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

[CanadaOne]

Whatever it is, I just hope it has an in-game mission editor like other sims have had for, you know... decades. 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

  

4 minutes ago, Robli said:

The style of the announcement really gives the impression that this new project will not be compatible with current Battles. Their reluctance to confirm that it would be compatible with current game, after several inquiries, makes this impression even stronger.

 

I am somewhat surprised that they would move to a totally new project and it is not Pacific. They have said that they intend to move to Pacific after the next project and I agree with CountZero that it is somewhat silly to do a new battle with 109s, Yaks or Spits so that it would not be compatible with all the current existing content. If it was something completely new, like Pacific with carriers, Zeros, Wildcats and all the Pacific stuff, where compatibility with 109s and Yaks is quite irrelevant, then the jump to a new core would make more sense.

 

 

- Strong difficulty to model the interaction between an aircraft carrier and a plane

- Impossibility to make that ALL aircraft (I said ALL) are able to drop external tanks

- Air Marshal failed

- Other failed attempts to model other features can be found in the history of the Great Battles development

 

All of this made 1CGS decide that Great Battles is progressively replaced by a completely new game (incompatible with Great Battles). Failing at modelling carrier operations (so failing at fully going the Pacific), this is only one of the reasons these guys are now aiming to new horizons. AND THEY ARE RIGHT.

 

The devs always said they are proud of their "Great Battles" game.... well... the real thing is that they are proud of "Rise of Flight"... which, sadly, was a commercial flop back in 2009. So in 2012 they made a concession and accepted to adapt "Rise of Flight" into a WWII combat flight sim... which, obviously, ended up by presenting all the above mentioned issues. There's one video where Zhiltsof says that they who coded "Right of Flight" are tired of struggling with the Great Battles core engine difficulties and that they, because they are already in their fourties, want to create the ultimate master piece of their life. I'll look for this video, I won't be long before I find it back.

 

At any rate, Solomykin and Jason left after disagreements with Zhiltsov and Tuseev. Please reread the development diary we comment here: Han refers to that where he says "The new strategy  adopted in the middle of the year". Apparently, Solomykin and Williams didn't approve such a new strategy... and they quit, first Solomykin and then Williams, who is obviously attached to Great Battles and doesn't want it to be replaced. I'm not telling who are the good guys and who are the bad guys, I'm not chosing either side of the fence, I simply say that, finally, thank goodness, we are going to something new. To me (yes, to me, please feel free to disagree), it always had been a problem that at this modern standards level of complexity in terms of coded simulation... a WWI flight sim is converted into a WWII flight sim. It takes a blind fanboy not to admit that Great Battles reached its limits and that here's no more juice from the fruit. We are going to somehing new, a new basis, and these are the best news 1CGS ever brought to me. Andrey, Albert, Daniel,  Roman, Viktor... good luck with your new project!

 

 

[JG27_Steini]

1 hour ago, =gRiJ=Roman- said:

I just don't understand why it is taking so so so long to make the announcement of the next module.

At least set a date for the announcement.

 

If you announce a new project right after a release you have done it wrong. 

[CanadaOne]

31 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

  

 

 

- Strong difficulty to model the interaction between an aircraft carrier and a plane

- Impossibility to make that ALL aircraft (I said ALL) are able to drop external tanks

- Air Marshal failed

- Other failed attempts to model other features can be found in the history of the Great Battles development

 

All of this made 1CGS decide that Great Battles is progressively replaced by a completely new game (incompatible with Great Battles). Failing at modelling carrier operations (so failing at fully going the Pacific), this is only one of the reasons these guys are now aiming to new horizons. AND THEY ARE RIGHT.

 

The devs always said they are proud of their "Great Battles" game.... well... the real thing is that they are proud of "Rise of Flight"... which, sadly, was a commercial flop back in 2009. So in 2012 they made a concession and accepted to adapt "Rise of Flight" into a WWII combat flight sim... which, obviously, ended up by presenting all the above mentioned issues. There's one video where Zhiltsof says that they who coded "Right of Flight" are tired of struggling with the Great Battles core engine difficulties and that they, because they are already in their fourties, want to create the ultimate master piece of their life. I'll look for this video, I won't be long before I find it back.

