much much lower

[Wardog5711]

I looked at the study results.

What I found it most interesting was the highest percentage of users were in the 20-25 year old range. Staying fairly constant between 30-50 then tapering off.

And that Commercial airliners and Business jets scored higher than Combat AC. and Warbirds.
I would have thought those would have rated higher with how the age groups were represented.

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

It's a simple matter of recognition.  Most people couldn't tell a P51 from a Bf109.  Much less a mid range Airbus from a mid range Boeing.

But, they all know what a "jet airliner" is.

 

Most people in the 20 to 25 demographic don't know who the Beatles are, and the few that do think they were just Paul McCartney's first band. How do you expect them to know or care about aerial combat from 1914 through 1945?

 

WW2, and WW1, are fading memories in the general public.  There simply isn't a large pool of people with the historic knowledge of world conflicts to draw upon anymore.

It's sad that general knowledge of history is so bad, especially in my country, but that is the reality of it.  Last night my lady friend and I were discussing the Zulu War of 1879 over wine and pizza.  How often do you think that conversation happens in our modern world?

 

Answer, it doesn't.  No one cares about history any more, by and large.  We are dinosaurs gents.

Edited December 27, 2022 by BlitzPig_EL

[sevenless]

6 hours ago, THERION said:

 

Interesting read - but it's also quite sobering to see that IL2 Great Battles is not even mentioned in this survey... 

 

Well WW1 and WW2 it is a niche of a niche market. Not that surprising actually. There is no marketing for GB to speak of also. So even if there are potential customers out there, they wont get the message. I´m pretty sure, if they would not be on Steam it would be even worse.

Edited December 27, 2022 by sevenless

[Wardog5711]

Quote

No one cares about history any more, by and large.  We are dinosaurs gents.

 

Sad but true. And all the more difficult to market to an ageing and decreasing player base.

As for simulators, I have a friend who was a US Army tanker for 25 years and we would talk tanks a bunch.

But when I mentioned that TC was a simulation game, he threatened to kick me in the nuts. As an M1 tanker, he spent hundreds of hours stuck in M1 simulators with his crew and wants noting to do with anything approaching realism. World of tanks is about all he wants to deal with.

My youngest son is 27 and a WWII history buff. But in high school, that got a couple of days mention in history class. Nothing more.

He is in our reenactment group and a huge WWII nerd, but has no interest in flying IL-2 planes. 'Too complicated' was his answer. But he does still play TC every now and then.

[Koziolek]

3 minutes ago, Wardog5711 said:

'Too complicated' was his answer. 

Then I'm even more surprised about the DCS being so high

 

But on the other hand we do not know how all this poll compares to War Thunder

[Jaws2002]

7 hours ago, THERION said:

 

Interesting read - but it's also quite sobering to see that IL2 Great Battles is not even mentioned in this survey... 

 

 

 That's hardly a surprise when the poll was mostly ran on FS2020 customers. Half the poll participants are from one company that makes addons for FS2020. The rest are from the same civil flight sim universe.

 

You know the old saying: " Lies, damn lies and statistics."  You can make a poll to tell whatever story you want, if you know how to select the participants.

 

 

 

[Cmndr613]

51 minutes ago, Koziolek said:

Then I'm even more surprised about the DCS being so high

 

But on the other hand we do not know how all this poll compares to War Thunder

 

IMO, the Il-2 target audience is with DCS and MSFS. War Thunder is more like COD or Battlefield.

[CountZero]

Also it say more then 30% play with gamepads so its probably console players that are yunger bunch.

[=621=Samikatz]

I think GA is just a lot more accessible in general. I have been teaching some friends to play combat flight sims (including this one) and the main take away I get is actual flying is pretty intuitive for someone to pick up, but combat is really hard to intuit. Without direct help I'm not surprised some folks just bounce off

[TheSNAFU]

This has gotten rather sad having gone from whether IL2 needs to be modernized technically (it does IMO) to our passion is dying as us older folks kick the bucket! 

At least in many parts of the US schools don’t really teach WW1 and WW2 any more and in some parts they teach things like the US was criminal for having used atomic bombs to end the war. So how can anyone expect many new cfs gamers to come along. And those that do seem more interested in jets than prop aircraft. Maybe that suggests il2 should move to Korea where some of the current planes can be included along with the jets of that period. Might catch more interest. Just a thought albeit not a new one. 

 

Edited December 27, 2022 by TheSNAFU

[AEthelraedUnraed]

45 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

 That's hardly a surprise when the poll was mostly ran on FS2020 customers. Half the poll participants are from one company that makes addons for FS2020. The rest are from the same civil flight sim universe.

 

You know the old saying: " Lies, damn lies and statistics."  You can make a poll to tell whatever story you want, if you know how to select the participants.

