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

[Avimimus]

58 minutes ago, FuriousMeow said:

An engine built in 2008/9 is older and more ancient than an engine built in 1998? Il-2 1946 began its life in 1998 - Il2 released in 2001, it had a few upgrades - not many, just the water, small DM update and the v4.0 advanced FM that actually finally gave the game a real FM and not the joke garbage where every plane had the same torque/gyro precession/p-factor where even jets had those until the v4.0 AFM, and its development ended in 2006. An engine's development that ended in 2006 is less ancient than one that began development after its end? If the NeoQB videos were still around demoing what is actually modeled as far as airflow and physics are concerned, its far superior to both the original Il-2 and CLoD.

 

One thing that occurs to me - any of these sims are monumental undertakings, truly impressive achievements. In some ways they make putting people on the moon look pretty simple (probably less fluid dynamics ).

 

I remember those demos - and thinking 'they can't do that in real-time can they?' I wasn't surprised that Rise of Flight had a bit of a rough beginning either - but it was impressive what they've achieved (look at the sim series today!)

[Avimimus]

35 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

You misread my post...RoF began development in 2003 and released in 2009. In 2012, it was 9 (beginning of development) and 3 years old (initial release). GB development is a WW2 of a WW1 engine that began development in 2003 and first released in 2009.

 

In 2012, IL-2 1946 was 14 years removed from initial development and 11 years removed from initial release. That makes the GB engine far older in 2023, than 1946 was in 2012.

 

Ship of Theseus - Wikipedia

[BraveSirRobin]

7 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Thanks, pal.

Sorry, but calling in when you were 30 seconds away set the bar pretty high.  How were you supposed to improve on that? 

 

Aircav (rip...) wondering why the ground was blue (he was drunk and inverted) was pretty funny, but it wasn't quite the same. 

[Sky_Wolf]

After reading the furious back-and-forth, rapid-fire comments in the last couple hours in this thread, I be like.. 

[BladeMeister]

Please stop quoting BSR. I have had him blocked for years, almost a decade here and for probably 6 years on the ROF Forums before that, and I have managed not to read any of his TOTAL BS for almost all of that time. You people quoting all the BS that he is spewing tonight are really starting to piss me off. Stop quoting him and egging him on! Don't feed the Troll.

 

S!Blade<><

Edited December 30, 2022 by BladeMeister

[343KKT_Kintaro]

2 hours ago, FuriousMeow said:

 

Did it? The small releases of development were in 2006 or so that I saw.

 

 

In 2003 a Russian media in the internet published an interview that had been done to two guys of a company named dStrict, they talked about "Sikorsky Project", WWI combat flight sim that dStrict was developping at the time.

 

By the same year, 2003, or maybe 2004, a bunch of modders started to develop a WWI add-on for Maddox Games and its "Forgotten Battles" game (the old IL-2).

 

By 2004 Gennadich Team is constituted by those guys of the "Forgotten Battles" add-on. If I got it right, within Gennadich Team, Solomykin convinced Zhiltsov to drop the idea of an add-on for "Forgotten Battles" and, instead, develop their own WWI game. Their game, by then, was planned to be titled "Knights of the Sky".

 

In 2006 dStrict and Gennadich Team (and their respective games, "Sikorsky Project" and "Knights of the Sky") merge into a new company named Neoqb (I pronounce neo-cube) in order to release one single unique game. The working title "Knights of the Sky" is kept for the merged project.

 

In 2007 Jason Williams founds 777 Studios.

 

In 2008 Jason Williams contacts Neoqb and suggests 777 Studios distributes "Knights of the Sky" in the USA when it's released. Neoqb accepts.

 

In 2009 the game is released under the title "Rise of Flight". The game is a commercial flop.

 

In 2010 Williams purchases "Rise of Flight". Neoqb eventually disappears.

 

In 2012 Williams and 1C signe agreements so that "Rise of Flight" becomes a WWII combat flight sim.

