Developer Diary #337 Discussion (The Past and The Future)

[wolfbojan189]

Multiplayer is not boring,flaying or in tank i have fun times. Dcs have migs and some other planes from that period,for il2 is better to improve some thing,more targets,more vehicle,ww2 planes and maps...etc. Korea is waste of time,and flaying prop.plane against jet ccc.

[JG27_Steini]

12 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

Multiplayer is already boring. Question is do we need a chronological approach on next theatre? Next dlc is subject for guessing. After that they set the bar to Pacific. 
Next one will not be Korea, they ruled out jet’s. I guess it might be an east Europe theme on it. 
If I am confident on PTO after that I might buy next module just to support next build, also to check out this “new”. 
So Korea is a no go, why discuss it?

 

Sorry, i missed the "nogo" part from the devs. Relieved ...

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Just now, JG27_Steini said:

 

This only works, because there are 20+ other planes left to choose from ?

 

 

And so? The number of available types is in connection with the volume of content in a given flight sim. Time goes by and projects, if successful, expand their content. Back in 2014 there weren't even Me 262s in this game... thus the problem never existed.

 

 

[JG27_Steini]

3 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

And so? The number of available types is in connection with the volume of content in a given flight sim. Time goes by and projects, if successful, expand their content. Back in 2014 there weren't even Me 262s in this game... thus the problem never existed.

 

 

 

True, but they have to take into account how many player want to fly prob planes and are constantly annihilated by jets. Or how many people want to buy jet content and get 50% content ruled out by server dev's. Korea is simple a project between two different world's and interests. This is for many a liming factor. IL2 GB offers 95% competive content. Korea will not offer that. Sure there are many enthusiasts, but also many who are not.

Edited January 3, 2023 by JG27_Steini

[Picchio]

In the case of GB, this "volume of content" you speak of (which you should really try to define, so others understand your point) has left a number of objectively basic features (radio comms, interaction with AI units, career mission design) at a rather embarrassingly primitive state.

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Picchio

[SCG_motoadve]

18 hours ago, PB0_Roll said:

This is the perfect illustration why russian devs are able to produce bad games from accurate modelling. Flying planes and understanding their sometimes very complex systems is my day job, not what I want to do for fun. When I play a WW2 sim, I want to immerse in a WW2 world that runs around the plane, not to droll on a beautifully modelled fuel system.

 

Heck, I'd probably have more fun in EAW with modern graphics than in current state GB (and yes I do have fun with GB despite its limitations, just less). I even feel the need to play 46 at times, it was already miss managed but at least with current gaming machines I can have a fight involving dozens of aircraft with decent frames. Am I the only one missing EAW'S several hundred planes fighting on my screen ,while I could use the radio to give orders AI would follow, full squadrons of mustangs dropping their fuel tanks to engage full squadrons of interceptors while full bomber wings  would drop their bombs over occupied Europe, then after the fight was over press one key, if I wanted to, to skip the 4 hours return flight to england in 5 seconds and land my plane there ?

 

Please , current GB devs, stop thinking about ultra accurate systems, think about ultra believable worlds that works without killing CPUs and, above all, think of what will be the PLAYER experience.

 

Leave the beautifully super accurate systems that kill frame rate to MSFS pro pilots wannabes, and the super complex AI that can fly the same flight model as players but can't hold formation flying or let the game have more than a handful of multicrewed bombers in player sight without killing the frame rate to.... oblivion.

 

My wallet is ready.

Disagree with you totally, I am also a real pilot , and fly often ,from bush flying, IFR to warbirds doing dogfight simulations, having an arcade FM is not what the IL2 crowd wants.

Making it arcade will get a temporary crowd and wont give durability for the series, we want something that we can fly and feels realistic (without the need to going to clicking cockpits or cold starts).

The more detail you give the more interesting the simulation and durability to the series, yes fuel management , electric and hydraulic failures, more torque among other things.

 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

13 minutes ago, Picchio said:

In the case of GB, this "volume of content" you speak of (which you should really try to define, so others understand your point) has left a number of objectively basic features (radio comms, interaction with AI units, career mission design) at a rather embarrassingly primitive state.

