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

[Blitzen]

[343KKT_Kintaro]

9 minutes ago, CountZero said:

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... 

 

 

Mine, with Spits and 109s, was an invented example, invented for the sake of the argument only. Zhiltsov and his guys know what planes present problems when they try they drop their tanks and what planes do not present them. Adding WWII features to a WWI simulator that started to be coded by 2003 (Sikorsky Project) and 2004 (Knights of the Sky), this must be a nightmare for them. Please CountZero, pay attention to the real world, not only to your desires.

 

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by 343KKT_Kintaro
grammar fix

[migmadmarine]

I guess I just hope that some form of FC development continues for a number of years at least, really would suck to have ROF get dropped due to an engine change, only to not finish porting it to the current engine before dropping it again because of a new engine. 

[=621=Samikatz]

It's possible the message was handled by different people doing the translation, but the description of the video does explicitly say "next DLC"

 

 

I still suspect a "Great Battles 2.0" adapting the existing content is due, but I could be wrong

[DragonDaddy]

4 hours ago, simfan2015 said:

The are mentioning a new project.... could well be a first person shooter MMO !?

?

Or something profitable like War Thunder. Could be called Battle Lightning /s! 

[Avimimus]

43 minutes ago, CountZero said:

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... 

 

I agree it would be good to see them for the Spitfire and Bf-109 because of their low range. I'd also suggest the Fw-190 as a lot of the ground attack variants were designed to operate with drop tanks.

 

I can't help but wonder if people would prefer to have a simple system for Il-2 Great Battles rather than no droptanks at all?

[BornToBattle]

Hmmm…new base technologies for the next new large scale project…hmmmm…

 

Oh! And FC2 is getting ready to be wrapped up! ????

Edited December 29, 2022 by BornToBattle

[sevenless]

19 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

I can't help but wonder if people would prefer to have a simple system for Il-2 Great Battles rather than no droptanks at all?

 

I am certainly one of those, because gameplay is more important to me than the underlying engineering. And yes flying missions in Spitfires across the channel is one of those situations where drop tanks come in handy. If they find an easy way which gives the player the "impression" to fly with a drop tank and the say additional 300 litres of fuel and gives me as the gamer the option to drop this tank whenever I see fit, then I am a happy camper.

 

Simple solution at start of mission:

 

At ingress draw fuel from drop tank first:

 

300 litres in drop tank

1000 litres in internal tanks

 

if drop tank empty or dropped by button (ABC) then draw fuel from internal tanks (as it is already the case right now).

 

remaining 1000 litres fuel in internal tanks (for rest of mission)

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by sevenless

[343KKT_Kintaro]

14 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

I agree it would be good to see them for the Spitfire and Bf-109 because of their low range. I'd also suggest the Fw-190 as a lot of the ground attack variants were designed to operate with drop tanks.

 

I can't help but wonder if people would prefer to have a simple system for Il-2 Great Battles rather than no droptanks at all?

 

 

No drop tanks at all seems to be the decision that has been made by 1CGS. For the devs it's not "a simple system or not drop tanks at all". For them it's "drop tanks for every plane in the game with such a capacity in the 1940s or not drop tanks at all... we only make hardcore simulators... so it will be no drop tanks at all".

 

Am I the only person here who simply understood their last videos and communications? The devs might change their mind in the future but at the moment they've said what they've said.

 

 

[CanadaOne]

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

 

Yes, I agree - an easier to use in-game mission editor.

 

 

Yep, and @LukeFF agrees. When I posted about needing an in-game mission editor, he posted a laughing emoji expressing how humorous he thinks it is is that IL2 still doesn't have one after all these years and that you have to turn the sim off in order to create a mission.

 

So me and you and LukeFF all agree:  we need that in-game mission editor.

 

 

.

Edited December 29, 2022 by CanadaOne

[ScotsmanFlyingscotsman]

Big THANK YOU to the team members, wishing you all a Happy New Year, and enjoying the changes that have been made, and improvements you intend to make, I'd like to see a B-17 so we can use the Me410 etc  to the full, A flyable one....event better. We all have a wish at the start of a New Year ?

[Blutaar]

I dont buy it, if the AI is not part of the core of the development like FMs, DMs, Weather etc.

 

Im still excited to hear more about the "New Project".

