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

[CanadaOne]

7 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

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.

 

 

 

There should be B-17s and Lancasters. 

 

Really and for true. 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

1 hour ago, Robli said:

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

 

 

Yes, sure, but, basically, I already responded to that: it was a rhetorical question.

 

 

35 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

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.

 

 

Please have a look at my tag, my nickname, my avatar... I'm certainly one of the greatest fans of the Pacific War here (as a set for a flight simulation, not as an event). Did I ask the devs they model a Zero for the Great Battles game, even if it's for flying it over the Channel? Maybe I did ask that, I can't remember right now, but I've never complained it hasn't been done. These guys of 1CGS seem to want serious simulators, not a series of coherent and consistent products (the modules) and simultaneously a bunch of Erzatz planes that don't fit in the game's historical sets. You disagree with them and I agree. We have different views on the matter, that's all.

 

 

35 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

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.

 

 

Today's developer diary is proof enough of what I'm endlessly repeating on the present thread : Jason Williams wanted more for this sim (same as you, as I see) but the devs who coded it know its limitations very well and want to stop the struggle (this is why there's the "new project"). The 1CGS devs really struggle every time they try to implement a new feature. This game, simply as it is now, developed out of "Rise of Flight", is a miracle. But the miracle reached its limits and now it simply meets reality. The devs are fed up with their struggle with the code. They want a new basis that will present all on-board systems of a WWII aircraft (or Korea, or Vietnam, or whatever conflict) plus the damage model, the flight model, the weather engine, etc., etc., etc... but at release of the first product, since day 1. Not like Great Battles that had to be patched permanently. I may be wrong but that's my reading of the ongoing situation.

 

 

35 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

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

 

 

Thank you CanadaOne. You respected me all the time during these exchanges today. I deeply thank you.

 

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by 343KKT_Kintaro
want to stot --> want to stop

[J2_Nedo]

3. Develop new approaches to the user experience in the next project, taking into account all the previous experience (both our own and that of our competitors);

 

i hope they will build a mouse support in VR, clickable buttons and that stuff inside cockpit, like in D*S

[76IAP-Black]

I need your opinion, cause as i have read it... there was a dissapointment and excitement at once.

On one side, the GB Series we have supported for so many years, will end without pacific, no Malta, Italy or north africa. 
There will be some additions to the GB Series, but for now, i feel unsure to spend more on this series.

What will come next, what is their roadmap for the next project how far will they go and develop the timeline, and history.

The GB Series is a nice representation for the war in Europe, West and East side. I like it how it was done, how it feels flying it and what we have no. 
But the dissapointment starts where this engine / Series failed in their development. Carriers, Bombers, Pacific, Seaplanes, AI...

[343KKT_Kintaro]

57 minutes ago, CountZero said:

it dosent get any clear then what han say in video from 24:30 to 28:10

 

 

Yep! definitely interesting! I had completely forgot those statements of Tuseev in this video you reminded today CountZero. Thank you for the input bro.

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

I haven’t learned a whole lot from this thread, but I see that Kintaro is learning bro-speak.

[CanadaOne]

6 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

 

 

 

Please have a look at my tag, my nickname, my avatar... I'm certainly one of the greatest fans of the Pacific War here (as a set for a flight simulation, not as an event). Did I ask the devs they model a Zero for the Great Battles game, even if it's for flying it over the Channel? Maybe I did ask that, I can't remember right now, but I've never complained it hasn't been done. 

 

 

 

My argument, speaking to your post specifically, conflates two points: that the IL2 series has shown a lack of creativity, yet at the same time the devs have asked for customer support, to the point of "if you have the plane already, please buy it again as a gift and support the sim".

 

When the devs do that, they are definitely opening the door to legitimate criticism. And that criticism can come in many flavours. I'm saying there is a reasonable possibility that more creativity would have led to not having to ask for people to gift planes in order to help finance the sim. Making more planes people want to buy might have been a better idea than asking people to buy the same plane twice. 

 

That is one example and I think there is a half a cup of reasonable in there. 

[Archie]

Sort of regret doing that IAR pre order now tbh. I'm too old to start all over again if that's the direction they go in.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

7 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

My argument, speaking to your post specifically, conflates two points: that the IL2 series has shown a lack of creativity, yet at the same time the devs have asked for customer support, to the point of "if you have the plane already, please buy it again as a gift and support the sim".

 

When the devs do that, they are definitely opening the door to legitimate criticism. And that criticism can come in many flavours. I'm saying there is a reasonable possibility that more creativity would have led to not having to ask for people to gift planes in order to help finance the sim. Making more planes people want to buy might have been a better idea than asking people to buy the same plane twice. 

 

That is one example and I think there is a half a cup of reasonable in there. 

 

 

Ok, I see. It's understandable...

