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

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, itsbillyfrazier said:

This was an interesting thread until it derailed into the SP Vs MP funding debate....jeez.

It really isn’t that.  It’s one dude complaining about something he has access to but chooses not to use.

[[F.Circus]Gorn_Captain]

6 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

He’ll need a catchy slogan to chant.
 

“Four Five Six Seven, we don’t want your LA Seven !”

 

 

Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, I demand my C-Forty Seven

[Avimimus]

 

50 minutes ago, Rjel said:

Talk about a split in the community. This place has really fragmented since the announcement of Jason's exit. Lots of conjecture about the future from everyday users. Snarky replies by former and current members of the development team on what was and is holding the sim back. And that's just from this DD announcement. Never mind the several other threads that have been going strong for weeks wondering what was or wasn't coming in future development without any real authoritative answers. This website has really lost the sense of camaraderie it once held. IMO. 

 

I actually find the opposite to be honest.

 

I'm surprised at how much people are showing a sense of humour about themselves... I would normally expect a situation like this to lead to quite a bit of trolling and flaming, with the moderators having to step in constantly - and we've largely avoided that.

 

I'm finding a lot of the interactions have almost a festival spirit and comradery actually. It has a bit of a millenarianist vibe though (i.e. a festival at the possible end of the world).

[Denum]

1 minute ago, itsbillyfrazier said:

In fact, it's a good idea IMO as they will probably buy collector planes anyway and it helps grow the community which can only be good for the series.

Once they get in and fly a sortie with long time players the hook is set. Next thing you know they've blown 1k on a sim set up and they're there for life. 

[BraveSirRobin]

7 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

He’ll need a catchy slogan to chant.
 

“Four Five Six Seven, we don’t want your LA Seven !”

Is it really “catchy” if the only rhyme is the same word?  I think a catchy rant should have different words that rhyme.

[itsbillyfrazier]

2 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

It really isn’t that.  It’s one dude complaining about something he has access to but chooses not to use.

True. ?

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, =FEW=fernando11 said:

Go on.

 

...add in the ambient temperature and one can get the fuel/vapour fractions, and thus the vapour/oxygen mixture.

 

Such a technology is potentially the first step towards API being suddenly very relevant. Theoretically at least. This is all very speculative - about a system that hasn't been completed and what systems could theoretically be built on top of it.

Edited December 31, 2022 by Avimimus

[BraveSirRobin]

3 minutes ago, [F.Circus]Gorn_Captain said:

 

 

Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, I demand my C-Forty Seven

That is better.  You can’t have a catchy rant where the only rhyme is 7 and seven.

[[F.Circus]Gorn_Captain]

I for one am glad someone has selflessly sacrificed themselves in an attempt to break our curse to endlessly and feverishly speculate about the next module until the end of time. A true hero.

[CanadaOne]

20 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

It really isn’t that.  It’s one dude complaining about something he has access to but chooses not to use.

 

Fair enough.

 

But remember - this is the sim with the managerial upset that is pondering its future in public. With some wondering out loud if they should spend their dollars while that future remains uncertain. Meanwhile at the other sim, where you pay for what you use, they are lined up eager to pre-order anything they can get their hands on. Their future is based on solid cash which is being thrown at them by the handful.

 

Yet here you are with Il2 championing a way of playing that if emulated across the board would mean the sim would make significantly less money than it does. I don't see that as a winning idea, especially in uncertain times. Handing out free stuff to people too cheap to pay for it is not the answer. Making money by selling better stuff is.

[Lusekofte]

2 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Also, I don't understand the single player thing as someone who only played single player for so many years...there are servers running dynamic campaigns with AI bombers and other units, sophisticated command/AI ATC bots, etc. Compared to online, SP is just so sterile.

Agree on sterile in career. But fps gaming in servers are far worse

[Jaws2002]

4 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

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.

Yep.   I think a lot of players are thinking "15% internal + drop tanks, " when they talk about "the need for Drop tanks". 