[AEthelraedUnraed]

26 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Am I the only person here who simply understood their last videos and communications?

You're certainly the only person who *thinks* he's understood their comms....

[Gambit21]

5 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. 

I have hundreds (and hundreds) of hours of “power use” in both editors and I actually prefer the IL2 editor for several reasons. It took that long to learn some hard lessons.

 

They just need to add a few more tools (edit: and make it stable) and we’re golden.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by Gambit21

[CanadaOne]

1 minute ago, Gambit21 said:

I have hundreds (and hundreds) of hours of “power use” in both editors and I actually prefer the IL2 editor for several reasons. It took that long to learn some hard lessons.

 

They just need to add a few more tools and we’re golden.

 

Yes, but you're an expert. ? Your A-20 campaign is the only campaign I've ever bought for any plane in any flightsim.

 

For the rest of us, the great unwashed masses, the song remains the same; it is ridiculous that we're years into the sim and the "mission editor", which Jason described in an interview as a "developers tool", sits outside the game. That in itself is prehistoric. But it's also unnecessarily complex for fun casual use. 

 

Hopefully, under new management, this oversight will be corrected.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

28 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

You're certainly the only person who *thinks* he's understood their comms....

 

 

The main substance of this rhetorical question of mine is that, regarding drop tanks in the Great Battles series, we cumulated enough interventions of the devs themselves in the last few months to know that they won't implement them in the game as a whole because they don't want some planes can use the drop tanks feature while others cannot. It was a rhetorical question, obviously there are some other forum members here in this thread who are pretty convinced of what they say, whether or not their belief joins mine. Have a nice day AEthel.

 

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by 343KKT_Kintaro
of what they sa --> of what they say

[ericshark]

hello,good job for 2022!

now for 2023 grande battaille release?

[CanadaOne]

4 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

  

 

 

I wouldn't say that, mainly because it sounds too much speculative to me. Please think that Williams quit 1CGS, not the USA. Solomykin not only quit 1CGS... he left Russia as well, and his last comments on the forums suggest his departure is also due to political reasons.

 

 

The case for it not being speculative is the repetitious and always-in-the-box nature of GB. Regardless of "appropriate" maps or campaigns being available, customers would stand in line to pre-order a Hellcat or a Corsair, for example. But when the idea of those planes is brought up, the idea is shot down, sometimes with no small amount of hostility. 

 

So we don't get new interesting planes, we get an 8th or 9th or 10th version of a plane we've had for years. And at the same time Jason was asking us to support the game and maybe gift planes to others as a means of support. How about as a means of support for the sim.... make new interesting planes that people will line up to buy? That seems simple enough. 

 

IL2 is supposed to be the best WWII flightsim. So why do we have to spend our money elsewhere to get a Corsair, a plane IL2 could have offered years ago? And make no mistake, people will eagerly throw their money at the other sim as soon as the pre-order goes up. Why isn't IL2 doing things like this? Again, I think it's a stubborn refusal to be creative. Hopefully new management will fix this.

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

At any rate, thank you for your comment, it's an interesting point of view.

 

 

Same to you, sir.

[migmadmarine]

14 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

 

The case for it not being speculative is the repetitious and always-in-the-box nature of GB. Regardless of "appropriate" maps or campaigns being available, customers would stand in line to pre-order a Hellcat or a Corsair, for example. But when the idea of those planes is brought up, the idea is shot down, sometimes with no small amount of hostility. 

 

So we don't get new interesting planes, we get an 8th or 9th or 10th version of a plane we've had for years. And at the same time Jason was asking us to support the game and maybe gift planes to others as a means of support. How about as a means of support for the sim.... make new interesting planes that people will line up to buy? That seems simple enough. 

 

IL2 is supposed to be the best WWII flightsim. So why do we have to spend our money elsewhere to get a Corsair, a plane IL2 could have offered years ago? And make no mistake, people will eagerly throw their money at the other sim as soon as the pre-order goes up. Why isn't IL2 doing things like this? Again, I think it's a stubborn refusal to be creative. Hopefully new management will fix this.

Honestly, one of the things I like best about BOS is the "in the box nature" of it. I look over at the other side of the fence and wonder why on earth I would want to fly something like the I-16 in DCS when it is entirely devoid of context.

[Avimimus]

59 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

You're certainly the only person who *thinks* he's understood their comms....

