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

[CountZero]

18 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

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

Aircraft carriers are not needed for Korea to properly sim war, also F4U, F9F were used from land bases by Marines so your not missing any big name airplanes that operated from carriers.

Its like saying we cant have west front simulated without B-17s, and look we have 2 west front DLCs.

[BlitzPig_EL]

The only losses do to no carriers is the Royal Navy's Sea Fury and Firefly.  A genuine pity.

[JG7_X-Man]

@CountZero The "KEY" word I used was "PROPERLY" 

There were at least 10 US Naval Carriers that saw combat during the Korean conflict.

[migmadmarine]

Hell, you could do Korea without carriers as a first release and carriers as a follow-up package. 

 

And see Devotion, I think it's the best aviation movie that I've seen. Great flying scenes, and more emotional depth than dudes in sunglasses and cool jets movies like Top gun (which are fun, in the same way candy is good food)

[PB0_Roll]

7 hours ago, AnPetrovich said:

 

Yes, I agree,

except maybe one thing I'd like to mention: I don't think anyone here wants to fly a banana that looks like a Mustang. We want a plane to be realistic, right? We want to feel it real, to "sit" in a real cockpit that looks real, works real and smells real. We want to have realistic aircraft behavior, its reactions to our actions, various damages, all those leaks and pump failures and even something to do in the cockpit of a multi-engine bomber en route.

 

After all, we all want to take part in an interactive movie, don't we?

 

Yes, and no.

 

As a user, I see very little improvements in flying experience in GB from 46 coming from Flight Model, and I wouldn't qualify 46 mustangs as "flying like bananas". GB has a much better taxi, true, and a slightly better flight controls response. Flaps also have been improved, 46 had only either 2 position flaps, or 4 positions, when GB has gradual positions when available to real aircraft. And.... that's about it. I'm pretty sure that under the hood, things are 10 times more accurate, I just don't see or don't use it. Engineers who built the code see it, but not me. What I see is I can't escort B17s, and my PC has time dilation problems when I escort more than 6 B-25s, and if I jump over water I'm dead, and I cannot communicate with ground control , and with anyone if I'm not the flight lead., and I don't have proper radionavigation. This I can see and my interactive movie gets bad ratings.

 

To illustrate it with fuel system, I don't need the whole distribution to be accurate, as long as it's believable. Planes usually have several tanks, and this is quite documented. Let's say if my right wing leaks and game decides that I lose 100% of my fuel through the right wing hole, I'm not happy but I already beared with it for decades,so I can live with it. If I have the fuel system running real time in the background deciding that I should lose 0.005lbs of fuel per mn, and not 0.007 because accuracy first, and stop leaking when my right wing tanks has lost 236lbs, and not 250 which would be an approximation, but for this I must accept to have no radionavigation nor comms with AI, and lose 5% of my framerate, then I'm not happy. If, as an approximation for all planes, it is decided that "big hole loses 0.5lbs per sec, small holes 0.1, and leak stops when 1/4th of total fuel is lost" while only losing less than 1 fps, then I'll be very happy of the improvement over "fuel fuel load goes away from right wing hole" that we've had for decades.

 

From art/research department I see nice improvements in my flying experience, like moving cockpit controls (flaps, gear, radiators, lights, mixture, pitch) that allow me to fly without HUD. But if, let's say lights control didn't work on a Ki43 because research didn't find where it was, I wouldn't mind using the HUD when flying this particular plane, instead of "we can't fly pacific because we lack docs". The maps look much better with curved roads, the recently added clouds look really believable. But things like super accurate start procedure that I cannot interact with and dev team seems very proud of.... is simply lost on me. When I want to do a full start, I'll go DCS or MSFS. 46 start (modded with better sounds and smoke effects,I must admit) is still very much acceptable to me, and most newcomers I mentour, for a sim that had dozens of flyable aircraft. Same for the radiators, I don't mind using this many bindings, but one radiator binding for everything we had in 46 was enough for, again, a sim that has dozens of flyables. "more open=more cooling and more drag" is the end result anyway, whatever the controls and heat simulation running in the back. I'm happy to have it more accurate as long as I still have my olds sims features, not if I have to give up on some.