 

At any rate, Solomykin and Jason left after disagreements with Zhiltsov and Tuseev. Please reread the development diary we comment here: Han refers to that where he says "The new strategy  adopted in the middle of the year". Apparently, Solomykin and Williams didn't approve such a new strategy... and they quit, first Solomykin and then Williams, who is obviously attached to Great Battles and doesn't want it to be replaced. I'm not telling who are the good guys and who are the bad guys, I'm not chosing either side of the fence, I simply say that, finally, thank goodness, we are going to something new. To me (yes, to me, please feel free to disagree), it always had been a problem that at this modern standards level of complexity in terms of coded simulation... a WWI flight sim is converted into a WWII flight sim. It takes a blind fanboy not to admit that Great Battles reached its limits and that here's no more juice from the fruit. We are going to somehing new, a new basis, and these are the best news 1CGS ever brought to me. Andrey, Albert, Daniel,  Roman, Viktor... good luck with your new project!

 

 

I don't think it's just technology, but that IL2-GB got locked into a mindset that wasn't progressing. It seemed to be a steady diet of "Please enjoy more of the same, in the same way." There was a stubborn, almost hostile, lack of imagination at the same time as a plea for support. It made no sense.

 

Hopefully we will see more creative thinking in the future.

[Lusekofte]

Well I asm still interested in this new thing, I am getting positive vibes on that

[JG4_Deciman]

5 hours ago, L3Pl4K said:

New Project, better Hardware utilization by use more CPU cores and Vulkan/DX12? Higher fidelity Aircraft flight models? Could be interesting if this are core goals.

For me it would be enough if the dServer would use not only 1 core...

My gaming PC runs fine (even if a 'higher class' pc and a 'higher class' graphics card could give me more details on the screen.

But 'hosting missions' (even when using a second PC having the same 'power' or only hosting from the gaming pc without playing)

is still a pain...

Whenever I implement too much AI (vehicles / AAA right now. NO planes and ships which would use much more resorces)

it results in a picture show and 'eratic behaviour messages' for all connected clients.

 

And that happens, when I use my server PC as a host

my playing PC as a client

and my local network ony

, too

 

So no Internet between the 2 computers, just a local network (100 mBits at least)

and both have at least 3.4 gHz and multiple cores...

 

Deci

 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Much was achieved in 2022, and 2023 looks very promising for the game.  Sounds to me like they are on the right track.   Happy to hear it.  And looking forward to the future releases.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

  

On 12/29/2022 at 2:48 PM, CanadaOne said:

 

I don't think it's just technology, but that IL2-GB got locked into a mindset that wasn't progressing. It seemed to be a steady diet of "Please enjoy more of the same, in the same way." There was a stubborn, almost hostile, lack of imagination at the same time as a plea for support. It made no sense.

 

[Post edited for the sake of accuracy]

 

I wouldn't say that, mainly because it sounds too much speculative to me.

 

An important member of 1CGS quit and that was one of the three reasons Williams quit on his turn (he explained the three reasons, simply reread the last Williams' interview at Stormbirds.blog). I don't think it's just technnology, as you said, but it is not neither because of Great Battles being locked into the mindset you described (this is my opinion only, I may be wrong). If you're right on that... then I'm wrong, no problem, but with the available information we have my feeling is different than yours.

 

 

On 12/29/2022 at 2:48 PM, CanadaOne said:

Hopefully we will see more creative thinking in the future.

 

 

I think the previous state of the team, which included Solomykin and aWilliams, was very creative. We'll see if whether or not time confirms what you say. At any rate, thank you for your comment, it's an interesting point of view.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by 343KKT_Kintaro

[BMA_FlyingShark]

Who is Solomykin?