 

  

8 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

I haven’t learned a whole lot from this thread, but I see that Kintaro is learning bro-speak.

 

 

It's 10.43 p.m in France right now. At midnight I'll be Cinderella again and will go back to posh-speak. Till then... yo, I'm an LA gansta rapa thug... yo...

 

 

[Rjel]

5 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

Ok, I see. It's understandable...

 

  

 

 

It's 10.43 p.m in France right now. At midnight I'll be Cinderella again and will go back to posh-speak. Till then... yo, I'm an LA gansta rapa thug... yo...

 

 

 

Or maybe

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

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.

 

LOL yeah, not quite. ? The game has never had an in-game editor because the editor that was released was never meant to be a publicly released tool. Because people (rightly) wanted to edit/create their own missions in ROF, that's why it was released. Ergo, the code was never designed with having said feature inside the game itself.

 

Yet, besides all that, people have been able to build content just fine without it being an in-game feature. I quite happen to like having it outside the program, in those times when I've needed to just quickly check, for instance, the what coding is needed to set up a block of tactical codes. Far more faster to just load up the editor without having to go through the process of waiting for the whole game to load and all that. 

 

If whatever new project has an in-game editor, then great, but it's not going to be the end of the world if it isn't. 

[CanadaOne]

5 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

LOL yeah, not quite. ? The game has never had an in-game editor because the editor that was released was never meant to be a publicly released tool. Because people (rightly) wanted to edit/create their own missions in ROF, that's why it was released. Ergo, the code was never designed with having said feature inside the game itself.

 

Exactly my point. It isn't really a mission editor, it is, as Jason said, it's developer's tool.

 

That justifies any criticism that the sim either does not actually have a mission editor or that the offered developer's tool is at the very least sub par in its implementation as a mission editor.  

 

I told you we agreed.

 

 

5 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Yet, besides all that, people have been able to build content just fine without it being an in-game feature.

 

I'm not saying it doesn't work. I'm saying it's sub par. You can do good work with sub par tools, but why should you have to? 

 

 

5 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

I quite happen to like having it outside the program, . . . 

 

And I like to piss outside when it's -30. 

 

But plumbing is still a thing.

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

If whatever new project has an in-game editor, then great, but it's not going to be the end of the world if it isn't. 

 

No it's not. It's simply, as stated, sub par. So in 2023 the sim will very likely still lack a standard feature that was available in other flightsims 20 years ago. 

 

I look forward to new management.

[Jade_Monkey]

Forgot to mention the Custom Control Mapping profiles, which was huge!

 

I agree with many that keeping the next project vague is creating a weird vibe. It all sounds good but the lack of detail makes it seem more like a sketchy crypto announcement than a proper game with a clear plan.

[spreckair]

10 hours ago, CountZero said:

In 2013 Clod was mess, IL-2 1946 was clearly dated, you had opening for new game for players to come to play. Now GB is not broken, who would buy BoS or BoM again in new game when he have it working and with more content here... and i doubt new game will be some epic jump in graphics or flight detail... its not same like it was in 2013 situation is totaly oposite.

It may be that the new game will be built to better allow for things that the old game cannot do, such as large bomber formations and large numbers of aircraft.

[Jade_Monkey]

30 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

The game has never had an in-game editor because the editor that was released was never meant to be a publicly released tool.

 

I was thinking about that line just this week. It might have been fair years ago but at this point it's just unexcusable that you cant use it without it constantlyn crashing.

Regardless of the initial intentions, they made the decision to release it and with that, they have the responsibility to make it functional. 

 

We'll see what the next project is and if any of this will carry over, but they definitely need to improve the editor after all this time.

[BraveSirRobin]

3 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

I look forward to new management.

 

My impression at the time was that Jason was the reason everyone got access to the editor.  Be careful what you wish for.

[CanadaOne]

Just now, BraveSirRobin said:

 

My impression at the time was that Jason was the reason everyone got access to the editor.  Be careful what you wish for.

 

Why was it even a discussion?

 

Flightsims have mission editors. In-game mission editors. They've had them for decades.

 

That it even had to be discussed is evidence of a very muddied thought process.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

54 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

Why was it even a discussion?

 

Flightsims have mission editors. In-game mission editors. They've had them for decades.

 

That it even had to be discussed is evidence of a very muddied thought process.

 

You’re missing the point.  It’s entirely possible (likely, in fact) that the people who did not want the mission editor released are now in charge.  Why are you “looking forward” to that?

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

You know, something I've realized is that it's entirely possible that existing content will/could be ported/updated over to the new engine at a discounted price for existing owners like DCS and others do. This would be a further win-win for simmers.

[IckyATLAS]

16 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

You’re missing the point.  It’s entirely possible (likely, in fact) that the people who did not want the mission editor released are now in charge.  Why are you “looking forward” to that?

