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

[AndytotheD]

This team was able to implement jet turbines, turbochargers/superchargers, external jettison-able rocket motors… 

Now, I have no qualifications here, so it’s not my place to say what is and isn’t complex, but I find it decidedly hard to believe that a team who could add those systems to a sim engine designed around WWI at a “hardcore sim” level of detail would struggle to model multiple fuel tanks. I do recognize some aircraft had very complex fuel systems with quite a few tanks, but there are others, such as the 109, which were incredibly simple. 

Edited December 30, 2022 by AndytotheD
I had an unqualified opinion

[sevenless]

3 minutes ago, AndytotheD said:

This team was able to implement jet turbines, turbochargers/superchargers, external jettison-able rocket motors… 

Now, I have no qualifications here, so it’s not my place to say what is and isn’t complex, but I find it decidedly hard to believe that a team who could add those systems to a sim engine designed around WWI at a “hardcore sim” level of detail would struggle to model multiple fuel tanks. I do recognize some aircraft had very complex fuel systems with quite a few tanks, but there are others, such as the 109, which were incredibly simple. 

 

From what I understood it was a business decision after having followed the wrong engineering path for too long. Development time costs money. If revenue doesn´t compensate it, it doesn´t make sense.

[Han]

24 minutes ago, AndytotheD said:

I hate to bring it up again, but I don’t really buy the excuse that drop tanks were too complex. This team was able to implement jet turbines, turbochargers/superchargers, external jettison-able rocket motors… 

 

There were two options:

1. Simple drop tanks - "just a bomb which adds some fuel and have some effects".

2. Fuel Systems, which allows to have realistic operations with cockpit instruments and this requires the detailed physical modelling of the fuel system chart and flows.

 

Both choises requires to be realized for all 80+ aircrafts in the GB world. Not just for NEW planes - but for all of them.

So in 1st case it's not hard to spread for all airplanes - add some simple parameters and animate couple of switches. And you have no need to modify airplanes without droptanks.

In 2nd case it requires to develop "fuel system constructor", or "fuel system MatLab", which will allow to configure fuel systems and gauges for all existing airplanes.

 

I was begging for 1st approach. 2nd approach is ok when you develop a brand new game world, but when you need to develop a common solution for detailed systems of 80+ airplanes with all of their aspects AND they got to be released in one day (because if not - there will be disballance in Multiplayer) - you have too little chances for success.

 

Decision (it was taken high above) was to go by 2nd variant.

 

After 4 months Lead Engineer came and said "guys, there are math troubles in this development which requires unknown ammount of time to solve". There was an option to switch to 1st variant in this moment. But decision (again forced from high above) again was to push 2nd variant untill it's done. You all know the result.

There is no any fault of Lead Engineer here, he informed everyone weekly how things are progressing or not. It's all about managing - hard decisions sometimes should be taken because if you will not take them - things will start to be like a snowball rolling downhill. And another one - it's not right to promise features until team is sure that the feature will be developed, even if community asks for promises.

[CanadaOne]

25 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

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 would maintain that it was a conscious decision along the lines of "We don't care if there isn't a proper mission editor" and just neglected what should have been a basic part of the sim. But that can still go hand in hand with your idea that they wanted to put their efforts in elsewhere. 

 

 

25 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

 

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.

 

 

At it's best the sim looks very good and performs well. I have a medium level rig and can have pretty impressive A2A furballs and still get good FPS. That's a big deal. 

 

I don't see the shortcomings as technological so much as a lack of imagination on the part of the powers that be.

[Lusekofte]

Ambitions, hard work ahead, difficult, positive. 
All this is music to a customers ear. I wait in excitement what going to happen 

1 hour 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.

 

Its design was intended for professional designers. Jason rightly made it accessible for public, it is plain dumb not to use volunteers doing work for you. 
A DCS type mission building would set all things in new perspective, make people doing what ever they like. If possible, why wouldn’t you do that? 
No it make no sense not having it if possible to do. Most people active in DCS spend daily time in mission editing. Even if there is simple changes. I change choppers in campaigns and qmb 

[CanadaOne]

9 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

Ambitions, hard work ahead, difficult, positive. 
All this is music to a customers ear. I wait in excitement what going to happen 

Its design was intended for professional designers. Jason rightly made it accessible for public, it is plain dumb not to use volunteers doing work for you. 
A DCS type mission building would set all things in new perspective, make people doing what ever they like. If possible, why wouldn’t you do that? 
No it make no sense not having it if possible to do. Most people active in DCS spend daily time in mission editing. Even if there is simple changes. I change choppers in campaigns and qmb 

 

I think that freedom of movement is one of the most important things.