 

 

 

Please understand that "Great Battles" is not a study type simulator. "DCS" and "BMS" are the only studies out there, at least in the domain of combat flight simulation. Maybe you'll find other military studies, but not tons of them. "Great Battles" is a survey type simulator, thus it needs to reach some balance between content and  simulation accuracy and, believe me, it does it very well as it is now. Please read this and this.

 

"Great Battles" is a survey type simulator. It makes few sense to demand the devs they bring us study-level simulation in a module that allows the player to fly 10 different types in the consistent context of a given historical map. "Great Battles" is a survey type simulator and a pretty good one in this domain.

 

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by 343KKT_Kintaro
grammar mistake

[acer884]

54 minutes ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

Myślę, że w Korei multiplayer nie działa dobrze. Mieszanka silników śmigłowych i odrzutowych nigdy się nie sprawdzi. Na koniec masz 1-2 samoloty odrzutowe walczące ze sobą. To samo dotyczy SP. Kto chce grać w śmigła, w którym ciągle jesteś atakowany przez samoloty odrzutowe. W Korei brakowało samolotów śmigłowych.

That's why I'm not interested in MP in historical games. If players' choices are based only on the perfection of a given aircraft, then it is inherently ahistorical. In fact, the major armed conflicts of the 20th century were an arms race that resulted in periodic imbalances in the "balance" side of the conflict, such as the Fokker plague, direct fuel injection instead of carburetors, and the advent of early jet aircraft. It was not the pilot who decided in which unit he would serve and on what equipment he would fight. If in MP the majority of players choose the most effective/perfect aircraft model, then you could actually limit the game to only 2 models, one for each side..
Personally, I enjoy playing SP where I can fly, for example, a scout MS-Umbrella without a frontal rifle, or a plane without a propeller synchronizer and thus make decisions in accordance with historical realism (e.g. escaping instead of fighting). The same could apply to Korea (if this theater was really considered by the creators) and the choice of propeller  rather than jets. This is what provides immersion and is something that in my opinion is practically non-existent in MP, because the only consequence of a wrong decision in MP is respawn and the only profit is frag.
In the case of Korea, which can be an interesting conflict, the combat tasks, e.g. the P-51, were completely different than jet aircraft (I read somewhere that the P-51s played the same role as the P-47s during World War II, because they were scrapped or given away immediately after 1945 National Guard and were not in service with units stationed in Japan). On the other hand, there were also Po-2s and IL-10s, but the main purpose of these propeller planes was not to engage in a dogfight with the MiG-15 or Saber, but to achieve other tactical goals.

[Picchio]

2 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

Please understand that "Great Battles" is not a study type simulator. "DCS" and "BMS" are the only studies out there, at least in the domain of combat flight simulation. Maybe you'll find other military studies, but not tons of them. "Great Battles" is a survey type simulator, thus it needs to reach some balance between content and  simulation accuracy and, believe me, it does it very well as it is now. Please read this and this.

 

"Great Battles" is a survey type simulator. It makes few sense to demand the devs they bring us study-level simulation in a module that allows the player to fly 10 different types in a the consistent context of a given historical map. "Great Battles" is a survey type simulator and a pretty good one in this domain.

 

 

 

I think you're systematically and intentionally confusing the very basic notion of interactive entertainment with the concept of a deep technical simulation of a single aircraft.

[Robli]

17 minutes ago, acer884 said:

That's why I'm not interested in MP in historical games.

 

That's why historical games are best in scenarios, which can be reasonably realistic and interesting in both SP and MP environments. Not theatres, which will end up being Mig-15 vs F-86 online (can have that already in DCS) or get to fly some ground attack missions in SP in a Mustang (already in DCS also).

 

23 minutes ago, acer884 said:

This is what provides immersion and is something that in my opinion is practically non-existent in MP, because the only consequence of a wrong decision in MP is respawn and the only profit is frag.

 

I don't think it is mandatory in MP not to care about your virtual life and I don't see how wrong decisions in SP lead to any more enjoyable consequences than in MP.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

32 minutes ago, Picchio said:

 

the concept of a deep technical simulation of a single aircraft.

