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

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

I do feel a bit for the RoF folks...because to call FC a "new engine" is a bit disingenuous as I personally think RoF even looks better with mods than FC does currently...no-mans land and the textures on the Arras/WF maps are just absolutely awfully done. Molders in RoF and even 1946 have made better examples with less tech.

 

That being said, because vr is gamechanging for me--and because I never bought RoF--I will likely buy FCII on sale some day. I already have FCI and the Snipe, despite the poor map/terrain graphics.

 

Just as an example:

Edited December 28, 2022 by drewm3i-VR

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, Jaws2002 said:

First it needs to be able to do heavy bombers, big formations and carriers.

As the Devs have explained many times already, there is no engine limitation that makes big bombers or carriers impossible. It's just a question of time and budget. As for big formations - as the Devs have also explained already, this is a result of a design choice rather than a limitation (so yes, it's an "engine limitation", but the same design choice with another engine would lead to the same result).

Edited December 28, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

4 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

As the Devs have explained many times already, there is no engine limitation that makes big bombers or carriers impossible. It's just a question of time and budget. As for big formations - as the Devs have also explained already, this is a result of a design choice rather than a limitation.

The devs should simply scrap the current ai with all its issues and rewrite it to be like every other sim made with simplified fms to help with cpu load. As long as it was somewhat realistic and challenging without being a complete UFO, noone would bat an eye.

 

Also, the devs should create a voice-activated ai command system that works like a more interactive/capable SRS bot. That would also fix that lingering problem (lack of ai comms).

Edited December 28, 2022 by drewm3i-VR

[Oyster_KAI]

5 hours 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. 

Even in MSFS2020, I only fly GA or Warbird, DC-3 is also very good.
The only exception might be the F-18E.
Although I rarely fly jets in GB, they were part of WW2, so that's fine, that's the mentality of a die-hard WW2 fan in me.
 

2 hours 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 some core functions were not considered at the beginning of the program (such as bullet chain system, aircraft carrier, number of aircraft that can be handled), adding these functions means a lot of rewriting code.
If the effects involved are too big, it's hard work, and they end up writing a whole new program.
However, I hope they successfully modify the code and finally keep the Great battles engine.

Edited December 28, 2022 by Oyster_KAI

[Jaws2002]

3 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

As the Devs have explained many times already, there is no engine limitation that makes big bombers or carriers impossible. It's just a question of time and budget. As for big formations - as the Devs have also explained already, this is a result of a design choice rather than a limitation (so yes, it's an "engine limitation", but the same design choice with another engine would lead to the same result).

  

 I know those were design choices, but they backed themselves into a very limited playing mode, with all those limitations. I'm pretty sure they could have sold twice as many copies if they included those from the start. 

[Oyster_KAI]

16 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

I do feel a bit for the RoF folks...because to call FC a "new engine" is a bit disingenuous as I personally think RoF even looks better with mods than FC does currently...no-mans land and the textures on the Arras/WF maps are just absolutely awfully done. Molders in RoF and even 1946 have made better examples with less tech.

 

That being said, because vr is gamechanging for me--and because I never bought RoF--I will likely buy FCII on sale some day. I already have FCI and the Snipe, despite the poor map/terrain graphics.

 

Just as an example:

It's hard not to like ROF...
Rise of Flight's UI is very innovative and beautiful. The colors of all visible objects and the map are also very harmonious.
In contrast, the overall color in the GB engine has a sense of collage disharmony.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

2 minutes ago, Oyster_KAI said:

It's hard not to like ROF...
Rise of Flight's UI is very innovative and beautiful. The colors of all visible objects and the map are also very harmonious.
In contrast, the overall color in the GB engine has a sense of collage disharmony.

Yup, if we have to have simpler colors, I'd rather have the game look like a beautiful painting than simultaneously being washed out and oversaturated. Ironically the winter maps in GB look good.