 

I remember when this sim/game was supposed to be based on grinding to get new weapons and stuff. I never would have bought it if it was. In a shooter, okay, let the grinding begin. In a flightsim, give me everything up front so I have as much freedom as possible.

[ZachariasX]

Thank you @Han for coming forward with these details! As current announcements go, from this side of the forum, one cannot help feeling somehow stuck in limbo, despite further promised goodies for the current series. It can likely come across as a last dinner before filing for divorce. As mentioned by others above, it is hard to look forward to what emerges „below the dust“, when literally any turn of events can be a plausible scenario. While there are surely good resons to keep quiet about further plans, that might not come entirely for free with a long time and invested playerbase.

 

Relationships are complicated, both private and professional. And I feel for that, in the end, everyone deseves being cut some slack. A common vision, a common goal, the passion for flight and the old machines should always be able to bridge any bumps along the road. But for that, one should know the common vision.

 

All the best to you @AnPetrovich! It was great having you here on this team for everything you created. I am looking forward you keeping the passion for flight in the other team in France. My heart (and SSD) is big enough for more than one sim…

[CSW_Hot_Dog]

Ok, reading all of this, i started to be really pesimistic about future if Il2 Great Battles series and I think some things should be cleared up ASAP... This repeating that everything will be ok, future is bright, we should not worry and everything will be better than before while saying absolutelly nothing specific really doesnt help...

 

When we should expect some clarification about next title, about compatibility, etc?

Edited December 30, 2022 by CSW_Hot_Dog

[CUJO_1970]

Simple drop tanks option 1 absolutely should have been implemented, amazing that didn’t happen. I would have flipped out had I been in this meeting. 

 

I mean….wow.

[purK]

1 hour ago, Han said:

 

There were two options:

1. Simple drop tanks - "just a bomb which adds some fuel and have some effects".

2. Fuel Systems, which allows to have realistic operations with cockpit instruments and this requires the detailed physical modelling of the fuel system chart and flows.

 

Both choises requires to be realized for all 80+ aircrafts in the GB world. Not just for NEW planes - but for all of them.

So in 1st case it's not hard to spread for all airplanes - add some simple parameters and animate couple of switches. And you have no need to modify airplanes without droptanks.

In 2nd case it requires to develop "fuel system constructor", or "fuel system MatLab", which will allow to configure fuel systems and gauges for all existing airplanes.

 

I was begging for 1st approach. 2nd approach is ok when you develop a brand new game world, but when you need to develop a common solution for detailed systems of 80+ airplanes with all of their aspects AND they got to be released in one day (because if not - there will be disballance in Multiplayer) - you have too little chances for success.

 

Decision (it was taken high above) was to go by 2nd variant.

 

After 4 months Lead Engineer came and said "guys, there are math troubles in this development which requires unknown ammount of time to solve". There was an option to switch to 1st variant in this moment. But decision (again forced from high above) again was to push 2nd variant untill it's done. You all know the result.

There is no any fault of Lead Engineer here, he informed everyone weekly how things are progressing or not. It's all about managing - hard decisions sometimes should be taken because if you will not take them - things will start to be like a snowball rolling downhill. And another one - it's not right to promise features until team is sure that the feature will be developed, even if community asks for promises.

Oof yeah.. even from testing it, it was clear option #2 was a bad idea. It would have really made things too difficult for new players, and even existing players having to fumble with more keyblinds etc, especially without the option for clickable cockpits.

[Oyster_KAI]

22 minutes ago, Krupnski said:

Oof yeah.. even from testing it, it was clear option #2 was a bad idea. It would have really made things too difficult for new players, and even existing players having to fumble with more keyblinds etc, especially without the option for clickable cockpits.

This does overcomplicate things without clickable cockpit.
The best thing we can do is enjoy the animation, it's still as immersive as starting the engine.
But I really hope that there is a key bind to switch to see the fuel gauge of different fuel tanks, instead of the current 30-second automatic switch.