 

 

This is, simply put, quite sad... that I still need to fire a 20 years old game to fullfill my ww2 "big air battle" itch, and that Pacific is not even a hope in a new sim.

 

 

 

Make it believable, don't overengineer it.

 

[357th_KW]

29 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

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

 

 

This is a good question.  
 

I think there’s definitely room for FM improvements without turning the game into a study sim - ground handling, low speed/high AoA, and compressibility are all areas where we tend to see some really inconsistent behaviors between aircraft.  
 

AI is another common area of complaint - this is a two edged sword.  On the one hand, we want AI wingmen (and opponents) who will use some realistic tactics and communicate effectively.  But on the other hand we also want increased scale, whether that’s more flak, more AI aircraft in the sky, bigger bombers or aircraft carriers with dozens of gun positions.

 

Lastly, I think some improved weapons modeling would really add to the depth of the sim - right now you basically have generic bombs and rockets, and AP and HE shells, that just eat away at the hit point pools of ground targets.  And you have a bomb fuse timer, with one ideal setting to use in every scenario.  Adding more depth here would really improve the ground attack experience - different munition types with different advantages and disadvantages, a reason to use different bomb fusing in different scenarios, complex damage simulation for things like ships etc.  

 

These are all areas where realism and fidelity could be improved without turning into a study sim.

[Yogiflight]

7 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

Lastly, I think some improved weapons modeling would really add to the depth of the sim - right now you basically have generic bombs and rockets, and AP and HE shells, that just eat away at the hit point pools of ground targets.  And you have a bomb fuse timer, with one ideal setting to use in every scenario.  Adding more depth here would really improve the ground attack experience - different munition types with different advantages and disadvantages, a reason to use different bomb fusing in different scenarios, complex damage simulation for things like ships etc.  

 

These are all areas where realism and fidelity could be improved without turning into a study sim.

Animated safety switches for the bombs. Bomblet ammunition for the western front scenarios, they were widely used.

[Guest deleted@83466]

If they did do Korea, what would the KPAF, PLAF, and VVS fly that was competitive, other than the Mig-15?  I know there were a small number of LA-7’s and IL-10, but it’s my impression that the entire KPAF was wiped out within a month.  F-80s, Sea Furies, Twin Mustangs, Meteors, Corsairs, just kicking the living hell out of the invading air forces.  Lots of close air support and bombing things to be done by UN for SP, but definitely seems very imbalanced (or otherwise ahistorical) for MP.  A bit of night fighter action, meaning need radar simulations.  And B-29s with remotely directed turrets, etc.  so of course it’s more than MiGs v Sabre, but does it work out in terms of gameplay?  
 

I’ll be the first to admit my knowledge of the scope of Korean air combat is very lacking.

Edited January 3, 2023 by SeaSerpent
Meant remotely directed.

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The only losses do to no carriers is the Royal Navy's Sea Fury and Firefly.  A genuine pity.

They could even use them as land based if they realy have to have them, but i highly doubt Royal Navy stuff would be priority even if they are doing more then 10 airplanes at start.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

[dbuile]

4 hours ago, PB0_Roll said:

What I see is I can't escort B17s, and my PC has time dilation problems when I escort more than 6 B-25s, and if I jump over water I'm dead, and I cannot communicate with ground control , and with anyone if I'm not the flight lead., and I don't have proper radionavigation.

 

Make it believable, don't overengineer it.

 

I like what you're saying, and at least you're describing which features the game should spend dev resources and cpu cycles on over others.  I assume now is the time folks should get their GAMEPLAY suggestions in...

[Vishnu]

Reading these forums is a lot like reading Twitter……?

[AnPetrovich]

2 hours ago, PB0_Roll said:

 

Yes, and no.

 

As a user, I see very little improvements in flying experience in GB from 46 coming from Flight Model, and I wouldn't qualify 46 mustangs as "flying like bananas". GB has a much better taxi, true, and a slightly better flight controls response. Flaps also have been improved, 46 had only either 2 position flaps, or 4 positions, when GB has gradual positions when available to real aircraft. And.... that's about it. I'm pretty sure that under the hood, things are 10 times more accurate, I just don't see or don't use it. Engineers who built the code see it, but not me. What I see is I can't escort B17s, and my PC has time dilation problems when I escort more than 6 B-25s, and if I jump over water I'm dead, and I cannot communicate with ground control , and with anyone if I'm not the flight lead., and I don't have proper radionavigation. This I can see and my interactive movie gets bad ratings.