 

In 2014 their WWII flight sim game ("IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad") is fully released.

 

In 2017 the resulting series is christened "Great Battles".

 

On the 29th of December, 2022, development diary 337 of the above mentioned Great Battles series of games is published... and this is why we are here.

 

Next year, the oldest roots of Great Battles will be 20 years old, even if, most likely, the main portion of the core engine was developed during the 2004-2009 period.

 

 

[2/JG26_rudidlo]

23 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.

Or fixed AI tank behavior and player controlled tank fixes would be nice.
Plus long time promised fuel system with drop tanks.

[2/JG26_rudidlo]

18 hours ago, JG4_Deciman said:

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...

The same issues are in the game itself. Sometimes you click on the PROCEED button in the game, there is nothing happening for the second, then there is a click sound and rotating wheel cursor. The same is with the game launcher. have you ever tried drag window to another position by clicking on the header and move it somewhere else? There is no window reaction. After few seconds there is unexpected window jump to the desired position, because the whole time the UI thread is occupied by something else.

And when you are complaining in the forum why those bugs are not reported after being reported for months or years, you will get just ban on this forum.
I don't believe any following project will be successful without changing approach to users.

17 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

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

Why the fuel system is working in all planes in Clod and it is impossible to implement it in GB?

[2/JG26_rudidlo]

11 hours ago, J2_Nedo said:

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

Developers mentioned in the recent stream they are not planning it.

10 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.

All Il-2 predecessors are better in making plane formations than GB.

7 hours 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.

 

So it means players not interested in FC will be downloading gigabytes of FC content just occupying their drives 

[2/JG26_rudidlo]

6 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

CloD was, and is, a dumpster fire.  The only mistake Jason made with CloD was to not kill it completely.

You can name it, like you want. Comparing with GB it has a fuel system working. Plus you can put there a lot of bombers without freezing server like in GB single threaded server occupying just one CPU core.

[US103_Baer]

9 minutes ago, 2/JG26_rudidlo said:

7 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

 

So it means players not interested in FC will be downloading gigabytes of FC content just occupying their drives 

Seriously? Uhm, don't think you've thought this thru. 

 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

36 minutes ago, 2/JG26_rudidlo said:

Why the fuel system is working in all planes in Clod and it is impossible to implement it in GB?

 

 

Because IL2CoD was conceived since the very beginning as a WWII combat flight sim. IL2GB is a porting of "Rise of Flight", a WWI flight sim thus with very simple fuel systems and no dropable external fuel tanks at all.

 

 

[SqueakyS]

Can we all agree that dropping this bombshell and immedietly going on holiday/not answering any questions, was a terrible idea? With all the turmoil and uncertanty with the devs and the game I feel this should have been handled better.

[simfan2015]

@SqueakyS Devs said all they wanted or could say.

If you want to predikt the future... look at the past. 

Miracles won't happen. 

Unless they have some kind of AI computer system that can create next gen code any truly new sim will take many years. 

Therefore I hope il-2 GB will stay around during all those years. 

 

[Robli]

4 minutes ago, SqueakyS said:

Can we all agree that dropping this bombshell and immedietly going on holiday/not answering any questions, was a terrible idea? With all the turmoil and uncertanty with the devs and the game I feel this should have been handled better.

 

Their communication to western customer base has taken a huge drop since Jason left. Maybe they think that hiring a community manager automatically solves the communication issue, but if Wardog is in no position to actually tell game related information that players are interested in, then even if he tried to do the best job in the world, show us some magic card tricks, perform Jingle Bells with ukulele for us or whatever, it does not fill the void of proper game-related communication from the devs.

[Lusekofte]

9 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

they just fired the guy that thought we should have access to the mission editor

That was not the reason for Jason’s dismissal. 
It is a good business model having an easy access ME. I am sure the reason we do not have it is due to limitations in current game engine. 
For me this is one upgrade worth having. 