Edited December 30, 2022 by Oyster_KAI

[Guest deleted@83466]

What drove the “need” for things like drop tanks and Air Marshall in the first place?  Was it customers always demanding more and wishing an accessible survey sim to be a full fidelity simulator?  I didn’t, until recently, view DCS as a competitor.  When I wanted to get online and blow stuff up with my friends online in WW2, with zero preparation, it was IL-2.  Filling up the tanks involved putting the sim on Autolevel and running upstairs to grab another beer.  When I wanted to hunt through a 600 page manual to see why some obscure hydraulic pump wasn’t doing something, I went to DCS.  When I needed to tune radios or talk with the E3, it was DCS.  They coexisted peacefully and filled different needs.  Sounds like there was a case of the infamous “requirements creep” that often plagues engineering endeavors.

[DBFlyguy]

We've seen a ton of what these dev's are incapable of doing the last few months (drop tanks, air marshal, carriers, pacific... etc) ... when do we get to the part where they start clarifying what they can actually do? Besides another 109 variant ?

 

 

[purK]

31 minutes ago, Oyster_KAI said:

But I really hope that there is a key bind to switch to see the fuel gauge of different fuel tanks, instead of the current 30-second automatic switch.

Well yeah, some keybinds like this would be really useful and necessary tbh, especially for planes with fuel gauges like the spitfire/hurricane.

But switching on/off electric/fuel pumps/primers etc without clickable cockpits? Not so necessary....

[HBB*Hunger]

The last few months (and years), I saw a lot of what the devs are capable of. I flew hundrets of coops, alsways having a blast, spent endless hours in the mission editor, made skins, used to fly bombers online and had a lot of fun etc. I seriously dont know why some comments here sound as if they havent done anything yet. I'm enjoying the product at least once a week since almost 8 years for a pretty cheap price, so what.

Edited December 30, 2022 by HBB*Hunger

[Archie]

3 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

 

 

I remember when this sim/game was supposed to be based on grinding to get new weapons and stuff. I never would have bought it if it was. In a shooter, okay, let the grinding begin. In a flightsim, give me everything up front so I have as much freedom as possible.

The guy who thought grinding for unlocks was a good idea is now in charge so yeah, let's see where things go...

[migmadmarine]

Well, hopefully he has learned some things in the intervening what, 6 years?

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

What drove the “need” for things like drop tanks and Air Marshall in the first place?  Was it customers always demanding more and wishing an accessible survey sim to be a full fidelity simulator?  I didn’t, until recently, view DCS as a competitor.  When I wanted to get online and blow stuff up with my friends online in WW2, with zero preparation, it was IL-2.  Filling up the tanks involved putting the sim on Autolevel and running upstairs to grab another beer.  When I wanted to hunt through a 600 page manual to see why some obscure hydraulic pump wasn’t doing something, I went to DCS.  When I needed to tune radios or talk with the E3, it was DCS.  They coexisted peacefully and filled different needs.  Sounds like there was a case of the infamous “requirements creep” that often plagues engineering endeavors.

From recent Jasons Interview with Stormbird

 

What are the things that you’re most proud of? What are some of the things that you hoped to deliver on but weren’t able to?

Oh, simply turning around the ship and making it a profitable enterprise. Of course, it was a team effort and the development team did the difficult part, but I had to make some tough calls and they played out well in the marketplace.

I was also happy to know that my experience in rescuing Rise of Flight and all my past experience selling other games in previous jobs paid off for IL-2. Essentially, my theories about the combat flight-sim market were validated. And being able to manage and develop a project 6K miles away from the core team who had a completely different culture and language for several years told me I can work with anyone and from anywhere.

Obviously, two things I was really upset not to deliver were the Air Marshal feature and the updated Fuel Systems with Drop tanks. These two features would have really boosted IL-2’s reputation and entertainment. Unfortunately, the person making the Air Marshal feature flamed out and Fuel Systems were not quite 100% complete when its creator left. I know Air Marshal will never be done now, but I feel the team should and could add Drop Tanks to the most common planes which used them. Another thing on my list for my remaining two years that didn’t happen. 

[AnPetrovich]

I would like to add a bit to Daniel' words.

Just to make it clear to those who think this is some simple system or just drop tanks.

 

In fact it was an attempt to develop a technology for simulation a pipeline network of any possible configuration (in LEGO style, with new systems assembly via config-files only, without further coding), for a two-phase aggregate state of matter (gas + liquid, not necessarily fuel... turn on your imagination), including damage/repair models of every pipe and device, with any possible number of controls (including auto mode for beginners). And it had to be based on real-time hydrodynamic calculations of gas/liquid flows and pressures at any points in the system, with time-based (not instantaneous) transfer of contents through the system.