 

 

Such is the definition of a study type simulator, which "Great Battles" is not. At some point "Great Battles" reaches unavoidable limitations and as a matter of fact this needs to be accepted by the community. You have fully player-manageable gunsights in "Cliffs of Dover" and you don't have them in "Great Battles". You have fully player-manageable turbochargers on board P-47s in "Great Battles" and you don't have them in "Cliffs of Dover" (maybe some day, who knows). Both games are survey type simulators and, therefore, present their own limitations as what they are: survey type sims. As surveys they are very good. As a survey type sim, "Great Battles" is very good. I see no point in permanently demanding new features to the devs. 2003, 2009, and 2012 are the clue years in the history of the "Great Battles" development, years that determined this game is deffinitely a survey type. The "Great Battles" game won't evolve into a study type simulator like DCS, it is simply impossible. If you want to win races on a speedway, purchase a Ferrari FXX-K, but you won't use it in town (a "DCS" module cannot offer the historical context nor the number of available types in a "Great Battles" module). If you want to go to work daily, purchase a Ford Fiesta (a good survey type simulator presents a nice and balanced array of possibilities, but its level of accuracy in simulation is more limited than a study type simulation like "DCS" is).

 

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by 343KKT_Kintaro

[Trooper117]

1 hour ago, Lusekofte said:

they ruled out jet’s.

 

Actually they didn't...

[Lusekofte]

1 minute ago, Trooper117 said:

 

Actually they didn't...

Pretty sure they did

[343KKT_Kintaro]

The devs included Me 262s... so they did. The devs didn't release a module that is set in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq... so they didn't. Please Trooper and Lusekofte, stop arguing.

 

 

[Lusekofte]

We are not arguing, I just say that the next DLC was said not to contain jets and was not Italy. Latter was a shock to me. I was sure about it. First pretty much ruled out Korea

[343KKT_Kintaro]

4 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

First pretty much ruled out Korea

 

 

And so? Do the devs owe us something? If you don't like the shoes of a shoes manufacturer, simply buy your shoes elsewhere. I simply cannot understand the levels of demand and complaint in these forums...

 

 

[Lusekofte]

Just now, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

And so? Do the devs owe us something? If you don't like the shoes of a shoes manufacturer, simply buy your shoes elsewhere. I simply cannot understand the levels of demand and complaint in these forums...

 

 

What is the matter with you?

Do you misunderstand with purpose?

I have already uninstalled this game, I try to sort out the facts. Not whine about current status. I never fronted or encouraged a Koreamap 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

I apology Lusekofte, I admit I don't get your point. Please forgive me if I have offended you... but, believe me, now I see that I didn't get what you really wanted to say. Friendly: Kintaro.

Edited January 3, 2023 by 343KKT_Kintaro
Lukefofte --> Lusekofte

[Picchio]

52 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

Such is the definition of a study type simulator, which "Great Battles" is not. At some point "Great Battles" reaches unavoidable limitations and as a matter of fact this needs to be accepted by the community. You have fully player-manageable gunsights in "Cliffs of Dover" and you don't have them in "Great Battles". You have fully player-manageable turbochargers on board P-47s in "Great Battles" and you don't have them in "Cliffs of Dover" (maybe some day, who knows). Both games are survey type simulators and, therefore, present their own limitations as what they are: survey type sims. As surveys they are very good. As a survey type sim, "Great Battles" is very good. I see no point in permanently demanding new features to the devs. 2003, 2009, and 2012 are the clue years in the history of the "Great Battles" development, years that determined this game is deffinitely a survey type. The "Great Battles" game won't evolve into a study type simulator like DCS, it is simply impossible. If you want to win races on a speedway, purchase a Ferrari FXX-K, but you won't use it in town (a "DCS" module cannot offer the historical context nor the number of available types in a "Great Battles" module). If you want to go to work daily, purchase a Ford Fiesta (a good survey type simulator presents a nice and balanced array of possibilities, but its level of accuracy in simulation is more limited than a study type simulation like "DCS" is).

 

 

 

The few specific elements I mentioned have not much to do with what a study-sim does. Also, stop lecturing us as if we were born yesterday.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 hours ago, Wardog5711 said:

@1PL-Husar-1Esk

CAG stand for Commander, Air Group.

In that movie, the CAG was a solid guy who really looked out for his men and their aircraft.

Thanks, btw what is the name of that  movie?

[Lusekofte]

We all do a little study sim. We just go for GB to get it. 
However if this new thing allow for more complexity in damage model and flight model. This will be a winner.