 

Have a nice day.

 

[Corralandy120000]

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure the new project will be cool. But I think it's way too soon to put GB aside or let it play only the second fiddle... GB could have been 'ultimate' WWII sim in the fassion od good old 1946. There were just few things in sp left to be finished (radio orders, drop tanks, some AI aspects like ai breaking off and heading home and nôt following player through the whole map, late war eastern front scenarios and planes) which I think is nothing too complicated. I bought everything you released hoping you will listen to the comunity and fix this things. But the last DD ensures me this is never gonna happen... I can't say I don't feel dissapointed. I do. I waited 10 years for some improovments. I really don't want to wait another 10-15 years till there will be some new project (I still don't know if it will be interesting enough for me to buy) without some staring issues... I'm sorry, but right now I feel this way. 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

On 12/29/2022 at 3:34 PM, FlyingShark said:

Who is Solomykin?

 

Have a nice day.

 

 

 

Andrey Solomykin (AnPetrovich in these forums) was one of the original coders of "Knights of the Sky" during the period 2004-2009. Then the title "Knights of the Sky" was abandoned and the game was  released in 2009 under the title "Rise of Flight". That latter was a commercial flop and "Rise of Flight" was sold to the distributor of the game, Jason WIlliams... who in 2012 gave a new chance to Solomykin and his colleagues with the port of "Rise of Flight" into "IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad" and subsequent modules which became the Great Battles series we know now. Andrey Solomykin became the lead developer engineer of the series. He quit 1CGS during the Summer of 2022, all along with Jason Williams, who followed his decision of quiting.

Edited December 30, 2022 by 343KKT_Kintaro
game a new chance to --> gave a new chance to

[BMA_FlyingShark]

4 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Andrey Solomykin (AnPetrovich in these forums)

Thank you for clarrification, I always thought AnPetrovich was his real name.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[ZachariasX]

An interesting POV, @343KKT_Kintaro. To me, it seems clear that the current (some drastic) limitations of the GB sim engine is apparent to anyone. I am truly curious about how they decide to move forward.

 

I just hope that this time, they provide a decent editor.

[Alexmarine]

Of course it would have been nice to have new features and contents added to the already existing ecosystem but, if moving to a new project will mean that we will finally go beyond the current engine limitations, I'll be happy to embrace it. Just hope that the new project will not immediately go again at current available contents (so hopefully no NWE/Russia but PTO or even Korea at first)

[CountZero]

17 minutes ago, Corralandy120000 said:

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure the new project will be cool. But I think it's way too soon to put GB aside or let it play only the second fiddle... GB could have been 'ultimate' WWII sim in the fassion od good old 1946. There were just few things in sp left to be finished (radio orders, drop tanks, some AI aspects like ai breaking off and heading home and nôt following player through the whole map, late war eastern front scenarios and planes) which I think is nothing too complicated. I bought everything you released hoping you will listen to the comunity and fix this things. But the last DD ensures me this is never gonna happen... I can't say I don't feel dissapointed. I do. I waited 10 years for some improovments. I really don't want to wait another 10-15 years till there will be some new project (I still don't know if it will be interesting enough for me to buy) without some staring issues... I'm sorry, but right now I feel this way. 

But better graphics and more accurate FM ?

10 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

An interesting POV, @343KKT_Kintaro. To me, it seems clear that the current (some drastic) limitations of the GB sim engine is apparent to anyone. I am truly curious about how they decide to move forward.

 

I just hope that this time, they provide a decent editor.

ok so do you expect this new project will have 120+ MP servers, planty of moving units, 100s of AI that you can control, campaigns galor, Drop tanks, B-17s, easy to use mission builder... i highly doubt it.