[acer884]

For me personally, this is very good news. I stopped playing the series a year ago, stating that both the technical side (microshutting) and the immersion of SP is bad (AI logic, no radio, wrong flight and bombing altitudes, number of planes in the sky, no missions in the campaign related to attacking trains and many others ) and if it hasn't been fixed after so many years, it will never be fixed, which was very frustrating for me.
In addition, the presentation of aircraft such as the Mosquito, where the key role was played by the navigator and guidance systems, the Ju-87 or the way the P-47 is used as it is presented today, in my opinion are typical, visible limitations of the game engine. The same applies to air operations, which in fact on the Western Front practically from 1941 included dozens, if not hundreds of aircraft each time (even Circus operations are 2-3 squadrons of heavy bombers and 16 squadrons of fighter escorts). Of course, single, small air operations were probably performed, but these were more incidents than the daily work of airmen.
For this reason, I went to WOFF and WOTR, which offer all the issues described, which allowed me to look at GB from a distance.
If the new engine is able to offer those obvious things that are currently lacking then it really is something to look forward to. Let's just hope that it will actually be an engine that will ensure smooth operation for the next few or a dozen years ahead and then the new game has a chance to be a game changer in flightsim.
On the other hand, I understand the resentment of players who would prefer to stay with the continuation of GB, because the history of the series is the history of the promise of what you can get, not what is. Just read the forum posts to see that. I suspect it was just as frustrating for the team. Assessing the series from the perspective of years, achieving what most SP players dream of seems unattainable on the current engine.

Regards
k

[343KKT_Kintaro]

13 minutes ago, Robli said:

actually tell game related information that players are interested in

 

Some players show interest, other show unbearable levels of demand towards the developers. The players who don't intervene on the forums are in fact the rigteous silent majority. Among those who participate in the forums by asking questions or by speculating on the future, there are too many who behave as if the development company owes to the community that the latter is permanently informed, every day, every minute, of what's going on with the future of this game. It will take a few months during 2023 to obtain more info about the on going development : up to us to be mature and patient. I'm almost sure that the devs won't unveil the nature of the "new project" before 2023 nor they'll announce any release date for the so mentioned "new project" (as I read somebody asked) most likely because they don't even know the date themselves.

 

As soon as a development diary mentioning something new and mysterious is published... both the angst and demanding behaviour reach unbelievable levels on the forums... It amuses me, but nevertheless it is sad to realise how immature the average forum member is. Come on you people (not aiming at you, Robli), take it easy: the devs just started informing us of something new. They'll relay more info when they think the time came for that. All gaming development companies work that way, so nobody here will obtain from the devs more info than the info unveiled by the last DD and now we'll wait until the next DD is published... it is as simple as that.

 

 

 

[Robli]

2 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Some players show interest, other show unbearable levels of demand towards the developers.

 

Definitely so and was like that before also, obviously. Some expect information that no company would ever publish and some just want to play what they have and are not interested in what happens in the curtains. Some are also very loud in forums demanding answers to very minor things, while some might be silent, but wondering by themselves, why some basic things could not be told. Either way, the level of involvement and communication towards the western customer base was quite noticeably bigger before.

Your timeline and background information around these games is also quite interesting, just for curiosity reasons, even if not important for gameplay point of view.

[2/JG26_rudidlo]

48 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

Because IL2CoD was conceived since the very beginning as a WWII combat flight sim. IL2GB is a porting of "Rise of Flight", a WWI flight sim thus with very simple fuel systems and no droppable external fuel tanks at all.

 

 

That's sad. 
 

I would really appreciate if 1C : 777 Games would publish a roadmap.
 

It's sad looking at really huge maps, but when it comes to multiplayer flying - when American P-51 fire the rockets near ground targets, some players in the vicinity have 10 fps for half of the second regardless of their network speed and hardware settings. That leads dedicated server map makers to restrict battlefield to a small portion of it unless they want a lot of '*erratic game behavior*' in the chat.