My understanding by what the new management said addressing the community is that they count on us to contribute whenever we can. 

And creating missions and campaigns is a a way to make the game more attractive as many in the community want just to play the sim and want to have the largest possible variety of missions. 

To be coherent with what they say, we should expect that indeed they improve the editor, enrich it and make as attractive as possible to the few mission builders, hoping that new ones make the jump into the rabbit hole.

This is no guarantee that the boss sees it the same way but if not, then he will have a tough time to attract efforts from our side.

Edited December 29, 2022 by IckyATLAS

[Robli]

As far as I recall, the boss before Jason (is also current boss) was against releasing any kind of mission editor. His idea of fun was forcing players to grind through a dull career to unlock 500 kg bong for Stuka or "experimantal" VYa-23 for LaGG-3 and all that other stuff. General approach seemed to be that he knows better what was good for community.

During Jason's reign we got a wholly new level of career mode, he promoted the work of Pat Wilson and even the (Advanced) Quick Mission Builder got better. Full Mission Builder is bad for casual players for sure, but based on the track record, Jason guided the game to a lot more enjoable direction compared to the previous (current) boss.

[Lusekofte]

I believe they want models of all sorts. They might be able to give limited access to map makers and maybe ships, vehicles. I guess not planes. 
Mission editor should be available in game , like in DCS , it might very well be one of the new things

[BraveSirRobin]

17 minutes ago, IckyATLAS said:

My understanding by what the new management said addressing the community is that they count on us to contribute whenever we can. 

And creating missions and campaigns is a a way to make the game more attractive as many in the community want just to play the sim and want to have the largest possible variety of missions. 

To be coherent with what they say, we should expect that indeed they improve the editor, enrich it and make as attractive as possible to the few mission builders, hoping that new ones make the jump into the rabbit hole.

This is no guarantee that the boss sees it the same way but if not, then he will have a tough time to attract efforts from our side.

Before Jason took over they thought unlocking content that we had paid for was a good idea.  You probably should not be “expecting” anything.  Maybe wait and see what they actually do.

 

In any case, CanadaOne looks forward to new management to improve the mission editor, even though the previous management is probably the only reason he had access to any mission editor at all.

10 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

I believe they want models of all sorts. They might be able to give limited access to map makers and maybe ships, vehicles. I guess not planes. 
Mission editor should be available in game , like in DCS , it might very well be one of the new things

Dude, they just fired the guy that thought we should have access to the mission editor.  I guess they might have changed their minds on that, but have you actually seen any evidence of that?  Or is this just hopes and prayers?

[Guest deleted@83466]

What is with all this Dude and Bruh and Bro and Mate stuff I’m reading in every post now?  Enough!

[343KKT_Kintaro]

4 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

What is with all this Dude and Bruh and Bro and Mate stuff I’m reading in every post now?  Enough!

 

 

Yeah, fella, you're right.

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

“fella”

 

that was actually clever

[CanadaOne]

29 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

You’re missing the point.  It’s entirely possible (likely, in fact) that the people who did not want the mission editor released are now in charge.  Why are you “looking forward” to that?

 

If things weren't great then or now, then there is at least a potential better future to look forward to.

[CUJO_1970]

41 minutes ago, Robli said:

500 kg bong for Stuka or "experimantal" VYa-23 for LaGG-3

 

*CountZero has entered the chat.

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, CanadaOne said:

 

If things weren't great then or now, then there is at least a potential better future to look forward to.

Whether or not things were great then is irrelevant.  The same financial limitations exist now.  The idea that it’s all sunshine and rainbows and a better mission editor now that Jason has been replaced is a little crazy.  Especially since Jason is probably the only reason we have access to any mission editor at all.

[Gort]

Congrats to the team for a very productive year. Best wishes in the New Year. Hope it brings peace and prosperity for all.

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

You’re missing the point.  It’s entirely possible (likely, in fact) that the people who did not want the mission editor released are now in charge.  Why are you “looking forward” to that?

 

Regardless of Willam’s tenure, the market would have assuredly solved that issue. There would have been a mission editor in due course. All of this is bigger than one individual, and each person brings positives and negatives to the management focus. 

 

Different for customers of course, they trend towards negativity and perhaps suffer from a mild level of paranoia. Gaming does that to a person. ?

[US103_Baer]

They need to finish the FC project and do FC3. Hopefully that's part of the 'content for Great Battles' mentioned in the post. 

We don't have a functional 1917 yet, and a WW1 cfs without the Alb DII/DIII, Nieuport 17, Sopwith Pup, RE8, 11/2 Strutter isn't really a WW1 cfs.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

10 minutes ago, Gort said:

 

Regardless of Willam’s tenure, the market would have assuredly solved that issue. 

 ?

What “market” are you talking about?  There is only 1 game in this market.  