  In the real world this is not how drop tanks were used. Heck, at some point, the Germans were not even allowed to drop the aluminium empty tanks because of material shortage.

 

For the stuff we have in game, I don't find the drop tanks to be a critical feature. 

 

 

[migmadmarine]

31 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

Yep.   I think a lot of players are thinking "15% internal + drop tanks, " when they talk about "the need for Drop tanks". 

  In the real world this is not how drop tanks were used. Heck, at some point, the Germans were not even allowed to drop the aluminium empty tanks because of material shortage.

 

For the stuff we have in game, I don't find the drop tanks to be a critical feature. 

 

 

Again, there are a few careers (109 in BoBP based by Frankfurt, spitfires in Normandy) that border on unplayable due to range, droptanks would be a way to do that. 

 

Though for the record I would have been fine with an automated management model for fuel systems, hell, I was even a bit worried about the added complexity for some of my friends who already can be a little daunted by the engine management. 

 

If it makes you feel better Canada, think of the map access in MP like the play tables they have in libraries or some toys stores; you didn't get mad at other kids as a child for playing with toys they hadn't bought themselves when you didn't want to, did you?

[Avimimus]

45 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

Yep.   I think a lot of players are thinking "15% internal + drop tanks, " when they talk about "the need for Drop tanks". 

  In the real world this is not how drop tanks were used. Heck, at some point, the Germans were not even allowed to drop the aluminium empty tanks because of material shortage.

 

For the stuff we have in game, I don't find the drop tanks to be a critical feature. 

 

I don't know about that... some examples of uses which are important for historical purposes:

- Bodenplatte the Bf-109 were equipped with drop-tanks and gunpods when they attacked the airfields

- A lot of the Fw-190F/G variants routinely flew with drop-tanks (and many of our hardpoint options are based around that assuption).

- Spitfires should often have drop-tanks

- American fighters returning from bomber-escort (e.g. P-47) should be encountered (during some periods they would drop to low altitude to attack ground targets of opportunity on the return journey).

 

So, in spite of the small maps - there are still at least three cases where we really should routinely encounter aircraft with drop-tanks (often empty ones).

 

 

  

1 hour ago, CanadaOne said:

Meanwhile at the other sim, where you pay for what you use, they are lined up eager to pre-order anything they can get their hands on. Their future is based on solid cash which is being thrown at them by the handful.

 

Yet here you are with Il2 championing a way of playing that if emulated across the board would mean the sim would make significantly less money than it does. I don't see that as a winning idea, especially in uncertain times. Handing out free stuff to people too cheap to pay for it is not the answer. Making money by selling better stuff is.

 

I don't know about that. For instance, DCS offers two free flyable aircraft and two free maps... so the picture is more complicated than you depict

 

I also suspect that the module based development - where an entire theatre (map, aircraft, and vehicles) are developed together is much more realistic, as it means that an entire combat environment gets reproduced. The current piecemeal approach of DCS often means aircraft have no realistic AI opponents (or locations)!

 

To produce that we have to end up paying for things we don't really want... I'm not interested in a Bf-109G-6/AS, but if it was part of a module that included something usual (e.g. an Fi-156 artillery spotter) or something I perversely desire (e.g. a He-162)... then I'm happy to pay for it. I think providing people with a bundle containing diverse options not only allows creating a coherent historically accurate 'theatre' - it also gives us a chance to try things we didn't expect to like, and discover that we like them.

 

Anyway, that is my 2 cents.

 

That said - I think it is important to have variety - something historically important, something fast, and something weird in each module... so there is something for every personality.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

1 hour ago, Lusekofte said:

Agree on sterile in career. But fps gaming in servers are far worse

Not for me in vr. Career is almost unplayable because of time dilation.

