So, if you started a flight sim from scratch, a new project, what are your must have features?

[Charon]

Scalability:

 

* I want to be able to put 400 planes in the air, or 50 planes and hundreds of ground assets; if that means some of those planes use simplified physics and damage models, so be it. Ideally this would be contextual, with planes automatically being upgraded to the full physics model in a bubble around human players.

* Infantry and small-arms fire from the ground ought to be a routine part of missions, not a computationally expensive high-poly asset only used for D-day. If they need to be 5 pixel sprites to make this happen, so be it.

 

Features for mission and generator authors:
 

* Visual programming languages are a pain. I'd like mission split into a data part (with a visual editor) containing assets, waypoints, target areas, etc... Use a scripting language like lua for mission logic so that people can write reusable library code, and open-source the parser/generator code for the data part (even under a restrictive license)  so that people who want to enhance the sim don't need to duplicate work.

* Provide an API for the dynamic campaign that people can hook into to automate mission generation, customization, composition, etc.

* Provide more high-level functions to mission designers, including functions for ground units. It should be easy to specify an alternate target, an abort condition, photorecon tasks, etc. Better tools to specify types of targets and more diverse attack types. Make it trivial to tag an asset to be offloaded when possible, so that it follows waypoints without AI or physics computations but spawns in once humans are in range and is deleted once they are not. Functions so a mission author can order a company or battalion to capture some objective, and have them execute that in a sensible way, with use of roads, cover, artillery support, and optionally radio calls for air support.

Edited January 11, 2023 by Charon

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

3 hours ago, Feldgrun said:

Maybe I’m being too simplistic, but it seems like most folks want IL2 1946 with VR & updated graphics.

Add updated fms, dms, UI, with more versatility in terms of radio comms, dynamic scenarios, etc. and you are there.

[Aapje]

I see lots of people asking for things that are missing from IL2 now, but pretty much all must have features are already in IL-2, or it would have been a failed project.

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

I see lots of people asking for things that are missing from IL2 now, but pretty much all must have features are already in IL-2, or it would have been a failed project.

 

Exactly. It is what it is, and we will have a lot of fun with GB for the years to come. At least I know I have. However it is in human nature to aim for the next big thing. I hope their "new project" will keep the strengths of GB and eliminate the gaps and weeknesses.

[BladeMeister]

18 hours ago, Irishratticus72 said:

Damn Jehovah's......

My Blessing, your lose.

 

S!Blade<><

 

[Jade_Monkey]

A feature I REALLY want for SP is the ability to switch to an AI plane and take control of it, like in DCS.

 

That way if you get shot down, you can continue the sortie with the remaining planes and not waste another 15 min taking off again replaying the same scenario.

Just switch to another pilot.

[Bonnot]

7 hours ago, Charon said:

* Provide more high-level functions to mission designers, including functions for ground units. It should be easy to specify an alternate target, an abort condition, photorecon tasks, etc. Better tools to specify types of targets and more diverse attack types. Make it trivial to tag an asset to be offloaded when possible, so that it follows waypoints without AI or physics computations but spawns in once humans are in range and is deleted once they are not. Functions so a mission author can order a company or battalion to capture some objective, and have them execute that in a sensible way, with use of roads, cover, artillery support, and optionally radio calls for air support.

This exists (almost...) it is called Arma III _ but it is not a Flight sim !

Since I have both, I often worry they can't " married " in a way or another to produce the perfect full game : Air, Land, sea !

Other "mission designers" are fine : Order of Battle, Battle Academy, Field of Glory* for what I know.  They all have different systems, none manages well the global subject.

I'm afraid it is still beyond today resources, but looking at Arma franchise evolution it should be available not so far...

Whether the Devs will move on it is another story !

 

*Matrix/Slitherine

[Dragon1-1]

55 minutes ago, Bonnot said:

This exists (almost...) it is called Arma III _ but it is not a Flight sim !

The professional military simulation environment can supposedly do that. VBS (based on the same engine as ArmA) had been said to be able to talk to DCS and produce a combined arms simulation. This was some time ago, I wouldn't be surprised if the militaries of the world already had an access to such simulator.

 

It would be great if ArmA IV featured more flight sim-like features, especially since it'll be set during Cold War, for which information is easier to come by, and combat in that era isn't all flying iPads, drones and over the horizon missiles smarter than some grunts on the ground. 

[dbuile]

9 hours ago, Aapje said:

I see lots of people asking for things that are missing from IL2 now, but pretty much all must have features are already in IL-2, or it would have been a failed project.

Agreed.  IL-2 touches nearly everything required... And I haven't even *begun* scratching the surface how extensible IL-2 is writing my own code to wrap DServer/Remote Console...  