 

Those of you who have been following me since AFM know that I am all about simulation technologies. This is my passion, and I was very excited to make this attempt. This technology promised so many benefits! In realism, immersion, and most importantly, in speeding up the development of any liquid/gas systems for the all plane set.

 

The intermediate result met all requirements I mentioned above, but was computationally unstable when increasing the number of elements of the system. The struggle for computational stability took the bulk of the time and unfortunately this physics wasn't always working stable.

 

This is what sometimes happens with R&D tasks. You never know in advance what you will achieve until you go all the way through.

 

Finally I came up with a new approach but it took some time to make a transition to a different solution. I've done more than I could to redirect the system physics to the new solution before I left the company. It was almost done but yeah, still not 100%. It comforts me that the engineering team knows how to do the rest.

 

It was a very ambitious and hard run with unknown in advance results, and eventually took me over a year of ups and downs. Not an easy (I would say crazy), but very meaningful experience for me, an important and valuable experience for the team in the further R&D planning, and many useful outcomes for future use. I'll be very glad to see the "fuel system" on your PC one day, whichever project (current or the next one) will include this.

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by AnPetrovich

[Guest deleted@83466]

It seems like that level of complexity was/is more the niche of DCS or the kinds of hi-fi payware one seeks in MSFS, with the ability for developers to construct new systems modularly (can’t help but think Kerbal more than Legos, lol, but seriously).  Very ambitious, indeed.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by SeaSerpent

[343KKT_Kintaro]

"gas + liquid, not necessarily fuel... turn on your imagination"

 

Water-methanol? GM-1 ?

 

 

[CSW_311_Mart]

I smell glycol leaking out of 109 ?

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Just now, CSW_311_Mart said:

I smell glycol leaking out of 109 ?

 

 

I may be wrong but I think that glycol is "liquid + liquid", not "gas + liquid" as Andrey said.

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

He is most likely just referring to an all-in-one development framework of modeling anything pneumatic, hydraulic, cooling systems, fuel pumps, etc…And I assume this would greatly expand both accuracy in performance modeling as well as damage modeling.  You could even do a rocket engine turbopumps, for things like an Me-163.  At least that how I interpret what he means.

[Koziolek]

31 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

"gas + liquid, not necessarily fuel... turn on your imagination"

 

Water-methanol? GM-1 ?

 

 

Water-methanol? gas + liquid ?

They really teach different physics in other countries ?

[=FEW=fernando11]

28 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

I may be wrong but I think that glycol is "liquid + liquid", not "gas + liquid" as Andrey said.

 

 

I'm thinking more about radiators, and hidraulic sistems. Both of wich should go liquid+gas if damaged.

[CSW_311_Mart]

20 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

I may be wrong but I think that glycol is "liquid + liquid", not "gas + liquid" as Andrey said.

 

 

I mean when hot glycol is leaking from pressurized system in form of vapor... Pressurized system + bullet hit = less and less pressurized system... But maybe I'm too drunk for elementary physics and my teacher will find me and decapite me. Anyway, glasses up to bright future! 

[Guest deleted@83466]

3 minutes ago, Koziolek said:

Water-methanol? gas + liquid ?

They really teach different physics in other countries ?

Isn’t MW-50 a mist that’s sprayed into the supercharger, combining with the air charge to cool it?  I’m not an engine guy, but it sure sounds like it falls into the same category of what AnPetro is talking about.  No?

[343KKT_Kintaro]

4 minutes ago, Koziolek said:

Water-methanol? gas + liquid ?

They really teach different physics in other countries ?

 

 

What effect does produce the action of the combustion of the methanol when it does "burn" the water? It liberates the oxygen in the water and expands the explosive effect in the cylinders... thus liquid + gas, this is what I meant. Glycol produces nothing if not a loss of temperature.

 

If it's not GM-1 or Water-Methanol, then maybe Andrey meant plumes of spreading liquids onto the atmosphere... or maybe this "I mean when hot glycol is leaking from pressurized system in form of vapor" of Mart, or maybe what SeaSerpent says... but I dunno... aI don't trust this guy... he himself says he's not an engine guy... mmmm...