 

To illustrate it with fuel system, I don't need the whole distribution to be accurate, as long as it's believable. Planes usually have several tanks, and this is quite documented. Let's say if my right wing leaks and game decides that I lose 100% of my fuel through the right wing hole, I'm not happy but I already beared with it for decades,so I can live with it. If I have the fuel system running real time in the background deciding that I should lose 0.005lbs of fuel per mn, and not 0.007 because accuracy first, and stop leaking when my right wing tanks has lost 236lbs, and not 250 which would be an approximation, but for this I must accept to have no radionavigation nor comms with AI, and lose 5% of my framerate, then I'm not happy. If, as an approximation for all planes, it is decided that "big hole loses 0.5lbs per sec, small holes 0.1, and leak stops when 1/4th of total fuel is lost" while only losing less than 1 fps, then I'll be very happy of the improvement over "fuel fuel load goes away from right wing hole" that we've had for decades.

 

From art/research department I see nice improvements in my flying experience, like moving cockpit controls (flaps, gear, radiators, lights, mixture, pitch) that allow me to fly without HUD. But if, let's say lights control didn't work on a Ki43 because research didn't find where it was, I wouldn't mind using the HUD when flying this particular plane, instead of "we can't fly pacific because we lack docs". The maps look much better with curved roads, the recently added clouds look really believable. But things like super accurate start procedure that I cannot interact with and dev team seems very proud of.... is simply lost on me. When I want to do a full start, I'll go DCS or MSFS. 46 start (modded with better sounds and smoke effects,I must admit) is still very much acceptable to me, and most newcomers I mentour, for a sim that had dozens of flyable aircraft. Same for the radiators, I don't mind using this many bindings, but one radiator binding for everything we had in 46 was enough for, again, a sim that has dozens of flyables. "more open=more cooling and more drag" is the end result anyway, whatever the controls and heat simulation running in the back. I'm happy to have it more accurate as long as I still have my olds sims features, not if I have to give up on some.

 

 

This is, simply put, quite sad... that I still need to fire a 20 years old game to fullfill my ww2 "big air battle" itch, and that Pacific is not even a hope in a new sim.

 

 

 

Make it believable, don't overengineer it.

 

 

Well, as a real pilot I see and I feel a big difference between 46 and GB flight models, but I understand that many players could not recognize every nuance.

 

Improving technologies is not about accuracy only. There are many layers in the "realism" term. The basic principle that I'm following since AFM time is: just make things as right as you can in the given circumstances, and you will achieve as many benefits as it possible. Then the accuracy often appears itself, but there are other and more important goals there: believable behavior, variety, absence of artefacts, cinematic, and even speed up of development.

 

I absolutely agree that straggling about 0.005 gal/sec doesn't make sense. Although I saw a lot of debates about 5 mph difference of maximum speed (which is usually less than 2% error, not to mention there are no two the same "ideal" reference airplanes in the real world). But if you banking to the left and fuel goes to the right tank that is not what do you expect to see, right? "New technologies" are also about this "accuracy" as well.

 

Anyway, I agree with your general point. Simulators need to have much better balance between realism and gameplay. I hope 1CGS will manage to find it.

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by AnPetrovich

[von_Tom]

50 minutes ago, Vishnu said:

Reading these forums is a lot like reading Twitter……?

Indeed. 
 

I’m waiting for them to announce something like Khalkhin Gol so we can get the “I’m not buying it…” posts out of the way too. 
 

Fun times!

 

von Tom

[Lusekofte]

30 minutes ago, AnPetrovich said:

Anyway, I agree with your general point. Simulators need to have much better balance between realism and gameplay. I hope 1CGS will manage to find it

AMEN

[Avimimus]

5 hours ago, CountZero said:

exept your limited to fights in F-86 vs MiG-15, you dont have many differant options like in ww2 MP. Just look what mess is when you have 262 in map where props are doing DF, even small number of them ruls the fights of props, no one will be doing dfs in Yak-9P or La-11 vs F4U or F-51, when you have F-86s and MiG15s as options, and they were main fighters, not side dish like 262 is. So it boils down to boring one airplane type MP. And if you remove the jets, no one will be on server, so servers are incentivised to host best set. Also in MP no one is doing escorts ?