 

 

 

Well said. I'd like to add that Navigraph, the company that does this annual survey, isn't really interested in IL2. They make IFR/VFR maps for flight sims. Not much IFR/VFR in IL2.

 

As a sidenote, I just read a poll saying that IL2 is the most popular combat fight sim out there. A whopping 100% of respondents* indicated that they like IL2 more than the alternatives.

 

* The three respondents being me, myself and I.

[DBFlyguy]

I'm actually surprised so many here seem "surprised" IL-2 isn't listed, barely anyone outside this little forum circle knows what IL-2 is. That's why it's not on the list. 

 

Marketing has been nonexistent for years and has only gotten worse.... while DCS, MSFS and WT actually market their products which "surprise surprise" is needed if you want new people to discover you. Take a look at their Youtube channels as an example, now look at the one for this game... How many content creators regularly cover this game as opposed those three? This is how the younger generation discover new games/products...

 

This isn't rocket science. No one should be surprised.

[Skycat1969]

IL-2 Sturmovik "the franchise" had strong name recognition in the 2000's when it was easy to stumble across it in a brick-and-mortar store. 1C also used to be a presence at trade shows. But I agree that outside of product suggestions on Steam or the occasional review in PC Pilot or the back of a WWII history magazine IL-2 Sturmovik isn't in front of the eyeballs of the masses. At least not on the West.

 

Maybe if it had a catchier franchise name like "Supermarine Spitfire" or "1C Combat Simulator" or people would search it out.

 

But ultimately I think the larger interest is in GA and commercial aviation because so many people dream of having a pilot's license, or joining an air force, or making a career of commercial aviation, or practicing real world skills. I've seen this regularly at a specific FSX/P3D addon developer's forum that started with WWII warbirds and transitioned to vintage airliners and the GA aircraft. The interest in the WWII aircraft is now very low except the company's B-17. However, an informal poll at the forum revealed similar results as the Naviggraph survey.

 

I personally got into civil flight simulation through a love of WWII combat simulations. I accepted GA flying after much resistance. I have no interest in twin engine commuters, tube liners, commercial jets, etc. Combat jets built after 1960 are boring to me. But I know I'm on the opposite side of the coin as most flight sim enthusiasts and casual gamers.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

I'm 28, but have been playing ww2 CFS since around 5 off and on because my granddad (RIP) introduced me. I have played FS 2004, FSX, and FS2020, but have never retained interest in anything without warlords. I do realize I am the exception ?, but I was also a history/philosophy major and have been a major history nut since childhood. WW2 and the air/naval airwar have always fascinated me.

Edited December 27, 2022 by drewm3i-VR

[BlitzPig_EL]

If it doesn't have that spinney thing on the front, I'm not terribly interested either.  I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've flown the 262 or Arado.  They simply do not interest me at all. 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

1 minute ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

If it doesn't have that spinney thing on the front, I'm not terribly interested either.  I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've flown the 262 or Arado.  They simply do not interest me at all. 

I've flown the 262 maybe 5 times. Still can't figure out how to start it up and not flame out its engines, but it is cool.

[Jaws2002]

10 minutes ago, Skycat1969 said:

IL-2 Sturmovik "the franchise" had strong name recognition in the 2000's when it was easy to stumble across it in a brick-and-mortar store. 1C also used to be a presence at trade shows. But I agree that outside of product suggestions on Steam or the occasional review in PC Pilot or the back of a WWII history magazine IL-2 Sturmovik isn't in front of the eyeballs of the masses. At least not on the West.

 

 

 

 

That's not it.  The original Il-2 was absolutely ground breaking when it was released. Nothing came near it. It had the absolutely best damage model, absolutely best graphics engine, amazing flight models and a bunch of new features that enhanced the customer experience.

 I remember back in 2002-2004 Il-2 Sturmovik used to have 10 out of ten stars in Gamespot's best game stats. 

    You can't compare where the original Il-2 was in the Flight sim stack, with where il-2 GB is today. The original Il-2 was ground breaking in a number of aspects, today's Il-2GB is in the  middle of the pack in all metrics.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Remeber when the "Black Death" track was the standard used by many PC magazines and testers to eval PC performance?

[Skycat1969]

15 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

That's not it.  The original Il-2 was absolutely ground breaking when it was released. Nothing came near it.

My point is that the IL-2 franchise name is out there. It's not unknown. It just doesn't have the power it once did.

 

I discovered the original IL-2 Sturmovik by a demo and then bought it on sale off a store shelf. It was better than Jane's WWII Fighters and EAW but I liked flying US fighters so IL-2 was just a sideshow to me. I followed CFS3's development religiously and bought it as soon as it was released. CFS3 turned out to be a disappointment. Meanwhile, Forgotten Battles included some USAAF aircraft and I liked that. Microsoft, Microprose, Electronic Arts, etc., all left the genre and 1C:MG became the last studio standing for WWII air combat. They updated the series with free content patches. And Oleg Maddox interacted with the community so there was a personal connection. I became very invested in the Forgotten Battles series. You are correct that it was an excellent product for its time. It really had no competition except Microsoft's brand recognition and marketing.