[Koziolek]

Just now, SeaSerpent said:

Isn’t MW-50 a mist that’s sprayed into the supercharger, combining with the air charge to cool it?  I’m not an engine guy, but it sure sounds like it falls into the same category of what AnPetro is talking about.  No?

mist is still liquid, no matter how fine it is. 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

1 minute ago, Koziolek said:

mist is still liquid, no matter how fine it is. 

 

 

In a simulator... it behaves as a mass of gas... nope?

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

Some of you guys take AP’s phrasing so literally.  I take his words to mean a remodularizing of the code, or re-abstraction of the code, so that they can easily create a system where “stuff” is flowing through a pump, a pipe, a turbo, etc and that can be gas, liquid, or both.  And the guy programming a new system doesn’t need a PhD in fluid dynamics to implement it.  But we don’t know.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by SeaSerpent

[CountZero]

Now imagine how complex is engine timer system then ? 

[Alexmarine]

3 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

What drove the “need” for things like drop tanks and Air Marshall in the first place?  

 

Not commenting on the airmarshall but the need for drop tanks were:

 

1)Historical accuracy and an actual capabilities of some of the planes represented in the game

 

2)Actual gameplay consideration as some units in both Bodenplatte and Normandy career are unplayable given that the legs outreach the internal fuel of several planes, even if flying at full economy engine settings, this also get us back at historical accuracy in a way

 

In no way external fuel tanks can be considered a feature-creep. If you want features-creep I would actually look in the direction of TC and FC: trying to add tank combat AND ww1 air combat to a ww2 air combat sim that already was lagging behind some core features of ww2 era 

11 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Now imagine how complex is engine timer system then ? 

 

Me: No fear

 

"Thinks of the possibility of the engine timer system being in the new project too"

 

Me: One fear

[CountZero]

25 minutes ago, Alexmarine said:

 

Not commenting on the airmarshall but the need for drop tanks were:

 

1)Historical accuracy and an actual capabilities of some of the planes represented in the game

 

2)Actual gameplay consideration as some units in both Bodenplatte and Normandy career are unplayable given that the legs outreach the internal fuel of several planes, even if flying at full economy engine settings, this also get us back at historical accuracy in a way

 

In no way external fuel tanks can be considered a feature-creep. If you want features-creep I would actually look in the direction of TC and FC: trying to add tank combat AND ww1 air combat to a ww2 air combat sim that already was lagging behind some core features of ww2 era 

 

Me: No fear

 

"Thinks of the possibility of the engine timer system being in the new project too"

 

Me: One fear

Will be interesting to see regarding timers, also to see what airplane types will be in first batch, same as in GB fighters and fighter/ground attacker, or we will se proper bombardier spot if any bomber airplane is there from start, and recon mehanics for recon airplanes, or night radars for night fighters, and so on...

if its realy new start, it would be funny if its again fighters only game from start.

Edited December 30, 2022 by CountZero

[Koziolek]

1 hour ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

In a simulator... it behaves as a mass of gas... nope?

 

 

If you mean these big white blobs in the sky, then yes. For AI pilot when he is shooting at you. When you try to hide in them. ?

[CanadaOne]

3 hours ago, Archie said:

The guy who thought grinding for unlocks was a good idea is now in charge so yeah, let's see where things go...

 

Well he can either earn my flightsim money or not earn my flightsim money. 

 

If interesting new planes and maps and toys are made, great. Take my money. But if it's just an 11th and 12th and 20th variant of the 109, and more of the same and more of the same and more of the... then no money.

[Denum]

7 hours ago, Han said:

 

There were two options:

1. Simple drop tanks - "just a bomb which adds some fuel and have some effects".

 

 

Personally this is the way forward. 

 

Even teaching experienced players how to start jet engines in game isn't exactly easy. 

 

I couldn't imagine trying to teach people how to transfer fuel, select tanks etc

 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Gas?  I'm thinking oxygen systems, and the pneumatic brakes and flaps on some aircraft.

 

As for drop tanks, the simple plan would work if...  Selecting a drop tank automatically totally filled the normal fuel system, with no way to select say, full drop tank and 10% in the on board fuel system.  Hence, no "gaming the game" like could be done in '46.

[2/JG26_rudidlo]

8 hours 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 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.

In that case you can explain why I have to download WWI maps and models, when I 'm playing just WWII scenarios.