 

Luckily for vr users, tweaks in the openxr toolkit fix a lot of this.

[[CPT]Crunch]

The big thing for me is this version of the game with VR finally introduced WWII air combat as the all visual eyes out of the cockpit sport as it should be, because that was how it was.  But it could be much better, the hardware is here, and other games are closing the gap.  There's still annoying nagging things that need to be solved, basic things like an ESC button that actually works when assigned a button, or turning off that annoying background noise, or even an actual auto logon that works.

 

Until they get serious about fixing all these little quality of life things why would anyone on the outside take this game serious?  The foundation definitely needs an overhaul, modernize it or fade away. 

[Lusekofte]

The one thing now , keeping me from reinstalling this sim again is the totally lack of defensive ability of the bombers. Not being very much asleep latest week I actually start to think, imagine that. 
In my point of view bombers should be lethal in range of all guns. Or rather have the ability to make fighters think twice about their tactics attacking one. 
The defensive effectiveness should be so good that it force fighters into deflection shooting. Realistic or not. Bombers fly seldom in pair and mostly alone. 
I spent quite time in fighters , I find it boring just to be afraid of debris from an exploding bomber. I agree the way PE 2 gunners acted was over the top. 
 

[Picchio]

On 12/28/2022 at 2:04 AM, drewm3i-VR said:

to be like every other sim made with simplified fms to help with cpu load

 

Well, I'll say that AI aircraft using the same flight model is the one unique feature that I personally still value the most (despite all its limitations) and I sincerely hope that they manage to keep it that way.

I think that the only working example of simplified flight models and quality AI in historic air combat is still WOFF.

[CountZero]

Its easyer to maintain one FM for all, then to have one for AI one for human, so you dont have to worry im sure new game will have same complex AI like this one, so cappy AI and probably even less airplanes in missions as we have to have more better and complex FM/DM on same but upgraded game engine, better graphics, as game is being made for future PCs...so it will be able to have more airplanes in 5-10 years... but only 30 at start, MP with 32 slots... so same old thing with any new game, they cant sime air wars just skirmishes at best... fighter airplane focus games with better graphic, you cant expect anything more... sprinkel in some new gatcha things, as WT shows pl like to grined for things.

Edited December 31, 2022 by CountZero

[BornToBattle]

A big part of the draw for me with IL2 is like others have already stated - I can run it maxed out in VR and it looks damn good and does not run like a slide show. No, it’s not cranking out over 100+ FPS, but it’s VERY livable and that’s with an old i7-5930K and a 1080ti. I think the studio in regards to VR has done a very bang up job in doing the balancing act of visuals and performance. Buuuut - with MSFS in VR she shows her age. So, for that scenario I’m forced to resort to my new Tobii Eye Tracker 5 which works fabulous with it as a happy medium for now.

 

I’ve already pulled the trigger on a newer build. All parts are awaiting assembly it’s just this damn GPU market is making me wait until things settle out some more before I buy one. I’ll keep this 2014 build as it still kicks some keester with my golden 1080ti which is what is really keeping it alive thus far, even after 8 years.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, Lusekofte said:

The one thing now , keeping me from reinstalling this sim again is the totally lack of defensive ability of the bombers.

The problem is not really that gunners and crew are not protected from gunfire of any caliber or that they don‘t hit reliably, but the fact that attacking planes are not intimidated by tracers at all and always go in for the kill. Gunners were not really meant to shoot down attacking aircraft, but meant to keeping them away. If the basic principle of defense doesn‘t work in the game, then you get what we get.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

To get back to the op question,  I think that's in part why they are developing a new game.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

6 hours ago, Picchio said:

 

Well, I'll say that AI aircraft using the same flight model is the one unique feature that I personally still value the most (despite all its limitations) and I sincerely hope that they manage to keep it that way.

I think that the only working example of simplified flight models and quality AI in historic air combat is still WOFF.