[Jaws2002]

34 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Remeber when the "Black Death" track was the standard used by many PC magazines and testers to eval PC performance?

Yep!  It took me years and multiple upgrades to be able to play at full graphics.  The Black death was the standard tool, not only for sim enthusiasts to kill the PC. ?

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

I think GA is just a lot more accessible in general. I have been teaching some friends to play combat flight sims (including this one) and the main take away I get is actual flying is pretty intuitive for someone to pick up, but combat is really hard to intuit. Without direct help I'm not surprised some folks just bounce off

 

That and, after having played MSFS 2020 (and any civilian flight sim, for that matter) for just a few days, one thing I can say that they do better is in how they reach their audience. Just the presentation of the game as a whole - where to get addons, being able to see what planes you own in your hangar, customizing controls, etc. - is a step or 2 ahead of where IL2 is. 

[Jaws2002]

18 minutes ago, Skycat1969 said:

My point is that the IL-2 franchise name is out there. It's not unknown. It just doesn't have the power it once did.

 

I discovered the original IL-2 Sturmovik by a demo and then bought it on sale off a store shelf. It was better than Jane's WWII Fighters and EAW but I liked flying US fighters so IL-2 was just a sideshow to me. I followed CFS3's development religiously and bought it as soon as it was released. CFS3 turned out to be a disappointment. Meanwhile, Forgotten Battles included some USAAF aircraft and I liked that. Microsoft, Microprose, Electronic Arts, etc., all left the genre and 1C:MG became the last studio standing for WWII air combat. They updated the series with free content patches. And Oleg Maddox interacted with the community so there was a personal connection. I became very invested in the Forgotten Battles series. You are correct that it was an excellent product for its time. It really had no competition except Microsoft's brand recognition and marketing.

 

 The quality of the game made it so well known and popular. I remember when most plyers weren't even able to pronounce it's name. ? I found out about the game from Gamespot, sometimes in fall 2001. The first demo was just released and everyone was talking about it. Then, few weeks later, I found the demo on a CD in Maximum PC magazine i was subscribed to.

 All it took was one takeoff attempt in P-39, in that Bomber intercept mission, in the rain, to hook me for good. The wind blew me off the runway and a totaled the plane. I couldn't believe the damage model, as i was sitting there looking at that bent prop and all those parts scattered on the runway. I knew right there and then I was trying a work of art.

 Il-2GB was a ww2 game made on an older, cool, but limited engine. There was nothing new about it. 

 Il-2 is a known brand, but it became aknown brand because of the high quality of the original.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Jaws2002

[Skycat1969]

The original IL-2 earned its place in the Western market by being a damned good product but I remember it was still a long hard sell to the average simmer and gamer back in what was still the golden age of WWII flight sims. A lot of players in the forums I frequented were not interested in the Eastern Front or choosing to fly for either Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. IL-2 Sturmovik was not an overwhelming overnight success, regardless of its graphics or impressive flight and damage modeling. You were an early adopter and I admire that. Most players within the genre needed more time to make the transition from the games they were still loyal to. A lot of push and pull factors have to be taken into account.

[Cravis]

In the end it is software so theoretically it can be updated and upgraded as however the devs want to.

The limiting factor to that endeavor was and always will be money.

The real question is probably more along the lines of will 1C actually do it?

And I doubt it at least for the GB series.

We get some incremental changes like e.g. new clouds, sky and recently more options for controls etc. but overall I don't see them overhauling the entire engine to a degree that would actually bring it up to date with what could be considered "state of the art".

Considering the history I assume the foundation of the engine to be rather old. The game will soon be 10 years old after all. I assume that in order to bring it up to date you have to replace so much that it would constitute a brand new engine. That would be a huge investment.

At some point 1C has do something obviously. Something could also mean dwindling away on bare minimum life support.

But if 1C invest in upgrading their tech or developing/licensing new tech I would assume they do so for a brand new title which then becomes its own platform rather than an update for the existing one.

As much as I would love to keep all my purchases the reality is it might be necessary for 1C to sell me all those Spitfires, Mustangs, BF109 and FW all over again to fund the new product in the long term (that is if set in WW2).

We will see.

I just think it is shame they haven't gotten around to do whatever they have to do in order to get e.g. heavy bombers in the game.

[76IAP-Black]

What Im asking is, cause it is still not clear, will the Devs keep the series alive, but upgrade the core, or let it die slowl.

 

Build all new in a new engine, and resell it again to the folks as a new game, but recycled.