[Robli]

 

17 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

All gaming development companies work that way

 

Also, that is definitely not true, related to communication approach. Different gaming companies work in very different ways in that regard, but most would try to build hype and excitement among their potential customer base before the official news, instead of doubts and angst.

[acer884]

10 minutes ago, 2/JG26_rudidlo said:

To smutne. 
 

Byłbym bardzo wdzięczny, gdyby 1C : 777 Games opublikowało plan działania.
 

To smutne patrząc na naprawdę duże mapy, ale jeśli chodzi o latanie w trybie multiplayer - kiedy amerykański P-51 strzela rakietami w pobliżu celów naziemnych, niektórzy gracze w pobliżu mają 10 fps przez pół sekundy, niezależnie od szybkości sieci i ustawień sprzętowych. To sprawia, że twórcy map dedykowanych serwerów ograniczają pole bitwy do niewielkiej jego części, chyba że chcą, aby na czacie było dużo „nieregularnego zachowania w grze”.

But what action plan do you expect?
We have received information that the studio will not be closed in 3 months or half a year without notice, which could threaten access to IL 2 GB for people who have invested in it.
We have received information that work is being carried out on a new series, so probably on an engine that will provide possibilities unavailable for the current engine.
I don't think anyone will be announcing the area or the timeframe in which the game will take place at this early stage. We can only hope that the game won't change from simulator to arcade, but it's probably too early for anything else.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Just now, Robli said:

 

 

Also, that is definitely not true, related to communication approach. Different gaming companies work in very different ways in that regard, but most would try to build hype and excitement among their potential customer base before the official news, instead of doubts and angst.

 

 

No company on this earth communicates everything that is done in its inner walls "every day, every minute". All companies decide what they say to others and when they say it, whether or not we consider it's hype or not.

 

 

[2/JG26_rudidlo]

2 minutes ago, acer884 said:

We have received information that work is being carried out on a new series, so probably on an engine that will provide possibilities unavailable for the current engine.

So I completely missed this information.
Where it has been published? 

About the roadmap I meant the current series, not the new one.

[Robli]

6 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

No company on this earth communicates everything that is done in its inner walls "every day, every minute".

 

Nobody is expecting that. Do you mean that the only other option instead of "every day, every minute" is total mishandling of good customer communication? There is no option in between?

[AnPetrovich]

Hi guys,

I see some kind of speculations about my role and my leaving in this topic and not many of them are spot on.
 

There was not just one or a couple of simple reasons why I finally decided to go. All this has been piling up for years. But unlike Williams, I don't think it's a good style to wash your dirty linen in public.
 

I'm glad that the 1CGS seems to have shaken off the dust and is steering in a more strategic direction. It should have been done much earlier. I'm interested how they will make it. And I sincerely wish them good luck and all the best, there are many good guys.

S! 

Edited December 30, 2022 by AnPetrovich

[2/JG26_rudidlo]

5 minutes ago, acer884 said:

But what action plan do you expect?

I don't expect action plan, just a simple roadmap, which feature they are planning to release in the GB series.
Just telling us if fuel system is completely dropped out or if we can expect it in like second half 2025.
Now we have product as it is without having any clue about possible fixes in tank crews or promises from the past.

[Art-J]

1 hour ago, US103_Baer said:

Seriously? Uhm, don't think you've thought this thru. 

 

He's 100% right, though. The current system of every GB asset being physically downloaded, installed and updated on everyone's PC whether the person wants it or not is a cancer that needs to go away in the new series. I'm not interested in BoS, BoM, FC and TC and I don't do multiplayer so there's not a single reason why I should waste my bandwidth and SSD space on these when I only own and use BoK, BoBP and BoN.

 

The situation is somewhat acceptable because of still relatively small size of GB, but if the potential new, more sophisticated project uses more space (very likely), users will need to be able to choose which part of it they want to install. For example, imagine what would happen if you played DCS and it worked the same way GB does now. You're interested in, say, only three planes and two maps, but you have to download the whole 440+ GB (the current full-shop content of DCS) to your drive and you have to download 20+ GB updates, patching stuff you don't even own. Would you still say it's OK?