[BraveSirRobin]

2 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

 I don't see that as a winning idea

Unlike you, the people who made this decision have real world experience in exactly this situation.  They were also involved when a different decision was made in RoF when the Channel map was released.  It didn’t go well.  They learned from that mistake.  From here on out maybe they’ll listen to the guy with absolutely zero experience in this sort of marketing decision, but I doubt it.

Edited December 31, 2022 by BraveSirRobin

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

2 hours ago, itsbillyfrazier said:

This was an interesting thread until it derailed into the SP Vs MP funding debate....jeez.

 

I'm mostly SP and own almost all content bar the new FC Snipe...couldn't give a rats that MP players play on maps they don't own for free.

 

In fact, it's a good idea IMO as they will probably buy collector planes anyway and it helps grow the community which can only be good for the series.

How dare you bring a rational position into this "debate." ?

[kissTheSky]

18 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Not for me in vr. Career is almost unplayable because of time dilation.

Pretty much this. Single player is almost non playable because of constant micro stutters even though the GPU utilization is low. In IL-2 my GPU temps only go up to 57 degrees and it’s stutter city with 70 fps average. My racing simulation uses the GPU to its fullest with temperatures around 64-65 degrees, and I get buttery smooth 90 fps. 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

10 minutes ago, kissTheSky said:

Pretty much this. Single player is almost non playable because of constant micro stutters even though the GPU utilization is low. In IL-2 my GPU temps only go up to 57 degrees and it’s stutter city with 70 fps average. My racing simulation uses the GPU to its fullest with temperatures around 64-65 degrees, and I get buttery smooth 90 fps. 

And to add to this, I have a 5800x3d with 32 gb and my system is very well optimized.

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

Now, about the free C-47s for the SP flyers...

 

Do you work for free or do you expect to be paid for your labor? 

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Is it really “catchy” if the only rhyme is the same word?  I think a catchy rant should have different words that rhyme.

 

Well, if the series goes to Korea, we can substitute in the La-11. ?

3 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

Handing out free stuff to people too cheap to pay for it is not the answer

 

Wait, so no free C-47s? ?

[Guest deleted@83466]

And my heart keeps calling me backwards as I get on the Seven oh Seven….ok, cool thread, goodnight

[=gRiJ=Roman-]

IMHO they have to speed up the production of new modules. It is simply too long more than a year for single DLC.

It is better to simplify some aspects to avoid falling into "overengineering".

Another urgent aspect is the lack of enough maps to use the set of planes existing in the game. Maps, maps and more maps is what we also need.

[Strewth]

It is starting to remind me of "Days Of Our Lives" and "The Young And The Restless".

You can miss several days/weeks and come back to pick up on the last page without having to look at all the pages in between. Same Story line.

[simfan2015]

Roman... I would like the FC maps to be finalized first before anything new. 

I hope for the different seasons that I thought were planned for those as well !? 

Maps is what takes so long. That is most probably why we get those DLC of variants of existing planes. 

I guess if we are willing to spend maybe 60 usd on a map it might be an option (DCS way of monitization). 

[kissTheSky]

9 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

And to add to this, I have a 5800x3d with 32 gb and my system is very well optimized.

I’m on 13900KF, 32GB

[CountZero]

5 hours ago, =gRiJ=Roman- said:

IMHO they have to speed up the production of new modules. It is simply too long more than a year for single DLC.

It is better to simplify some aspects to avoid falling into "overengineering".

Another urgent aspect is the lack of enough maps to use the set of planes existing in the game. Maps, maps and more maps is what we also need.

What makes you think there will be more DLCs or maps made by devs for GB if they will focus on succes of new project.

I think only map well see added in game are moded maps... and that will take even longer then 2-3 years devs took to make new map, just look how long "secret" finland map is in works...

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

1 hour ago, CountZero said:

What makes you think there will be more DLCs or maps made by devs for GB if they will focus on succes of new project.

I think only map well see added in game are moded maps... and that will take even longer then 2-3 years devs took to make new map, just look how long "secret" finland map is in works...