 

I can't help but agree with this to some extent @343KKT_Kintaro I think a lot of your analysis is interesting, and some of it may be spot-on... but there is often a lot more ambiguity (at least based on how a lot of the rest of us interpret it). I still value you attempts to make sense though!

 

  

4 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

  I wouldn't say that, mainly because it sounds too much speculative to me. Please think that Williams quit 1CGS, not the USA. Solomykin not only quit 1CGS... he left Russia as well, and his last comments on the forums suggest his departure is also due to political reasons.

 

I remember when September 11th happened, Ilya Sevchenko (Luthier) nearly left the Il-2 1946 franchise and Austin Meyer dropped the movement of X-Plane towards producing a combat flight simulator... sometimes things happen which remind us of the reality of violence and people want breaks. I think it is also worth noting that he moved to work with a company which desperately needs good flight-model programmers and also has a lot of funding to pay for them (there was probably a significant pay raise) - so that is probably a motivation as well. I also know that I became much more interested in MSFS after hearing about his move. 

 

So I'd advise people not to assume anything is just due to politics, just due to the direction the company is going in, just due to ego etc. Usually there are a lot of factors involved in human behaviour and we shouldn't rush to conclusions.

[CosmiC10R]

imo, which occupies nothing but this virtual space, it would be great to have the new project be able to utilize existing content to whatever degree it can be carried over as well as discounts to carry over products already purchased similar to next gen upgrades.

 

 

 

 

 

[CanadaOne]

7 minutes ago, migmadmarine said:

Honestly, one of the things I like best about BOS is the "in the box nature" of it. I look over at the other side of the fence and wonder why on earth I would want to fly something like the I-16 in DCS when it is entirely devoid of context.

 

That's a perfectly valid point of view. Some want a package deal, so to speak, and some are happy with it piece by piece.

 

I don't think IL2 should drop the package deal aspect of things, but neither do I think they should be glued to it to such an extent that is stops them from making planes people want to buy.

[=621=Samikatz]

There are still plenty of unique air frames that fit on the current maps that we don't have (Royal Navy Avengers come to mind), things like the bubble-top Spitfire and the 109GA/S will certainly be much faster to produce, though. I imagine that's part of the reason they have hired more artists, to make unique assets quicker to develop

[343KKT_Kintaro]

 

18 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

The case for it not being speculative is the repetitious and always-in-the-box nature of GB. Regardless of "appropriate" maps or campaigns being available, customers would stand in line to pre-order a Hellcat or a Corsair, for example. But when the idea of those planes is brought up, the idea is shot down, sometimes with no small amount of hostility. 

 

So we don't get new interesting planes, we get an 8th or 9th or 10th version of a plane we've had for years. And at the same time Jason was asking us to support the game and maybe gift planes to others as a means of support. How about as a means of support for the sim.... make new interesting planes that people will line up to buy? That seems simple enough.

 

 

Ok, I got it, thank you for the clarification. I guess you're right... but think about how long it takes to model one airplane in the 21st Century. 1CGS worked full time and managed to release 5 main modules within 10 years, 2 years a module from 2012 to 2022 (Stalingrad, Moscow, Kuban, Bodenplatte and Normandy) in addition of Flying Circus, Tank Crew, campaigns, collector planes and vehicles, features like the pilot's state of health, the new clouds and weather engine, etc. The European theatre of operations (ETO) ended up by being the context that trapped the devs because of the permanently ongoing requirements of the limitations of the core engine (pilot's health, clouds and weather, damage and flight models, etc.). The community wanted a better sim AND more content, so the choice of discarding planes that weren't historically in the ETO had been made for years and still continues now with Normandy. So yes, I understand your position, but the devs encountered plenty of dificulties ten years during and choices had to be made. Corsairs (for example) made few sense as the devs were trapped by the context of the European theatre of operations and the gaps in the sim in terms of flight model, damage model, realist pilot blackouts, realistic clouds and wheather, etc. That's what I think.

 

 

18 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

IL2 is supposed to be the best WWII flightsim.

 

 

Humour on

This is Jason Williams at work... even after his departure. He's a genius. I admire him.