[=gRiJ=Roman-]

I am just bored of waiting for the announcement. In my case, I am losing interest by the hour ... now apathy ... soon indifference ...

[acer884]

20 minutes ago, 2/JG26_rudidlo said:

Więc całkowicie przegapiłem tę informację.
Gdzie została opublikowana? 

Mówiąc o planie miałem na myśli obecną serię, a nie nową.

From both the team's earlier communication and yesterday's post:

We have ambitious goals ahead of us, and the team is gathering strength and resources to achieve them. Here's what we have planned for next year:

1. Accelerate the production of a new large-scale project at full capacity;

2. Completion of the development of a number of new base technologies for a new project we started working on last year;

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

4. Continue to publish new content for the world of Grand Battles;

It seems logical to me that the new project must be based on a new engine (perhaps heavily modernized?) Otherwise, points 1 to 3 would not make sense. Also, insisting that this is a "new, full-scale project" does not indicate that this is going to be another DLC, because both new technologies and "user experience" could then be introduced to the entire series and not just a new project. Point 4, on the other hand, seems to determine the further fate of the GB-maintenance series.

If you add together various statements whose direct sources are difficult to find in all this information chaos, it follows from them that the introduction of e.g. fuel flow and discarded tanks is extremely difficult in the current series, so how would a series of new technology?

Unfortunately, I do not know to what extent google translate is lying to me - I rely on it quite heavily.

Regards

k

[Wardog5711]

@Art-J

You bring up a valid point. I'll push that uphill to the DEV team.

 

[CountZero]

28 minutes ago, acer884 said:

From both the team's earlier communication and yesterday's post:

We have ambitious goals ahead of us, and the team is gathering strength and resources to achieve them. Here's what we have planned for next year:

1. Accelerate the production of a new large-scale project at full capacity;

2. Completion of the development of a number of new base technologies for a new project we started working on last year;

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

4. Continue to publish new content for the world of Grand Battles;

It seems logical to me that the new project must be based on a new engine (perhaps heavily modernized?) Otherwise, points 1 to 3 would not make sense. Also, insisting that this is a "new, full-scale project" does not indicate that this is going to be another DLC, because both new technologies and "user experience" could then be introduced to the entire series and not just a new project. Point 4, on the other hand, seems to determine the further fate of the GB-maintenance series.

If you add together various statements whose direct sources are difficult to find in all this information chaos, it follows from them that the introduction of e.g. fuel flow and discarded tanks is extremely difficult in the current series, so how would a series of new technology?

Unfortunately, I do not know to what extent google translate is lying to me - I rely on it quite heavily.

Regards

k

They said they aint gona be doing new game engine, but upgrading existing one... hard to understand then ppl who expect some quantum jumps from GB to this new project, if its same pig with new lipstic.

Regarding fuel system, they didnt say its not aded because game engine limits, they said its because they could not finish it, went in wrong direction, fined out to late, and cant be added for all airplanes so they wont bather with it for GB. You see its easyer to add DT/fuel systemd from start in new project, then add it for free in GB.

What payed game improvments and bug fixes and new systems and so on... in GB, it was DLCs, they were not free... so how ppl expect when there will be no DLCs and team focus will be on new project game, that GB will be getting improvments or even bug fixs that are not game braking but anoying.

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by CountZero

[Han]

48 minutes ago, AnPetrovich said:

Hi guys,

I see some kind of speculations about my role and my leaving in this topic and not many of them are spot on.
 

There was not just one or a couple of simple reasons why I finally decided to go. All this has been piling up for years. But unlike Williams, I don't think it's a good style to wash your dirty linen in public.
 

I'm glad that the 1CGS seems to have shaken off the dust and is steering in a more strategic direction. It should have been done much earlier. I'm interested how they will make it. And I sincerely wish them good luck and all the best, there are many good guys.