 

DCS is reworking the core engine to support more than one CPU core and use a better integration for GPUs

[Rjel]

7 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

It's a simple matter of recognition.  Most people couldn't tell a P51 from a Bf109.  Much less a mid range Airbus from a mid range Boeing.

But, they all know what a "jet airliner" is.

 

Most people in the 20 to 25 demographic don't know who the Beatles are, and the few that do think they were just Paul McCartney's first band. How do you expect them to know or care about aerial combat from 1914 through 1945?

 

WW2, and WW1, are fading memories in the general public.  There simply isn't a large pool of people with the historic knowledge of world conflicts to draw upon anymore.

It's sad that general knowledge of history is so bad, especially in my country, but that is the reality of it.  Last night my lady friend and I were discussing the Zulu War of 1879 over wine and pizza.  How often do you think that conversation happens in our modern world?

 

Answer, it doesn't.  No one cares about history any more, by and large.  We are dinosaurs gents.

But I'm not sure we can blame younger people for this. They are now generations removed from WWII. Even more so WWI. There isn't a personal connection with those wars that many of us grew up with. Everyone knew and/or was related to a WWII vet. Even as a late teen, I knew a couple of distant relatives who had been in WWI. My point being, while I enjoy history like most here do, I look at history that I haven't any connection with as ancient history, no matter of its importance. It's an interesting read but I don't get that tug of remorse I get reading about history I feel a connection with. The only two exceptions to that I suppose would be the Revolutionary War and Civil War because of how those events shaped my world.

 

I believe younger generations will have their moments in time that will be of interest and importance to them. I do agree with you though, we have become dinosaurs. Our time is passing. As it should.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Rjel
Grammer

[TheSNAFU]

49 minutes ago, 76IAP-Black said:

What Im asking is, cause it is still not clear, will the Devs keep the series alive, but upgrade the core, or let it die slowl.

 

Build all new in a new engine, and resell it again to the folks as a new game, but recycled.

 

DCS is reworking the core engine to support more than one CPU core and use a better integration for GPUs

If they don’t at least upgrade the engine the series will likely die a faster death. DCS is adding multi core/thread support which will help take a lot of load off of our CPU’s, particularly helpful for vr. 

[Jaws2002]

1 hour ago, Rjel said:

But I'm not sure we can blame younger people for this. They are now generations removed from WWII. Even more so WWI. There isn't a personal connection with those wars that many of us grew up with. Everyone knew and/or was related to a WWII vet. Even as a late teen, I knew a couple of distant relatives who had been in WWI. My point being, while I enjoy history like most here do, I look at history that I haven't any connection with as ancient history, no matter of its importance.

Agree with that, but there's also the fact that WW2 flight sims were done a lot in the last 20 years. The old Jane's series, Warbirds, Aces High, CFS1, CFS2, CFS3, Il-2 with all the addons, World of warbirds, warthunder, then we started again the same planes in Il2 GB. 

 Just look at the reaction of many players here to the news that we'll get another 109.  ? 

 A lot of people are burned out.

       I'm sure a new WW2 flight sim can be successful again, but it would have to bring a new level of quality and playability to generate interest.  This engine could also be improved, but it would need some major changes to be worth it.  First it needs to be able to do heavy bombers, big formations and carriers. These changes would give people more things to do, to keep them interested. 

  

Edited December 28, 2022 by Jaws2002

[Jaws2002]

1 hour ago, 76IAP-Black said:

Build all new in a new engine, and resell it again to the folks as a new game, but recycled.

 

DCS is reworking the core engine to support more than one CPU core and use a better integration for GPUs

 

 

 I don't know how much you can resell the same things. DCS is guilty of this also. I bought the Black Shark twice already and now they just release the third version. I'm not buying it again. A10 was also sold multiple times. Flying circus is no different. I don't see many people buying the same planes again for a new engine.

 

[dburne]

13 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

 

 

 I don't know how much you can resell the same things. DCS is guilty of this also. I bought the Black Shark twice already and now they just release the third version. I'm not buying it again. A10 was also sold multiple times. Flying circus is no different. I don't see many people buying the same planes again for a new engine.

 

 

I got three times.

The original stand alone, box version - back before the DCS World concept.

Black Shark 2 - retail online version.

Black Shark 3 - no money spent on that one, had enough points/miles whatever it is to get it at no cost as it was already cheap as I was previous owner of BS2.

Edited December 28, 2022 by dburne

[Jaws2002]

28 minutes ago, dburne said:

 

I got three times.

The original stand alone, box version - back before the DCS World concept.

Black Shark 2 - retail online version.

Black Shark 3 - no money spent on that one, had enough points/miles whatever it is to get it at no cost as it was already cheap as I was previous owner of BS2.

 

I know about the discount, I just didn't fly it for over a year and I just refuse to buy it again, a third time.