 

AI and Scalability are IL-2's biggest roadblocks in the feature-set, I guess.  Single Player Career would be so much better if the AI:

• flew historical formations and tactics
  • bombers in formation are not fighters and shouldn't fly as such
  • German "formations" are just a gaggle, like everyone else...  it's just not accurate.  Where are the wing pair assignments, the Schwarm?  
• don't lawn dart... losses are so freaking high in career mode, does any AI pilot last more than 10 sorties?
• don't circle around mindlessly to CAP a point... 

 

[G_Schwarz]

*everything that's good and fun from 1946 and the graphics and FM(with improvment) from BoX

*remove the multiplayer but leave co-op or option to host a server, give the players all the tools they need to do it

*no timers on the engine (P40 is neutered at this point)

*4 engine bombers with dumped down FM( they fly in a straight line, maybe a rail model for them like FSX ?)

*i don't want full earth (if it's WW2 only EU and Japan and parts of US and the Pacific, i almost forgot north Africa)

*non-combat missions like reconnaissance and supply

*a new and better DM and bullets math

*better AI, enemy or friendly (where you can give commands or 2 enemies can lewd you into a fight)

*user friendly mission maker or editor

*drop tanks

 

edit: if it can be accomplished by a new engine am down for it, am no programmer but i think you can reuse the 3D Models Textures and land Mesh to save time or something idk, if am wrong correct me.

Edited January 11, 2023 by G_Schwarz
edit

[sevenless]

12 minutes ago, dbuile said:

 

• don't lawn dart... losses are so freaking high in career mode, does any AI pilot last more than 10 sorties?

 

Yes, some are even natural born killers, but those are the exception from the rule. Here, look at these two AI chaps which I took from my BoM career over to my BoS career. They rock!

 

[spreckair]

@sevenless  That is just crazy!  My AI are almost worthless.

17 minutes ago, G_Schwarz said:

*remove the multiplayer

Why remove multiplayer?  You don't have to play multiplayer, so why deny others the pleasure?

[BMA_FlyingShark]

More realistic engine temperature modelling.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[spreckair]

7 hours ago, Aapje said:

I see lots of people asking for things that are missing from IL2 now, but pretty much all must have features are already in IL-2, or it would have been a failed project.

That is true, and I love IL-2, but then again, the horse and buggy were not failed projects either.  Nor was the land-line phone, etc.  If something can be better, isn't it human to make it better?

21 hours ago, Juri_JS said:

Improvements to map technology would be on top of my list.

Given the trove of recon photos that were taken during WWII, it seems like there would be a lot of data.  Has it all been digitized, or is it all sitting in some archive gathering dust?  Either way, it looks like an enormous amount of work.

Edited January 11, 2023 by spreckair

[BlitzPig_EL]

I am perplexed by the hatred of multiplayer expressed by some.

I use both modes and find enjoyment in both.  This isn't a zero sum proposition.  One does not detract from the other.

[spreckair]

And one other thing--I want to see my  feet in the cockpit!!!  I am not a ghost!

[Ghost666]

Just now, spreckair said:

And one other thing--I want to see my  feet in the cockpit!!!  I am not a ghost!

Ya, I totally agree....Oh, wait just one unholy second....I am a ghost.

 

Never mind nothing to see here move on.  ?

[spreckair]

@Ghost666  Yeah, well not all of us got the jump on a cool callsign.  Sigh.

[Ribbon]

Remove singleplayer, me/i don't need it.....109's too!

[Juri_JS]

13 minutes ago, spreckair said:

Given the trove of recon photos that were taken during WWII, it seems like there would be a lot of data.  Has it all been digitized, or is it all sitting in some archive gathering dust?  Either way, it looks like an enormous amount of work.

 

Depends on the country. The UK for example has most of its recon photos online:

https://ncap.org.uk/search?view=map

 

[dbuile]

3 hours ago, sevenless said:

look at these two AI chaps

 

Beck and Lorenz?  Wow, I'm surprised!  Granted, I only did about 150 career sorties, but, ~no-one~ lasted.  

[G_Schwarz]

42 minutes ago, spreckair said:

@sevenless  That is just crazy!  My AI are almost worthless.

Why remove multiplayer?  You don't have to play multiplayer, so why deny others the pleasure?

 i remember reading that most of the community prefer single-player, but i also mentioned that the tools be available for anyone to create server or co-op, not denying anyone anything, but if you read the replays on this post a lot want a better AI, what i understood is that they want better AI to have a good signal-player experience and am one of them, used to play multiplayer but it wasn't fun, plane dancing and damage suddenly appears from no where, i didn't like it.

[Trooper117]

1 hour ago, spreckair said:

Why remove multiplayer?  You don't have to play multiplayer, so why deny others the pleasure?