Edited December 29, 2022 by CountZero

[343KKT_Kintaro]

   

7 minutes ago, Corralandy120000 said:

which I think is nothing too complicated

 

 

Mega hyper LoL. On this video Wardog relays one question from the community (the drop tanks thing) and, then, Loft (Albert Zhiltsov, the boss) explains they spent one entire year trying to model this for all the planes in the game... and that they failed. Sure you gave them a few hundreds of dollars. But after and entire year trying to satisfy your request, they lost thousands of dollars because of a problem now they know they won't solve. So please, let's proceede, all of us, to ask realistic requests to the devs.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Corralandy120000 said:

I really don't want to wait another 10-15 years till there will be some new project

 

 

They won't spend 10 years developping a core engine. It takes 3, 4 or 5 years to code a serious modern-standards combat flight sim for the PC platform. Great Battles main core took five years to develop from 2004 to 2009 ("Rise of Flight") 2012-2014 was for the full porting into "Battle of Stalingrad".

 

The team started last year coding their new game. By 2025 or 2026 it should be ready, maybe even before, if we are lucky. In the meanwhile there will be plenty of servers to fill with the current Great Battles game (plus solo campaigns). I see no problem with that.

 

 

10 minutes ago, CountZero said:

But better graphics and more accurate FM ?

ok so do you expect this new project will have 120+ MP servers, planty of moving units, 100s of AI that you can control, campaigns galor, Drop tanks, B-17s, easy to use mission builder... i highly doubt it.

 

 

What's wrong with playing the sims we have now and being patient concerning future simulators? We don't know how they will be...

 

 

[migmadmarine]

Can't say much detail without perhaps saying too much that ain't public, but my impression regarding droptanks is that it wasn't particularly the background simulation of how droptanks and fuel systems function that was the problem with them, but the player interfacing with that. While I don't generally find checklists and switch flipping super appealing, fuel system management is the kinda thing click pits are quite useful for, as otherwise it is a lot of key bindings to memorize and difficult to help the payer keep track of what they are controlling or interacting with without UI elements on screen. 

[Avimimus]

From the wording in the update it does seem to imply that the next project is substantially different from 'content for the Great Battles world'... 

 

I'd personally like to see a couple more modules (and a few flying Circus collector planes) before this engine is dropped. Hopefully they'll allow 3rd parties to keep it going for the next few years.

 

Aside from a few missing aircraft for existing modules (I-153?) there are also some issues with core features (e.g. lack of a simple waterline hit/flooding model for ships rendering the 57mm Molins and the RP-3 25lb rocket essentially useless - at least to the extent that it is always better to attack ships with HE).

 

  

2 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

Whatever it is, I just hope it has an in-game mission editor like other sims have had for, you know... decades. 

 

Yes, I agree - an easier to use in-game mission editor. Also improved AI (something with multiple AI modules for different aircraft or combat situations - like the direction DCS is going).

[sevenless]

Great achievements. Compare that to the original release of Battle of Stalingrad and you realize how much has been done since then. Happy new year and godspeed for a prosperous future!

[Avimimus]

48 minutes ago, Corralandy120000 said:

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure the new project will be cool. But I think it's way too soon to put GB aside or let it play only the second fiddle... GB could have been 'ultimate' WWII sim in the fassion od good old 1946. There were just few things in sp left to be finished (radio orders, drop tanks, some AI aspects like ai breaking off and heading home and nôt following player through the whole map, late war eastern front scenarios and planes) which I think is nothing too complicated.

 

I agree - they were/are very close to producing something which would have that overall sense of completeness. I liked the idea of Italy 1944 (the Mediterranean is fascinating but overlooked) and "1945 East"... I'd really like to try flying some of the existing aircraft against those planesets. It'll be pretty frustrating to have a new product that can't use any of the existing content (and likely will also take years to get the same features). I've lived through this with Rise of Flight/Flying Circus...

[Ribbon]

Clickbait DD!

A lot of read that says/reveals nothing new, ok if you want to praise yourself for what you already did but don't put "future" in title and reveal basically nothing.

That is some lausy PR

 

[-TBC-AeroAce]

I think we all respect what has been achieved by this dev team. The level of detail of aircraft, the aerodynamics and performance, the DM and much more.