 

Well, one could just model the first stage of the war in 1950 (and leave the Mig-15 and the F-86 out game entirely)...? I'm sure that wouldn't go over that well with a lot of people though.

 

I think the broader issue is that people seem to gravitate to the 'best'/'fastest' aircraft in any given period - not realising how much fun one can have with the earlier aircraft (indeed, the air combat manoeuvring is often a lot better)...

 

I recall finally getting a fast enough internet connection to do multiplayer, only to discover that all of the remaining servers were 1944 (with the exception of a few Pacific ones).

 

 

  

2 hours ago, CountZero said:

They could even use them as land based if they realy have to have them, but i highly doubt Royal Navy stuff would be priority even if they are doing more then 10 airplanes at start.

 

The other trick is to do a 1948-1955 European scenario... that could help add variety (and balance) to a Korean era planeset.

 

Btw. The Suez Crisis is probably doable, as a lot of the aircraft were second-line and didn't yet benefit form the 1955-1960 revolution in avionics complexity and shift to relying on air-to-air missiles.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Ummm, what 48 to 55 scenario?

Are you talking a fantasy hot war in Europe?

 

That certainly wouldn't fly in today's

overheated political climate.

Edited January 3, 2023 by BlitzPig_EL

[LuftManu]

To be honest (and if Korea is really what's the next project is) you guys are just seeing it "as the next DLC", like it was just a copy paste with different aircraft. I see it as a showcase of all of the new tech, new experiences besides a new DLC / next theater.

 

From pilots that are able to swim, to droptanks, new or enhanced AI and a new and unexplored theater in recent sims to educate us in that area and many more things that we might see.

 

I think it's a good idea ?

Edited January 3, 2023 by LuftManu

[Bumfluff]

How could a Mig-15 vs Sabre fight not be exciting? 
 

And again I simply say, how could you not want fly this - In any scenario? 
 

It’s the sexiest thing that ever took to the air ever! Scientifically proven!  
 

 

 

But yeah, sure. Another variant of a 109 over some part of Italy or whatever.  Been there done that.

 

Dullsville!

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

7 hours ago, Vishnu said:

Reading these forums is a lot like reading Twitter……?

This thread is for speculation/debate with the devs periodically chiming in. It is mostly civil and I think productive...lots of good ideas in here by players, testers, modders, and devs themselves. @AnPetrovichhas been dead on in particular IMO.

 

If you don't like that, you're free to keep browsing other threads or leave the forum altogether...

 

1 hour ago, Bumfluff said:

How could a Mig-15 vs Sabre fight not be exciting? 
 

And again I simply say, how could you not want fly this - In any scenario? 
 

It’s the sexiest thing that ever took to the air ever! Scientifically proven!  
 

 

 

But yeah, sure. Another variant of a 109 over some part of Italy or whatever.  Been there done that.

 

Dullsville!

 

That thing is ugly to me, but I guess beauty is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Personally I'll stick to these guys ?:

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by drewm3i-VR

[Lusekofte]

?

?

[Bumfluff]

41 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

?

?

Old mate up top served in Korea! Best of both worlds.

 

[Bonnot]

8 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

It’s the sexiest thing that ever took to the air ever! Scientifically proven!  
 

 

Real PLANES * have Wings  AND  Propellers  -I scientifically approve  ?

 

*I mean Beautiful and Interesting, the rest is maths and tech......

Edited January 4, 2023 by Bonnot

[343KKT_Kintaro]

 

6 hours ago, Bumfluff said:

Best of both worlds.

 

 

"Worlds"? "Both"... "worlds"? My reading is that you refer to WWII and Korea, each as a simulated environment (a "world") in a given flight simulator (for example... mmmm... "Great Battles"?). Interesting to note that the words "the Great Battles world" appear three times in Han's DD 337. My first reading of Han's text assumed that "the Great Battles world" is content for one simulator that is radically different than the "new project" (thus incompatible). But now I don't know what the hell this difference between "the Great Battles world" and "new project" really is... Han and Loft know... but they won't tell... not for now...