Humour off

 

 

18 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

So why do we have to spend our money elsewhere

 

 

There's always something good elsewhere. If you want la crème de la crème of solo career mode, it seems that some players who tried it recommend "Wings Over Flanders Fields" and "Wings Over the Reich". Very few flyables, old school graphics... but an excellent solo career mode (it seems there's not even multiplayer in these games). If the graphics repel you, please think that this sim found its players because they make concessions you don't. Same thing with other sims. The fans of '46 will tell you "come on, join us, we have Corsairs". Because they make the concession to the graphics that I don't (and you neither, I guess). Nevertheless I won't be long before I go back to '46, I want give a try to what had been done for this game in the last 12 years (I've been absent from '46 since 2010 more or less).

 

 

14 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

I can't help but agree with this to some extent @343KKT_Kintaro I think a lot of your analysis is interesting, and some of it may be spot-on... but there is often a lot more ambiguity (at least based on how a lot of the rest of us interpret it). I still value you attempts to make sense though!

 

 

Thank you bro, if we are patient enough I'm sure that 1CGS will unveil much more info all along 2023.

 

 

[Ribbon]

58 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

I have hundreds (and hundreds) of hours of “power use” in both editors and I actually prefer the IL2 editor for several reasons. It took that long to learn some hard lessons.

 

They just need to add a few more tools (edit: and make it stable) and we’re golden.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It should be modeled after Arma3 eden editor, with ease of use for newbies as well being very powerfull tool for experts.

 

il2 editor UI is a mess, while in arma you can start even without tutorials for simple mission template and over time it can take you with fun to the expert levels of implementing animations, coding...etc.

 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

20 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

I have hundreds (and hundreds) of hours of “power use” in both editors and I actually prefer the IL2 editor for several reasons. It took that long to learn some hard lessons.

 

They just need to add a few more tools (edit: and make it stable) and we’re golden.

I always thought you liked the DCS editor better. Did you always like the IL2 editor better or did that change at some point?

 

Speaking about the editor, I think it shouldn't go unmentioned that there's been a lot of bugfixes and QOL improvements for the editor lately (might've been since BoN/Jason's departure, though I don't know if that has anything to do with it).

[Jaws2002]

4 hours 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. 

No, it could have never been what the old Il-2 was. The old Il-2 used brand new technologies and advancements in many areas of the game. It also enhanced playability with a lot of  user friendly new features.

 Il-2 BOS is a game that came to be, because of financial considerations. In other words, Il-2 GB was release to milk the known Il-2 name, while spending as little as possible. 

 They dropped CLOD on the market, in that sorry state, for financial reasons, they abandoned it soon after release, for financial reasons, and they chose ROF engine for the next game for the same reason....

 From the start this was to be a middle of the pack game to milk the name of the old one, with as  little investment as possible, for another ten years.

 

 

    

[343KKT_Kintaro]

2 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

No, it could have never been what the old Il-2 was. The old Il-2 used brand new technologies and advancements in many areas of the game. It also enhanced playability with a lot of  user friendly new features.

 Il-2 BOS is a game that came to be, because of financial considerations. In other words, Il-2 GB was release to milk the known Il-2 name, while spending as little as possible. 

 They dropped CLOD on the market, in that sorry state, for financial reasons, they abandoned it soon after release, for financial reasons, and they chose ROF engine for the next game for the same reason....

 From the start this was to be a middle of the pack game to milk the name of the old one, with as  little investment as possible, for another ten years.

 

 

You nailed it, Jaws2002.

 

 

[Robli]

2 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Am I the only person here who simply understood their last videos and communications?

 

Does make you think, if you are right and everybody else is wrong or the other way around, doesn't it?

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

I have hundreds (and hundreds) of hours of “power use” in both editors and I actually prefer the IL2 editor for several reasons.

 

I have probably about 0.5 hours and 10 hours of "basic use" in IL-2 and DCS editors respectively and got about 0 hours and 150 hours of flying fun out of that time spent in these editors. Rough estimations. 

 

[Harlequin]

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. My hope is that they improve some of the single player elements. I.e career, ai (more like humans), radios, commands, out of cockpit experience.  For me, I play il-2 to feel like a ww2 pilot, not just to fly a ww2 plane.  So the history, feeling part of the campaign etc. Are all very important.

 

I do also wonder what the focus will be, will it change etc.  So far il2gb has been most suited to Eastern front (due to formation size, altitude etc), tactical air SIM.  That may have been the goal originally or it may have been a limitation.