 

The Elephant in the room has always been the engine, and that was kinda clear since 2013

Edited December 29, 2022 by -TBC-AeroAce

[Avimimus]

 

 

29 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

  What's wrong with playing the sims we have now and being patient concerning future simulators? We don't know how they will be...

 

Honestly? The AI is pretty broken sometimes. I'd always hoped that they'd hire an extra AI programmer or two and do a major overhaul as part of one of the next two or three modules... now I'm a little afraid that one of the last updates for Great Battles will attempt to fix the AI for the WWII aircraft and permanently break it for the WWI aircraft etc.

[CountZero]

7 minutes ago, migmadmarine said:

Can't say much detail without perhaps saying too much that ain't public, but my impression regarding droptanks is that it wasn't particularly the background simulation of how droptanks and fuel systems function that was the problem with them, but the player interfacing with that. While I don't generally find checklists and switch flipping super appealing, fuel system management is the kinda thing click pits are quite useful for, as otherwise it is a lot of key bindings to memorize and difficult to help the payer keep track of what they are controlling or interacting with without UI elements on screen. 

and they said it would take to mutch time to add it to all airplanes, its not that game is limited.

 

so i should now expect that guy whos idea of new for sim was unlocks, wil give us all this stff that was time consuming to add i this game from start in new game, lol they have hard hill to climb on. Guy who no longer stears the ship made most of good things added is out, why should i belive they are not going back to focus on some kid stuff like unlocks. 

[Corralandy120000]

13 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

 

 

Honestly? The AI is pretty broken sometimes. I'd always hoped that they'd hire an extra AI programmer or two and do a major overhaul as part of one of the next two or three modules... now I'm a little afraid that one of the last updates for Great Battles will attempt to fix the AI for the WWII aircraft and permanently break it for the WWI aircraft etc.

Agree. As I see it, the lack of AI programmers was/is always the problem. They said something about multiplying the crew and mentioned FM programmers, but I think they could hire a bunch od AI dedicated guys.

11 minutes ago, CountZero said:

and they said it would take to mutch time to add it to all airplanes, its not that game is limited.

I think so too. There is no such an issue that can't be solved. It just takes time.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Corralandy120000

[343KKT_Kintaro]

 

27 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

I've lived through this with Rise of Flight/Flying Circus...

 

 

Theoretical mode ON

 

Flying Circus was a mistake. Jason Williams should have bargained with 1C that "BoS"/"Great Battles" is THE WWII Flight sim and that "Rise of Flight" stays THE WWi flight sim... so that it continues its development... rather than stopping the "Rise of Flight" development in 2013 (core engine abandoned), 2014 (Ilya Murometz, the last aircraft modelled for "Rise of Flight") and 2015 (Channel map, the last content created for "Rise of Flight").

 

Theoretical mode OFF

 

 

24 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Honestly? The AI is pretty broken sometimes. I'd always hoped that they'd hire an extra AI programmer or two and do a major overhaul as part of one of the next two or three modules... now I'm a little afraid that one of the last updates for Great Battles will attempt to fix the AI for the WWII aircraft and permanently break it for the WWI aircraft etc.

 

 

We'll see... but I understand how you feel...

 

 

22 minutes ago, CountZero said:

and they said it would take to mutch time to add it to all airplanes, its not that game is limited

 

 

NO. On November the 9th, they said they worked for one entire unsuccessful year, they said they exceeded the allowed ressources (MONEY) for that and that it has been decided, because of such a problem but also because of other problems, to start a new core engine. The devs are honest when giving responses, please try to retain what they really say.

 

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by 343KKT_Kintaro
Mediterranean map --> Channel map

[Koziolek]

18 minutes ago, =VARP=Ribbon said:

Clickbait DD!

A lot of read that says/reveals nothing new, ok if you want to praise yourself for what you already did but don't put "future" in title and reveal basically nothing.