S! 

 

Thank you Andrey! Thank you for your kind words to the team.

 

Yep, there is a lot of dust need to be shaken off, and developing the new strategy is a complex puzzle, especialy with the new circumstances. But the fresh breath we took during last autumn give us a huge motivation and positive attitude. So yes, there is a long and hard road ahead - we plan to do so much things we were forced to postpone for years in technologies and development methods. But the team - we're very excited to go this way despite it's hard one. Plus evolution - is hard way, but in the same time it's only way to survive in long term. Noone can survive for long only by consumpting the margin which was developed before. So while we're developers - we're go to develop ))

 

Despite anything - I wish you good luck in your new life.

 

PS

But we will allways wait for you back - in new circumstances there are many realy immersive tasks in Flight Modelling.

 

S!

[AnPetrovich]

27 minutes ago, Han said:

Thank you Andrey! Thank you for your kind words to the team.

 

Yep, there is a lot of dust need to be shaken off, and developing the new strategy is a complex puzzle, especialy with the new circumstances. But the fresh breath we took during last autumn give us a huge motivation and positive attitude. So yes, there is a long and hard road ahead - we plan to do so much things we were forced to postpone for years in technologies and development methods. But the team - we're very excited to go this way despite it's hard one. Plus evolution - is hard way, but in the same time it's only way to survive in long term. Noone can survive for long only by consumpting the margin which was developed before. So while we're developers - we're go to develop ))

 

Despite anything - I wish you good luck in your new life.

 

PS

But we will allways wait for you back - in new circumstances there are many realy immersive tasks in Flight Modelling.

 

S!

As you can imagine, I'm full of new and very exiting challenges in my new role, but again, thank you for inviting me back. I think we all have pretty interesting times ahead and it will be curious to see how flight simulation industry will evolve. Happy New Year to the whole team and over here! 

[CanadaOne]

2 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

That was not the reason for Jason’s dismissal. 
It is a good business model having an easy access ME. I am sure the reason we do not have it is due to limitations in current game engine. 
For me this is one upgrade worth having. 

 

I never heard a word about game engine limitations.

 

I think there was no proper mission editor simply because they didn't care and didn't want to put in the effort.

 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 hours ago, Art-J said:

He's 100% right, though. The current system of every GB asset being physically downloaded, installed and updated on everyone's PC whether the person wants it or not is a cancer that needs to go away in the new series. I'm not interested in BoS, BoM, FC and TC and I don't do multiplayer so there's not a single reason why I should waste my bandwidth and SSD space on these when I only own and use BoK, BoBP and BoN.

I don't quite agree. One of the selling points of IL2 is that you can fly against any aircraft you like, and in multiplayer fly on any map, even the ones you didn't purchase. The fact that *you* don't play multiplayer may be well and good (I don't play MP myself), but the Devs at the very least got to enable people to play multiplayer, don't they? Having all the planes to at least fly against is very useful as well for e.g. campaigns; for instance the BoN and BoBP have a lot of overlap. It's a godsent that as a mission writer, I don't need to concern myself with whether people have all the planes or not. So what do you propose, exactly? Having separate downloads for each of the plane sets as well as collector planes, as well as a separately downloadable multiplayer version for each of the modules? I'm not sure that would improve the user experience.

 

 

1 hour ago, Han said:

But the team - we're very excited to go this way despite it's hard one.

Gotta ask - which way is "this way"? ?

 

I understand you don't want to give away exactly what you're developing just yet, but can you at least let us know whether it's a DLC or an entirely new product separate from and incompatible with IL2 - and if it's the latter, whether this'll be developed alongside new IL2 DLCs or if BoN was the last DLC?

Edited December 30, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[FeuerFliegen]

Thoughts?  I agree with much of what was said; I've always said that they need to work on giving us actual ways to play, not just planes and maps (regardless of how good they are)

[AEthelraedUnraed]

51 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

I never heard a word about game engine limitations.