Il-2 1946 BAT/UP/HSFX/Y-Pack all have amazing AI.

 

The AI doesn't need to use the same flight model as the player, it just needs to obey certain parameters like physiology, g-force, speed, climb rate, negative g, tactics, etc. 

6 hours ago, CountZero said:

Its easyer to maintain one FM for all, then to have one for AI one for human, so you dont have to worry im sure new game will have same complex AI like this one, so cappy AI and probably even less airplanes in missions as we have to have more better and complex FM/DM on same but upgraded game engine, better graphics, as game is being made for future PCs...so it will be able to have more airplanes in 5-10 years... but only 30 at start, MP with 32 slots... so same old thing with any new game, they cant sime air wars just skirmishes at best... fighter airplane focus games with better graphic, you cant expect anything more... sprinkel in some new gatcha things, as WT shows pl like to grined for things.

This is just not true...this game is 10 years old and time dilation is WORSE than ever. With the AI as it is, enjoy your massive 10 vs. 10 battles and 25 ground units fighting in a re-enactment of the largest conflict in human history. 

Edited December 31, 2022 by drewm3i-VR

[Lusekofte]

6 hours ago, CountZero said:

Its easyer to maintain one FM for all,

Not sure at all about that. AI take up as much recourses as a human player. And can see all parameters to the limit. They fly faster, trim   faster have excactly the correct radiator settings. 
But after initial attack are pretty lousy in battle. And they are not your mates. Old IL 2 got better ai that demand much less of the computer and bandwidth. 
clod and DCS got same type of ai but more various effectiveness. But still they do not bring a heavy load. 
As I see it, we are much worse off with these ai than any other

[guglez]

On 12/27/2022 at 5:48 PM, Cmndr613 said:

War Thunder is more like COD or Battlefield.

Kinda true, but the graphics in WT is so sharp. Textures are very detailed and on a 4k monitor they look way better that anything else..

 

UPD: the graphics engine of warthunder was opened under BSD-3 license. In theory anyone can use it.

Edited July 25, 2024 by guglez

[Avimimus]

On 12/27/2022 at 2:49 AM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

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.

 

A couple of caveats:

- There is legacy code and scripting from Rise of Flight everywhere partly because it is the same engine

- The damage models and flight models are actually substantially reworked - try flying the Halberstadt D.II and the Airco D.H.2 in both sims - they fly completely differently.

 

That said, there is a lot that could have been improved. For instance, allowing giving more bindings for the gun rings (e.g. being able to raise or lower the bar separately from aiming up and down)... or having wind-speed impact gun reloading (there is code from Great Battles which allows windspeed to impact how far you can lean out of the cockpit - so why not repurpose this code or write new code to simulate how pilots had to slow down to reload their Lewis guns quickly)? In many ways there are disappointingly few improvements - but they idea that the flight models are identical is no longer accurate (even if it was with Vol.I).

 

On 12/27/2022 at 10:42 PM, 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. 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.

 

There is, I think, a difference from growing up meeting veterans of WWI, WWII, and Korea... and having grandparents who were in some of the wars, or who lost siblings to the wars... it does make the sense of vulnerability personal in a way... you know that your understanding of those experiences will never be theirs, and you know that pain is right beside you (often), even if it is unspoken. I think, that, as we move further away it becomes easier to imagine that we know what happened... so things do change.

 

That said, I think simulators like these are an important way to keep memory alive. I also think that the move to incorporate a museum, and more details about battles or history, is a really good move on the part of the devs - both for keeping memory alive and generating more interest (and longer lasting interest) in these sims through sparking imagination. I think incorporating more verbatim quotes or after-action reports would be a good idea... personalising some of it a bit more - but I'm happy to see they are moving in the right direction.

 

I also think that people are more literate and more interested in history today than they used to be - so younger generations might actually help (at least that small minority of them who become history nerds).

[LukeFF]

Guys, please don't drag up topics like this that are over a year old.