That is some lausy PR

 

I don't know, for me it is much clearer than the last stream. The only thing we don't know now is what the next TO will be

Edited December 29, 2022 by Koziolek

[Talisman]

3 hours ago, Cunctator said:

 

Korea ticks all the boxes. A New theatre, a new war, can be marketed to Russian, Chinese and Western audiences. Early jets and high end prop planes, well documented Western and Russian aircraft to model and a lot of the required US assets can be reused for a later Pacific module.

 

Plus helicopters!  

 

Adding a new and interesting dynamic to the flight simulation experience.  

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman  

[Avimimus]

18 minutes ago, Corralandy120000 said:

Agree. As I see it, the lack of AI programmers was/is always the problem. They said something about multiplying the crew and mentioned FM programmers, but I think they could hire a bunch od AI dedicated guys.

 

Yeah, that is one thing I've repeatedly noticed though - among the mentions of new hires there is no mention of AI - and it is the weakest area (in flight sims generally, but also relative to DCS - currently they have AI which selects manoeuvres based on what it is flying and what it is flying against - more importantly, I think, they have an AI system with realistic fields of view with vision which pans back and forth... having something like that would significantly improve aircombat and especially tank combat).

 

  

3 minutes ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

Plus helicopters!  

 

Adding a new and interesting dynamic to the flight simulation experience.  

 

Honestly, I'm so impressed by the Mi-24 Hind module for DCS... I'd probably let them have the helicopter genre... focus on WWII, WWI, maybe early jet fighters (up to 1955) and even torpedo boats... prior to building helicopters. It isn't that I don't think they could do an exceptional job of it - I just think it is best to focus resources where DCS isn't... that way we get the best of both worlds.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Will anything really be that bad if say the next theater is Korea, for example?

 

I don't think so.

 

The "Online Aces" will still be jousting with each other trying to pad their stats and keep their streak intact (not all of course, the real masters do it for the pure beauty of the hunt), meanwhile folks like me will still be down low, moving mud, blowing stuff up and working towards winning the war on the ground.

 

Sure the maps will be different, and the plane types will be somewhat different, but we will play it out like we always have.  Only with better graphics, better systems modeling, and IMHO, better over all game play.  I think it would be great, look at what we have in a theoretical Korean theater:  High altitude (comparatively)  jet on jet combat that will test the skills of even the best virtual pilots, late era "super props" that are the obvious extension of what many in this community seem to like, the late WW2 high performance single seat birds that continue to be clamored for in the Great Battles series.

 

If it is Korea I see nothing but a winning situation for us.  The player base will still be able to do what they like, and the dev team will use it to gain experience with, and further develop whatever the new engine is, and this will lead us to the great prize...

 

The Pacific.

[CountZero]

24 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

 

Theoretical mode ON

 

Flying Circus was a mistake. Jason Williams should have bargained with 1C that "BoS"/"Great Battles" is THE WWII Flight sim and that "Rise of Flight" stays THE WWi flight sim... so that it continues its development... rather than stopping the "Rise of Flight" development in 2013 (core engine abandoned), 2014 (Ilya Murometz, the last aircraft modelled for "Rise of Flight") and 2015 (Channel map, the last content created for "Rise of Flight").

 

Theoretical mode OFF

 

 

 

 

We'll see... but I understand how you feel...

 

 

 

 

NO. On November the 9th, they said they worked for one entire unsuccessful year, they said they exceeded the allowed ressources (MONEY) for that and that it has been decided, because of such a problem but also because of other problems, to start a new core engine. The devs are honest when giving responses, please try to retain what they really say.

 

 

https://youtu.be/IDUwADOgLVk?t=2504

From 41:44s to 45:27, its short answer

They clearly say its not game limitation, so we can have DT in this game, no game limitation preventing them adding DTs

 

[Talisman]

9 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

Honestly, I'm so impressed by the Mi-24 Hind module for DCS... I'd probably let them have the helicopter genre... focus on WWII, WWI, maybe early jet fighters (up to 1955) and even torpedo boats... prior to building helicopters. It isn't that I don't think they could do an exceptional job of it - I just think it is best to focus resources where DCS isn't... that way we get the best of both worlds.