 

 

2 minutes ago, Bonnot said:

Real PLANES  have Wings  AND  Propellers  -I scientifically approve  ?

 

 

An Airco DH.2 is a beauty, a Beechcraft 18 is a beauty, a Spitfire is a beauty, a B-17 is a beauty, an F-86 is a beauty, a MiG-21 is a beauty, An F-14 Tomcat is a beauty... so many aircraft of so many historical periods of aviation are beauties... whether they have propellers or not...

 

 

[Bonnot]

2 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

 

"Worlds"? "Both"... "worlds"? My reading is that you refer to WWII and Korea, each as a simulated environment (a "world") in a given flight simulator (for example... mmmm... "Great Battles"?). Interesting to note that the words "the Great Battles world" appear three times in Han's DD 337. My first reading of Han's text assumed that "the Great Battles world" is content for one simulator that is radically different than the "new project" (thus incompatible). But now I don't know what the hell this difference between "the Great Battles world" and "new project" really is... Han and Loft know... but they won't tell... not for now...

 

 

 

 

An Airco DH.2 is a beauty, a Beechcraft 18 is a beauty, a Spitfire is a beauty, a B-17 is a beauty, an F-86 is a beauty, a MiG-21 is a beauty, An F-14 Tomcat is a beauty... so many aircraft of so many historical periods of aviation are beauties... whether they have propellers or not...

 

 

 

It is sometime necessary -or just easier-  to fix limits like : lager vs bitter, blue eyes blondes vs brunettes, etc.....this doesn't prevent you to taste both and more - but in the end your choice is more or less determined : I prefer props planes and the 40's to what follows ?

[343KKT_Kintaro]

1 minute ago, Bonnot said:

I prefer props planes and the 40's to what follows ?

 

 

Me too, but I don't claim that after 1945 there is only ugliness. There are beautiful jets as well, from the 1940s to the present day. I'd be happy to fly virtual planes in air conflicts rarely represented in simulation, for example, the Spanish Civil War, the Polish and French campaigns, the pre-1941 years of the Sino-Japanese war (1937-1941)... or the Korean war, the Viet-Nam war, the Falklands war, the two wars in Iraq... I cannot understand why some simmers post on the forums as if some air conflicts should never be reeanacted by means of a combat flight sim only because of their preference of propellers or their prepference of jet engines (not you Bonnot, but some simmers act so).

 

 

[Jake]

12 minutes ago, Bonnot said:

I prefer props planes and the 40's to what follows ?

I agree with that. Even though I have some favourites among the Jets. It would be nice to bring the big battles to a meaningful end.

[sevenless]

18 hours ago, PB0_Roll said:

 

This is, simply put, quite sad... that I still need to fire a 20 years old game to fullfill my ww2 "big air battle" itch, and that Pacific is not even a hope in a new sim.

 

 

Yep. If they design a new sim they need to get it right from the ground up this time. Another pimped up WW1 engine wont do the trick for the next 10 years. Interesting times ahead.

[Bonnot]

9 minutes ago, Jake said:

I have some favourites among the Jets

Me too : surprisingly the Corea Grumman Cougar (Toko Ri famous), the Crusader, FA18 I played many hours.........

[US103_Baer]

31 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

An Airco DH.2 is a beauty..

 

 

 

No. Never. Not even to its mother. 

You're just being facetious at this point. ? 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

3 minutes ago, US103_Baer said:

No. Never. Not even to its mother.

 

 

You bast...! I AM its mother! Hahahahaha!!!!

 

 

3 minutes ago, US103_Baer said:

You're just being facetious at this point. ? 

 

 

Ok, you don't like it, but I'm not being facetious, it's a true beauty to me.

 

 

 

 

[Trooper117]

No one knows if the next project will be Korea or not... I'd enjoy Korea, I've made no secret of that.

Those against Korea, well, yes there are the vocal ones that want to state ''I won't buy it'' (throws toys out of the pram)... and I understand that.

Even if the next project happens to still be in WWII, I might not buy that if it doesn't interest me. It's all swings and roundabouts.