Will the next project be in the same vein?

 

What will the unique selling point be? 

 

Many questions :)

 

[CountZero]

55 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

No, it could have never been what the old Il-2 was. The old Il-2 used brand new technologies and advancements in many areas of the game. It also enhanced playability with a lot of  user friendly new features.

 Il-2 BOS is a game that came to be, because of financial considerations. In other words, Il-2 GB was release to milk the known Il-2 name, while spending as little as possible. 

 They dropped CLOD on the market, in that sorry state, for financial reasons, they abandoned it soon after release, for financial reasons, and they chose ROF engine for the next game for the same reason....

 From the start this was to be a middle of the pack game to milk the name of the old one, with as  little investment as possible, for another ten years.

 

 

    

new project will use same game engine you describe as not good enough:

 

it dosent get any clear then what han say in video from 24:30 to 28:10, they dont see need for new game engine and if it comes it will be after their time, so this new game will just reuse this game engine, enhance it and sell it... to whom who knows, if they fined enough ppl who will buy same stuff again and wait 10+ years for what we have here...ok 

Edited December 29, 2022 by CountZero

[Corralandy120000]

12 minutes ago, cosg_Paul said:

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. My hope is that they improve some of the single player elements. I.e career, ai (more like humans), radios, commands, out of cockpit experience.  For me, I play il-2 to feel like a ww2 pilot, not just to fly a ww2 plane.  So the history, feeling part of the campaign etc. Are all very important.

 

I do also wonder what the focus will be, will it change etc.  So far il2gb has been most suited to Eastern front (due to formation size, altitude etc), tactical air SIM.  That may have been the goal originally or it may have been a limitation.

Will the next project be in the same vein?

 

What will the unique selling point be? 

 

Many questions

 

This is the summary of what I want from this game . If it's been just about flying a WWII bird, I would fly it in msfs or something. But I'd like to feel the immersive experience of WWII pilot career. That's the reason why I don't fly DCS. That's also a reason why I don't fly CloD very often. .

[Jaws2002]

7 minutes ago, CountZero said:

new project will use same game engine you describe as not good enough:

 

it dosent get any clear then what han say in video from 24:30 to 28:10, they dont see need for new game engine and if it comes it will be after their time, so this new game will just reuse this game engine, enhance it and sell it... to whom who knows, if they fined enough ppl who will buy same stuff again and wait 10+ years for what we have here...ok 

 

We'll see how that works out. I'm not saying they can't upgrade this engine to make a good "new game". I'm just not sure they are willing to spend the time and money needed to get this engine to where it needs to be, in order to build something successful and future proof. 

[CanadaOne]

55 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

 

Ok, I got it, thank you for the clarification. I guess you're right... but think about how long it takes to model one airplane in the 21st Century. 1CGS worked full time and managed to release 5 main modules within 10 years, 2 years a module from 2012 to 2022 (Stalingrad, Moscow, Kuban, Bodenplatte and Normandy) in addition of Flying Circus, Tank Crew, campaigns, collector planes and vehicles, features like the pilot's state of health, the new clouds and weather engine, etc. The European theatre of operations (ETO) ended up by being the context that trapped the devs because of the permanently ongoing requirements of the limitations of the core engine (pilot's health, clouds and weather, damage and flight models, etc.). The community wanted a better sim AND more content, so the choice of discarding planes that weren't historically in the ETO had been made for years and still continues now with Normandy. So yes, I understand your position, but the devs encountered plenty of dificulties ten years during and choices had to be made. Corsairs (for example) made few sense as the devs were trapped by the context of the European theatre of operations and the gaps in the sim in terms of flight model, damage model, realist pilot blackouts, realistic clouds and wheather, etc. That's what I think.

 

Lots of truth in there. The other side of the coin, though, is imagination and the recognition that this is all a game. While I'm sure 99% of the flyers here do not want to see a Hurricane mounted with AIM-120s or other such frankenplanes, I think they might well be able to enjoy a Corsair or a Hellcat whilst flying in their pajamas and sipping their beer. Even if it is over the Channel. For my part, I think an IL2 Hellcat would be gorgeous and a riot to fly.

 

 

It's a question of degrees. Not silliness, but neither dogmatic. 