It is one of the best ww2 air war simulators available. 
Personally I would like to have more focus on strategic air war. But that is subjective. 

[Wardog5711]

@1PL-Husar-1Esk

The movie is the Bridges at Toko-Ri

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Just now, Wardog5711 said:

@1PL-Husar-1Esk

The movie is the Bridges at Toko-Ri

New movie is "Devotion".   Not bad either.  ?

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, acer884 said:

Fokker plague

Fokker scourge -> Nieuport 11

Fokker plague -> Penicillin

[Koziolek]

1 hour ago, Lusekofte said:

 I just say that the next DLC was said not to contain jets 

As far as I remember it was said to be centered on propeller planes, not that jets were to be nonexistent

There are jests in Normandy and Bodenplatte

but maybe I do not remember well

[Alexmarine]

2 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Fokker scourge -> Nieuport 11

Fokker plague -> Penicillin

 

"But those were Messerschmitt"

[DBFlyguy]

32 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

New movie is "Devotion".   Not bad either.  ?

Really enjoyed "Devotion" unfortunately, it didn't do too well in in the states, barely stayed in the theater a month....Hopefully more people will actually watch it when it hits streaming platforms.

 

https://www.whats-on-netflix.com/news/when-will-devotion-be-on-netflix/

 

 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

16 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

Really enjoyed "Devotion" unfortunately, it didn't do too well in in the states, barely stayed in the theater a month....Hopefully more people will actually watch it when it hits streaming platforms.

 

https://www.whats-on-netflix.com/news/when-will-devotion-be-on-netflix/

 

 

Korean conflict just not a big seller here.  

[CountZero]

2 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

Pretty sure they did

nope

 

No they didnt say that no jets, ppl just go on enigmas interview and based on that sayed that next project is prop centric, but if you lisen what he says from 49min about next project , it will still have piston engine combat airplanes, but why would he have to say that if next project is ww2 one... afcores it have prop airplanes... but if its Korea, well then you have to say it will still have props, as Korea is known for jets. And again after this interview they never also said next project will not have jets, it was just us on forum saying they said next project is prop centric so ppl conect it to no jets then... again i dont understand it clearly but to me it seams he say : It still will be harcore realistic combat flght simulator. We still will be best piston engine combat planes. It still will be based on real historical conflict ... 

[Alexmarine]

Korean War theatre be like:

[343KKT_Kintaro]

1 hour ago, Picchio said:

 

The few specific elements I mentioned have not much to do with what a study-sim does.

 

 

This should be considered as debatable, but apparently you don't consider it as such. Pity.

 

 

1 hour ago, Picchio said:

Also, stop lecturing us as if we were born yesterday.

 

 

I did nothing to you, I was polite at every step in this exchange of posts, so I suggest you lower the tone one notch, ok?

 

 

[CountZero]

3 hours ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Disagree with you totally, I am also a real pilot , and fly often ,from bush flying, IFR to warbirds doing dogfight simulations, having an arcade FM is not what the IL2 crowd wants.

Making it arcade will get a temporary crowd and wont give durability for the series, we want something that we can fly and feels realistic (without the need to going to clicking cockpits or cold starts).

The more detail you give the more interesting the simulation and durability to the series, yes fuel management , electric and hydraulic failures, more torque among other things.

 

I dont think he say make it more arcade... its just we see devs are spending more on chasing that +1% in FM, or other system stuff, and that slightly better graphics... but not improving feal of ww2 air battle, it just keep geting wors compared to previous games where you got fealing your in war and you can control your AI wingmans and so on...

[DBFlyguy]

43 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Korean conflict just not a big seller here.  

Very true it seems.  As much as I'd love a Korean conflict "battle of" (definitely over more eastern front... ?)  There may be some wisdom that it's not be best decision financial wise...An alarming number of folks here (the self proclaimed "experts") seem to still have no clue that there was more involved in the conflict than just F-86 vs MIG-15 action...  not sure how much better off knowledge wise new potential customers would be....

Edited January 3, 2023 by DBFlyguy

[Picchio]

I'm sincerely fond of James Salter's narratives as a fighter pilot in Korea. I can't really see the series going there, though... who knows. 

[Voidhunger]

47 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Korean conflict just not a big seller here.  

Well its not about Korean conflict its about how good the movie is. I saw the trailer and im not interested.