On the other hand, the Meteor has been asked for many times in the past, mainly because some users want to try their hand with an allied jet against the 262, yet somehow, this is more acceptable than Sabres v Migs...

I know the Meteor never faced a 262 historically, and they didn't see a great deal of WWII service, but there are no ''the sky is falling'' posts about that.

Anyway... it's the new year, lot's of things happening in the real world, and we don't know if anything we chat about in this forum will even come to pass, such is the unstable nature of things.

[AndyJWest]

The DH.2 is probably better described as well-proportioned than beautiful, in my opinion. Given the constraints of the basic layout, it could have easily looked a lot worse, but Geoffrey de Havilland made the best of it. I don't think he ever designed an ugly aircraft.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Such constraints made it beautiful (my views) but... well, end of the off topic

 

 

[CountZero]

59 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

No one knows if the next project will be Korea or not... I'd enjoy Korea, I've made no secret of that.

Those against Korea, well, yes there are the vocal ones that want to state ''I won't buy it'' (throws toys out of the pram)... and I understand that.

Even if the next project happens to still be in WWII, I might not buy that if it doesn't interest me. It's all swings and roundabouts.

On the other hand, the Meteor has been asked for many times in the past, mainly because some users want to try their hand with an allied jet against the 262, yet somehow, this is more acceptable than Sabres v Migs...

I know the Meteor never faced a 262 historically, and they didn't see a great deal of WWII service, but there are no ''the sky is falling'' posts about that.

Anyway... it's the new year, lot's of things happening in the real world, and we don't know if anything we chat about in this forum will even come to pass, such is the unstable nature of things.

Meteor would not be in MP, and if it would it would be 1 on mission that runs every next sunday... 262 is on in 1-2 maybe if any , not every mission in unlimited amounts...

What is differant in Korea, especialy in MiG Alley that would be only comercial place to do it, is MiG-15 vs F-86 is main dish, you cant do missions without them, you cant limit them as they are used in bigger numbers then props, especialy on N.Korea+China side... Its like doing BoB without Spitfre vs 109, you can try but no one will play on your server.

So its totaly differant.

Edited January 4, 2023 by CountZero

[Talisman]

US Sikorsky H-34 transport helicopters leapfrog behind enemy lines carrying troops, rocket launchers and supplies in Korea

Just the sort of new flying opportunities offered if IL-2 goes for Korea.

It is not all about Migs and Sabres by a long chalk.

Also, lots of new dynamic gameplay could be on offer that have not been provided by the IL-2 series yet.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited January 4, 2023 by 56RAF_Talisman

[Trooper117]

Yes, if you are talking helicopters for Korea, there are several to choose from...

[Talisman]

Lots of new opportunities with Korea like below:

 

 

[Irishratticus72]

2 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

You bast...! I AM its mother! Hahahahaha!!!!

 

 

 

 

Ok, you don't like it, but I'm not being facetious, it's a true beauty to me.

 

 

 

 

I used to love flying it in Knights Of The Sky, and ROF.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

2 minutes ago, Irishratticus72 said:

I used to love flying it in Knights Of The Sky, and ROF.

 

 

Not joking? You mean "Knights of the Sky"... the early 1990s game?

 

I flew it thousands of times in "Red Baron 3D" (as of 1998).

 

 

[Lusekofte]

Korea is the least likely to happen next. I do not mind Korea myself, compared to another eastern front scenario, I am all for it. 
That is if we talk chronologically, but to me follow a timeline would be stupid. Not much left. 
In my opinion, or rather guess. There will be no new DLC within this game engine. 
I guess improvements and additions to what we have is all we going to get. Until the new thing. It has been quiet too long. 
But this is a guess, when it comes to choppers, well I am more a chopper simmer than anything else. Flying even slower and less manoeuvre able crates in this game is to me unthinkable. I am also too picky even considering it. I do not fly choppers in msfs, because they are not worth my time. If they fly like drones, it get boring in a heartbeat. 
And no, I do not slam the door and yell I won’t buy it if they do. I said a year ago, I buy things that interest me. If next dlc is fighterbased gameplay. It can be the moon for my sake, I am out. They got to do better than target drones of today to get my attention