 

I think there was no proper mission editor simply because they didn't care and didn't want to put in the effort.

Well, I'd like to rephrase "didn't care and didn't want to put in the effort" into "didn't think diverting resources (time+money) from other aspects of the game was worth it", but other than that I agree.

 

I'm getting a bit tired of all the people who sheepishly repeat that whatever is wrong with the current IL2 must be because of engine limitations as the IL2 engine is getting too old. Usually by people who don't even know what an engine exactly is, or how the average engine works. Yes, IL2's engine is from way back in 2009 or so. Unity is from 2005. Windows 11 itself is originally from 1993, for the Gods' sake (yes, I know it's an OS and not a game engine. My point still stands.). Both are still very up-to-date.

 

I'm sure there are things that aren't possible in IL2's engine *right now*, but that doesn't mean that any such functionality cannot be written into the engine. The Devs have completely rewritten parts of the current engine for e.g. clouds, pilot physiology, damage model, et cetera ad nauseam. Why should the same thing be impossible for updated terrain, larger formations, smooth gameplay, an easier to use editor, etc.?

 

I'm not saying that the Devs are definitely not creating a brand new engine. If you need to rewrite pretty much every part of the system, or need to do very major changes to some parts, or your current engine is badly-written spaghetti code, then it can be more time-efficient to completely rewrite everything. But to say that simply because some feature isn't in game right now, it must be an engine problem and the only solution is to write a completely new engine, is just plain foolish.

Edited December 30, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 hours ago, Art-J said:

He's 100% right, though. The current system of every GB asset being physically downloaded, installed and updated on everyone's PC whether the person wants it or not is a cancer that needs to go away in the new series. I'm not interested in BoS, BoM, FC and TC and I don't do multiplayer so there's not a single reason why I should waste my bandwidth and SSD space on these when I only own and use BoK, BoBP and BoN.

 

The situation is somewhat acceptable because of still relatively small size of GB, but if the potential new, more sophisticated project uses more space (very likely), users will need to be able to choose which part of it they want to install. For example, imagine what would happen if you played DCS and it worked the same way GB does now. You're interested in, say, only three planes and two maps, but you have to download the whole 440+ GB (the current full-shop content of DCS) to your drive and you have to download 20+ GB updates, patching stuff you don't even own. Would you still say it's OK?

It will significantly reduce multiplayer popularity, some ppl would not spend money for all DLC. Imagine if you must wait hours for next map to roll out to join, and there is not much to choose from.  Well  that limitations as it was in ROF wos resolved and now  ppl can fly on map and see assets that do not own. Any way wee need to  download and use space  . Any solution different to what we have already would be logistics nightmare to devs and us.

Edited December 30, 2022 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[migmadmarine]

20 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I don't quite agree. One of the selling points of IL2 is that you can fly against any aircraft you like, and in multiplayer, fly on any map even the ones you didn't purchase. The fact that *you* don't play multiplayer may be well and good (I don't play MP myself), but the Devs at the very least got to enable people to play multiplayer, don't they? Having all the planes to at least fly against is very useful as well for e.g. campaigns; for instance the BoN and BoBP have a lot of overlap. It's a godsent that as a mission writer, I don't need to concern myself with whether people have all the planes or not. So what you propose, exactly? Having separate downloads for each of the plane sets as well as collector planes, as well as a separately downloadable multiplayer version for each of the modules? I'm not sure that would improve the user experience.

Well, if a system like this were implemented, and one wanted to play MP, then they would either download everything or select servers running what they have. Depending on how granular things could be divided up, you could have the game automatically offer to download the content your missing, as a number of other games do. 

 

For the SP side of things it would be quite a useful system, as there isn't much use for a SP player to have maps they don't own downloaded, or if your a western front only player you could get by without the Soviet assets. A system to handle content like the Arma 3 mod launcher does would be quite handy. 

 

I don't think it would reduce MP popularity, in that case you simply download everything on install