 

I get your point, but the way I see it early helicopters is not were DCS is as they seem to be about the more modern stuff.

I never thought helicopters would ever interest me, but then I found the DCS Huey and a whole new world opened up for me on the flight sim front.

Also, I think IL-2 need to keep thinking about fresh content and being competitive. 

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited December 29, 2022 by 56RAF_Talisman

[CountZero]

3 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Will anything really be that bad if say the next theater is Korea, for example?

 

I don't think so.

 

The "Online Aces" will still be jousting with each other trying to pad their stats and keep their streak intact (not all of course, the real masters do it for the pure beauty of the hunt), meanwhile folks like me will still be down low, moving mud, blowing stuff up and working towards winning the war on the ground.

 

Sure the maps will be different, and the plane types will be somewhat different, but we will play it out like we always have.  Only with better graphics, better systems modeling, and IMHO, better over all game play.  I think it would be great, look at what we have in a theoretical Korean theater:  High altitude (comparatively)  jet on jet combat that will test the skills of even the best virtual pilots, late era "super props" that are the obvious extension of what many in this community seem to like, the late WW2 high performance single seat birds that continue to be clamored for in the Great Battles series.

 

If it is Korea I see nothing but a winning situation for us.  The player base will still be able to do what they like, and the dev team will use it to gain experience with, and further develop whatever the new engine is, and this will lead us to the great prize...

 

The Pacific.

And what if this new Korea game dosent have expected player numbers because players dont buy story of never existing always next DLC PTO, and they are not into Korea and stay playing GB. How long will it take for GB not having updates or care from Devs that main thing is this Korea game... 

[Corralandy120000]

4 minutes ago, CountZero said:

And what if this new Korea game dosent have expected player numbers because players dont buy story of never existing always next DLC PTO, and they are not into Korea and stay playing GB. How long will it take for GB not having updates or care from Devs that main thing is this Korea game... 

That's what I'm affraid of. I'm not primarly interested in Korea game myself... But I have not decided yet wheter I will get it or not (if the next project really is Korea).

Edited December 29, 2022 by Corralandy120000

[BlitzPig_EL]

Do you ever post anything positive CountZero?   Ever?

 

Honestly man, enough with the negative waves already.

[CountZero]

6 minutes ago, Corralandy120000 said:

That's what I'm affraid of. I'm not primarly interested in Korea game myself... But I have not decided yet wheter I will get it or not (if the next project really is Korea).

Just look at this DT/fuel system example, its posible to do it in this game, but you can clearly see that for them its better to wait and do it in new project, thats the type of thing i expect to be happening more, why add new thing to GB when you can dangle it as carrot for ppl to buy your next new game, no incentive any more to add stuf to GB when you can add them first in next new game to entice players to switch... what al of suden its problem to add DT to 109s or Spitfiers only... or its better to say our new project will have things you wont in GB, buy that...

[343KKT_Kintaro]

  

8 minutes ago, CountZero said:

https://youtu.be/IDUwADOgLVk?t=2504

From 41:44s to 45:27, its short answer

They clearly say its not game limitation, so we can have DT in this game, no game limitation preventing them adding DTs

 

 

 

Albert Zhiltsov:

 

Dear friends, you need to understand that IL-2 is not just a game, yes?, this is for us more a scientific, yes?, approach, and a scientific project, because... then you are working as a modern programmer, you allways can google some math. If you just don't remember how to do a quaternion, or how to do any mathematical ideas, yeah?, or any... if you wanna look how this task will be done by other people, yes?, you just can google it. Then at doing IL-2, the only information about "how to do this?" you can only find at office, yes?, that's all. So sometimes we wanna learn something, learn how to do things and we don't know how to do things, we need to start doing this thing, this is how we do it in the old times, you start doing something and understand that everything is wrong. So this is the situation, like last years, we understand we wanna do this and we open big science project: "how to doing this?" Because we don't underst... even understand how to doing this. We spanned more than a year in attempts doing this and we fail. This is the honest answer: we fail, we cannot do this. We don't know how to do this. Yes, we just need to try again, and again, and again... but as I said, one year we need to find answer of all what we are doing wrong. This is reality when you are doing such a complex things. Daniel? Do you have any comment?