I understood half the team was working on the new game, the other half working on the current game.  It will take a long time for the new game to be released (no revenue).  In the interim, they generate revenue to pay bills by publishing content for the current game.

Edited December 31, 2022 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[CountZero]

22 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

I understood half the team was working on the new game, the other half working on the current game.  It will take a long time for the new game to be released (no revenue).  In the interim, they generate revenue to pay bills by publishing content for the current game.

I disagree that by more content for GB they will do maps or full DLCs, thats 2-3 years of work with full team working on it in past...

4. Continue releasing new content for the Great Battles world;

its more likely new content for GB will be just more collector airplanes, thats ~6month to make. Spitfire XIVe bubble, 109G6AS, probably la5F bubble and so on... easy to make and train new guys on them and make revenue. Maps are hard to make and take LONG time to make.

Also they should have planty of funds from preorders of this new project.

Edited December 31, 2022 by CountZero

[Mm1ut1]

Expand the ground war. Different defenses, random bot tanks, more vehicles. 
I love the multiplayer aspect of the game on servers where air and ground coordinate to accomplish a goal. I enjoy both ground and air . I will buy any collector vehicle even if I don’t use it to support the game. I have been playing flight sims since the 80s and this game is beyond anything I dreamed of. 

[SIA_Koss]

Said it many times before. More content (already exist) improvements instead of making just a new pack of planes and a new map. More new game mechanics. This will bring new colors to entire game expirience, and it will give developers team more time for working on next DLC. 

 

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

 

3 hours ago, CountZero said:

 

Also they should have planty of funds from preorders of this new project.

I guess that depends on what exactly that is, and who it’s marketed to.

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

I guess that depends on what exactly that is, and who it’s marketed to.

I guess with Korea they count on grabing thouse DCS early jet fans and keep us in with props used there, just hope there is not some "unlock" type suprise waiting in this new year new project.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

On 12/29/2022 at 7:38 AM, Cunctator said:

 

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

Always thought Manchuria might be in the running. Japanese, Russian, and Chinese planes. All propeller based planes.  Low detail map.  Possible float planes.

 

AVG early war could be interesting as well.  Early Japanese planes, P40, hawks, various Chinese planes. Simple map, lots of interest.

Edited December 31, 2022 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Alexmarine]

50 minutes ago, CountZero said:

 just hope there is not some "unlock" type suprise waiting in this new year new project.

 

"Complete 10 daily challenges to unlock a single use tactical nuclear bomb power up for your F-86F-40!"

 

[9./JG52Gruber]

So if GB is not going to the Pacific will we ever get a flyable Allied medium? If the current maps are all we get does the B25 make sense or only the B26? 

 

He111 & Ju88 careers were some of the most fun I've had with the sim and I was really looking forward to something equivalent in Normandy/Belgium.

[BladeMeister]

One of 1c's parting projects for GBs should definitely be the AI B17. It just makes sense, and then they could import it into the new project later at some point. It alone would add so much to GBs and pretty much be the only Swan Song worth performing before letting 3rd parties take over and moving completely to their new venture.

 

S!Blade<><

Edited December 31, 2022 by BladeMeister

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, Alexmarine said:

 

"Complete 10 daily challenges to unlock a single use tactical nuclear bomb power up for your F-86F-40!"

 

scariest part of DD

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);

[Vishnu]

On 12/29/2022 at 8:17 AM, BlitzPig_EL said:

Do you ever post anything positive CountZero?   Ever?

 

Honestly man, enough with the negative waves already.

There’s quite a few on this forum.  

[BladeMeister]

3 minutes ago, Vishnu said:

There’s quite a few on this forum.  

Yea, well you and quite a few others were most likely not around when the current leader of this Team promised 'he knew what hardcore simmers wanted', and then he released BOS with grinding unlocks of the War Thunder theme. Not saying that will happen again, but nobody saw it coming last time and it caused a real shitstorm. Hopefully all is well but that remains to be seen.

 

S!Blade<><