 

 

55 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

There's always something good elsewhere. If you want la crème de la crème of solo career mode, it seems that some players who tried it recommend "Wings Over Flanders Fields" and "Wings Over the Reich". Very few flyables, old school graphics... but an excellent solo career mode (it seems there's not even multiplayer in these games). If the graphics repel you, please think that this sim found its players because they make concessions you don't. Same thing with other sims. The fans of '46 will tell you "come on, join us, we have Corsairs". Because they make the concession to the graphics that I don't (and you neither, I guess). Nevertheless I won't be long before I go back to '46, I want give a try to what had been done for this game in the last 12 years (I've been absent from '46 since 2010 more or less).

 

IL2-46 was a masterpiece. And while I agree the grass is always greener elsewhere, I think this IL2 has been stunted deliberately. It could and should be more than what it is. Again, I hope new management fixes this and is not imprisoned by some restricted sense of convention. 

 

And I certainly appreciate your civility and thoughtfulness of your posts.  

[Gambit21]

58 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I always thought you liked the DCS editor better. Did you always like the IL2 editor better or did that change at some point?

 

Speaking about the editor, I think it shouldn't go unmentioned that there's been a lot of bugfixes and QOL improvements for the editor lately (might've been since BoN/Jason's departure, though I don't know if that has anything to do with it).

 

While staying conscious that this is the Dev diary and not winding too far down an off-topic rabbit trail.

 

Context...complex missions and campaigns...if you value your time.

Simple missions like most build are another conversation.

 

The both have their advantages, and I can sing the praises of both. However in the end I find it's a better use of my time working with the IL2 editor, even if missing some things I'd like.

 

What is a real drag for me in the other editor is not being able to copy/past logic or groups without messing the coding/LUA tables...which I can't do.

In fact, there are no "groups" as such there. 

 

Not being able to place a test aircraft anywhere in the mission like I can in IL2 to test a portion of the mission, and not be able to run a mission with the player aircraft on autopilot.

 

Major, major disadvantages...major time sucks.

 

Always fixing broken missions because of broken AI/trigger, push to waypoint logic etc.

 

Logic I lay down in IL2 works, and keeps working. If I have to make a fix in IL2, it's minor and quick.

 

So while I get that the price of entry to the IL2 editor seems a bit steep, it's not as much as people think.

You're going to pay a different price if you want to build a complex mission over there. Again this is the context.

 

 

We can discuss further in the editor sub-forum if you'd like, but I don't want to gum up the dev diary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JG7_X-Man]

9 minutes ago, CountZero said:

new project will use same game engine you describe as not good enough:

 

it dosent get any clear then what han say in video from 24:30 to 28:10, they dont see need for new game engine and if it comes it will be after their time, so this new game will just reuse this game engine, enhance it and sell it... to whom who knows, if they fined enough ppl who will buy same stuff again and wait 10+ years for what we have here...ok 

 

This is why the developers needs to play to their strengths. WW I and WW II combat simulations with this current engine and stay away say the Korean era.

Let's get us some drop tanks and torpedos (along with the Fairey Swordfish, Bristol Beaufort and modify aircraft variants we currently have to carry them).

Do a quick win packages (Battle of Britain aircraft pack) and similar.

These small packages can fund the next big project.

[Gambit21]

6 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

This is why the developers needs to play to their strengths. WW I and WW II combat simulations with this current engine and stay away say the Korean era.

Let's get us some drop tanks and torpedos (along with the Fairey Swordfish, Bristol Beaufort and modify aircraft variants we currently have to carry them).

Do a quick win packages (Battle of Britain aircraft pack) and similar.

These small packages can fund the next big project.

 

Korea is no different than Bodenplatte FYI.

Early jets and props...same same.

[CanadaOne]

2 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Korea is no different than Bodenplatte FYI.

Early jets and props...same same.

 

Different cuisine. 

[Jaws2002]

3 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Korea is no different than Bodenplatte FYI.

Early jets and props...same same.

Korea is not only mig15 and sabre. Korea flight sim without B-29 formations and the Carriers that kept the fight going, it's gonna be one big meh. The Migs went to Korea to stop the heavy bombers.  

Edited December 29, 2022 by Jaws2002

[Gambit21]

14 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

Korea is not only mig15 and sabre. 

That's why I said props  Lots of them.

Same comments can be made about the B-17, but here we are with Europe/tactical flying only and that's OK.