 

Daniel Tuseev:

 

Euhh... mm... what can I say? Euhhh... so... (he laughs)... euhh... unfortunately, as you know, euh... our [two or three incomprehensible words] has left our team, it was [Andrey?] Petrovich, and, actually, before he have, he is really good guy, and he put all of his efforts to complete this task before he was exit and he was very close to this objective but... euhh.. mm... he not have completed it for 100% and the trouble is that actually became complete this after him but, actually, completing the technology doesn't mean that it's automatically spreading for all airplanes in our game because 85% or more airplanes at the moment and you need to adjust, to configure the fuel system for all of them and this is a big bunch of work and... euh... actually this work was planned and was included... euh... in the schedule of end of work. But unfortunately this part of work was not completed at all, and euh.. so, now we have no ressources to finish this task for Great Battles. But this work [vish?] end to have done, this work will not fall to black hole "Event Horizon", right? [Zhiltsof se met à sourire, je crois que Tuseev fait un clin d'oeil au film de science fiction "Event Horizon"], actually we plan to finish this work and... euh... it will be use it for our next project and our next project will have fuel systems, it will have fuel tanks, drop tanks, it will have [?] gorgeous...

 

Albert Zhiltsov:

 

Yes, we have experience, and we have a mathematical system, so now it's almost resolved [But he refers to the next project, not to Great Battles.]

 

-  - End of transcripted statements from the video -  -

 

They don't say there's no limitation of the game, they say the opposite. The first who answers is the new boss, Zhiltsov. His whole speech intends to clarify the situation about their struggle against the core engine dealing with the drop tanks... and that enough is enough. Tuseev then explains that there won't be drop tanks in this game, there will be drop tanks in their next game. They cannot keep searching a solution ofr this game at the cost of the money and the time of their company.

 

 

 

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, CountZero said:

ok so do you expect this new project will have 120+ MP servers, planty of moving units, 100s of AI that you can control, campaigns galor, Drop tanks, B-17s, easy to use mission builder... i highly doubt it.

No. I don‘t really expect much. But a (casually) usable editor would be nice, that is all I said. I would also appreciate if the clock would not go „un-Swiss“ on me in denser missions. The world not being a flat napkin, but rather a world as we have it, that would be suitable as well. 120+ ppl on MP is certainly no downer. (Although I just see myself lone wolfing against 119 „squadmates“… but that is ok.)

 

As mentioned by others above, it may well take some time to make something new, even when using some of the usable parts of the sim core. In that time, I would not be surprised if we were offered higher profit items like collector planes etc., not just for GB series, but for FC and TC as well.

 

But as far as hard expectations go, I just expect the log in server to remain up.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

2 minutes ago, CountZero said:

what al of suden its problem to add DT to 109s or Spitfiers only... or its better to say our new project will have things you wont in GB, buy that...

 

 

The always said they make "hardcore" simulation, they refuse to release a game that is able ot drop tanks for some planes and not to drop them for other planes. The 109 fans would be complaining if their aircraft doesnt present such a capacity and Spitfire present it.

[CountZero]

Just now, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

The always said they make "hardcore" simulation, they refuse to release a game that is able ot drop tanks for some planes and not to drop them for other planes. The 109 fans would be complaining if their aircraft doesnt present such a capacity and Spitfire present it.

You add them for 109s and Spitfires as thouse are nly airplanes that suffer in SP with lack of fuel, not just to 109s or just to Spitfires.

Or its something they need to save for new game , and not waist it by adding it to old game...