[343KKT_Kintaro]

3 minutes ago, US103_Baer said:

They need to finish the FC project and do FC3. Hopefully that's part of the 'content for Great Battles' mentioned in the post. 

We don't have a functional 1917 yet, and a WW1 cfs without the Alb DII/DIII, Nieuport 17, Sopwith Pup, RE8, 11/2 Strutter isn't really a WW1 cfs.

 

 

 

There are 40 aircraft in "Rise of Flight". 1CGS probably plans to release 30 "Rise of Flight" aircraft through the three Flying Circus modules plus 10 "Rise of Flight" additional collector planes = the overal total of 40. We'll see what they do, time will tell.

 

 

[CanadaOne]

23 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Whether or not things were great then is irrelevant.  The same financial limitations exist now.  The idea that it’s all sunshine and rainbows and a better mission editor now that Jason has been replaced is a little crazy.  Especially since Jason is probably the only reason we have access to any mission editor at all.

 

I didn't say it was sunshine and rainbows, though I do like both of those things. I said that as things were, it wasn't great, and hopefully they will get better. But if it behooves future management to make things worse, that's up to them I guess. 

 

If they want to they can cripple the whole damn sim if they think it's a good idea. No mission editor, no takeoffs or landings, only air starts, and no plane has guns or goes faster than 125MPH. Ummm.... yay? 

 

I'd like to think future management see this sim as a money making opportunity and not a highway to financial euthanasia.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

38 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Whether or not things were great then is irrelevant.  The same financial limitations exist now.  The idea that it’s all sunshine and rainbows and a better mission editor now that Jason has been replaced is a little crazy.  Especially since Jason is probably the only reason we have access to any mission editor at all.

This is where you are very wrong...when the decision to abandon CLoD (dumb and shortsighted) and make a commercially-available WW2 mod for RoF called "Battle of Stalingrad" was made, WW2 Sims were on absolute life support. Now we have the profitable Warthunder, DCS WW2, and Great Battles, all of which are current commercial successes, hence the hiring of new programmers, fm guys, 3d modelers, and a sudden "influx of funding." Also, it's 2023 now...what I said above happened over 10 years ago in early 2012 and the core engine is now ancient (far older than IL-2 1946 was in 2012), limited, and us hard-core simmers want higher simulation and graphical fidelity than what GB can offer and if the devs don't adapt, they'll perish. It's good that they are.

Edited December 30, 2022 by drewm3i-VR

[CountZero]

3 hours ago, spreckair said:

It may be that the new game will be built to better allow for things that the old game cannot do, such as large bomber formations and large numbers of aircraft.

Would not then they wont to show that from start, why they said when asked if well get big bombers in next project they said no ? 

If this next new project turns out to be Korea, would they not wont to do B-29s ? or even aircraft carriers from start if this game engine we have cant do that and we need new upgraded game engine that can do all this stuff we cant have here, but we again just need to wait for good stuff by buying boring stuff first... buy figters and maybe we can make bombers... look how that turn out to be in GB...

 

[sevenless]

6 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

I'd like to think future management see this sim as a money making opportunity and not a highway to financial euthanasia.

 

Their niche is somewhere between Warthunder and DCS. If they plan to stay in business in the long run, my bet is that they will have to aim for cross compatibility for consoles (XBOX and PS5). We will see.

[Boomerang]

Like to say congratulations to the team also for 2022 and thank you. The future looks positive, given team expansion, enthusiasm and future development.

The odds are favorable about our community hearing, reading, more about the next theater within an early 2023 announcement, given the overview of 2022 within this DD.

The Burning Questions of 2023:

Game engine ?

Dx12 and Vulcan?

Mod support with porting? (like other popular titles that encourage community participation).

Theaters?

It's a little like a suspense thriller

Wishing all had a great Christmas, as that sure blasted by fast and a Happy New year that brings happiness and good health to everyone.

 

 

 

 

[CountZero]

7 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

This is where you are very wrong...when the decision to abandon CLoD (dumb and shortsighted) and make a commercially-available WW2 mod for RoF called "Battle of Stalingrad" was made, WW2 Sims were on absolute life support. Now we have the profitable Warthunder, DCS WW2, and Great Battles, all of which are current commercial successes, hence the hiring of new programmers, fm guys, 3d modelers, and sudden "influx of funding." And its also 2023 now...what I said above was 10 years ago and the core engine is now ancient, limited, and us hard-core simmers want higher simulation and graphical fidelity than what GB can offer and if the devs don't adapt, they'll perish. It's good that they are.

if the core game engne is aincant why are they using it for next new project, you can lisen to hans interview, they aint gona do new game engine... 

[BraveSirRobin]

3 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

This is where you are very wrong...when the decision to abandon CLoD (dumb and shortsighted) 

Lol. I stopped reading right here.  But seriously.  LOL