Even the new topgun is tragic.

[Picchio]

42 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

This should be considered as debatable, but apparently you don't consider it as such. Pity.

 

I did nothing to you, I was polite at every step in this exchange of posts, so I suggest you lower the tone one notch, ok?

 

So, by your analysis, what should IL-2 as not a study-sim focus on? How should it evolve?

Or do you support the idea of producing yet another theatre/planeset package with the exact same features we already have now?

What's your point?

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Picchio

[Talisman]

Like the original IL-2 before, perhaps the Korean theatre might offer the same opportunity to educate and enlighten folks whilst flying some great aircraft and having fun.  IL-2 certainly educated me about the Eastern front in WW2 and I am the better for it. 

 

End of era prop jobs with early era jets and even helicopters offers a classic historical era of military aviation for study and enjoyment.  Surely folks who love flying and aviation can see the merit in such a project for a flight simulation.  Plus we have an interesting period regarding the ground war in terms of tank simulation, etc.

 

Also, the opportunity to perhaps increase the customer base in countries like China and others could be of great benefit.  An increased customer base could benefit us all.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman  

[CountZero]

33 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

Very true it seems.  As much as I'd love a Korean conflict "battle of" (definitely over more eastern front... ?)  There may be some wisdom that it's not be best decision financial wise...An alarming number of folks here (the self proclaimed "experts") seem to still have no clue that there was more involved in the conflict than just F-86 vs MIG-15 action...  not sure how much better off knowledge wise new potential customers would be....

Its not lack of knowladge about conflict that makes ppl belive its just gona turn into MiG-15 vs F-86 its examples from how this game plays. Is East front only 109F4 vs Yak-1... or even wors is late west front Tempest vs 109K4... this is what it was online for years... it is what it is... Korea MP will be MiG-15 vs F-86, nothing els as you would have even less options then in GB.

[JG7_X-Man]

1 minute ago, CountZero said:

Its not lack of knowladge about conflict that makes ppl belive its just gona turn into MiG-15 vs F-86 its examples from how this game plays. Is East front only 109F4 vs Yak-1... or even wors is late west front Tempest vs 109K4... this is what it was online for years... it is what it is... Korea MP will be MiG-15 vs F-86, nothing els as you would have even less options then in GB.

 

Then there is the issue regarding aircraft carriers that we don't have, which you need to properly simulate the conflict! 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

5 minutes ago, Picchio said:

 

So, by your analysis, what should IL-2 as not a study-sim focus on? How should it evolve?

Would you like yet another theatre/planeset package with the exact same features we already have now?

What's your point?

 

You said: "In the case of GB, this "volume of content" you speak of (which you should really try to define, so others understand your point) has left a number of objectively basic features (radio comms, interaction with AI units, career mission design) at a rather embarrassingly primitive state."

 

So, my point is:

 

A) The struggle of the devs in "Great Battles" always had been, and still is, the balance between content creation ("volume of content" is this) and simulation accuracy (for example, radio navigation wasn't available for the player back in 2014 but now it is).

 

B) As per item "A", I disagree with some players who complain of the lack of simulation accuracy regarding some systems, or the lack of features in the overall gameplay of the game... It's like they were ignoring that the devs permanently need to satisfy the requirements of a survey type sim (one "Great Battles" module is ten flyable aircraft and one map, not only one flyable and that's all like in "DCS").

 

"what should IL-2 as not a study-sim focus on?"

 

I don't know, my point is that "Great Battles" simply cannot be perfect in all areas because this is what defines a survey type flight sim. Those who complain of the lack of this or of the lack of that should have a look at other games and consider what is lacking in them. My point is that "Great Battles" is well balanced as it is. You included "career mission design" in your list of features "at a rather embarrassingly primitive state". I love "Cliffs of Dover" but still now it doesn't include in its own GUI a dynamic career mode... the career mode is static in "Cliffs of Dover". You need the DeOden application (an external midware) if you want a dynamic career mode. Apparently, fans of "Wings Over the Reich" say the game presents the best career mode in the world, but the game is 100% single player, you can't use it online, there's simply no muliplayer in "Wings Over the Reich". My point is that "Great Battles" presents a nice balance between features, available content and simulation accuracy. That's all. Friendly: Kintaro.