 

''If you started a flight sim from scratch, a new project, what are your must have features...''   No one is being denied anything, it's simply your own personal ideas on what you, the individual would see as 'your' must have features... and if you are unaware, there are already flight sims out there that are strictly SP... I own two of them myself.

[[TWB]80hd]

On 1/9/2023 at 11:03 AM, Trooper117 said:

No Multiplayer.

Single player only.

A working and believable AI.

Flight/Squadron and Control Station communication system.

A working SP Dynamic campaign system, similar to PWCG.

 

If you're going to budget for an SP-only sim in 2023, make sure you include the right advertising considerations... not saying you'd have to go with the full-page ad, but it could help

 

[[TWB]80hd]

1 hour ago, G_Schwarz said:

 i remember reading that most of the community prefer single-player, but i also mentioned that the tools be available for anyone to create server or co-op, not denying anyone anything, but if you read the replays on this post a lot want a better AI, what i understood is that they want better AI to have a good signal-player experience and am one of them, used to play multiplayer but it wasn't fun, plane dancing and damage suddenly appears from no where, i didn't like it.

Multiplayer is definitely more stressful and requires far more effort (to do effectively, anyway, you REALLY need communications/wingmen, specific knowledge on different servers/mission types, etc...) but I dunno man, it's not just the fact that we can't replicate the complexities of the human mind (for better OR worse haha) but just the concessions that have to be made for AI to fly in an advanced, modern (study-level or close to it) simulation with a realistic damage model that is universally applied seems to require the AI to be given so many crutches that it ends up being immersion-breakingly artificial.  We have AI flying around in some MP servers, and you can tell immediately.  It's not just the way they fly, it's how they fly once damaged... 

 

The biggest barrier (big generalization here, there are many considerations of course) to most people flying multiplayer is a combination of the skill disparity and ego.  But it's like golf... that one good shot erases a day of garbage play... once it sticks, there is no going back.  You hit someone in MP, you see the immediate impact of whatever damage you did reflected in their flying.  That's a real person, and maybe they are shocked/scared, maybe they are calm and smooth and reverse you like this is what they do for a living. 

 

In my experience, once a sim pilot has a positive experience in cooperative combined arms team vs. team humans vs. humans, it's extremely rare for them to go back to single player as their main adrenaline fix, unless there extenuating circumstances (scheduling, Internet availability, etc.)  

 

If IL-2 BoX multiplayer wasn't some of the most amazing experiences (and I game across the entire spectrum of genres, SP/MP, for what it's worth), I wouldn't bother to comment.  Per capita, it's one of the very best MP communities out there these days, and anyone who has not given it a shot recently should (and Combat Box's Friday Night Flights is a great place to start)

 

(This post is not meant to ? on SP, or imply that an SP-only focused development couldn't result in a better SP experience than a development split betwixt SP/MP, etc.)

 

Edit: Expanded upon my initial dumbass assertion that artificial intelligence is artificial.

[Trooper117]

Just now, [TWB]80hd said:

In my experience, once a sim pilot has a positive experience in cooperative combined arms team vs. team humans vs. humans, it's extremely rare for them to go back to single player as their main adrenaline fix

 

I played MP for years and years, and I loved it... but things and people change. I can say I don't miss MP one single bit or some of the gits that inhabit it.

Lots of people I flew with have jacked MP in and have no desire to go back there... they have moved on from it.

[=621=Samikatz]

I think even if you aren't comfortable or enjoy a competitive environment against players being able to fly alongside friends even just against the AI is so much better than having any bot for a wing in any game. I don't think I would spend money on a sim I can't share with my friends

[BraveSirRobin]

52 minutes ago, [TWB]80hd said:

If you're going to budget for an SP-only sim in 2023, make sure you include the right advertising considerations... not saying you'd have to go with the full-page ad, but it could help

 

MP players are helping to pay for a lot of those expensive SP features, so it will have to be full-page.

[CountZero]

38 minutes ago, [TWB]80hd said:

Multiplayer is definitely more stressful and requires far more effort (to do effectively, anyway, you REALLY need communications/wingmen, specific knowledge on different servers/mission types, etc...) but I dunno man, it's not just the fact that we can't replicate the complexities of the human mind (for better OR worse haha) but just the concessions that have to be made for AI to fly in an advanced, modern (study-level or close to it) simulation with a realistic damage model that is universally applied seems to require the AI to be given so many crutches that it ends up being immersion-breakingly artificial.  We have AI flying around in some MP servers, and you can tell immediately.  It's not just the way they fly, it's how they fly once damaged... 

 

The biggest barrier (big generalization here, there are many considerations of course) to most people flying multiplayer is a combination of the skill disparity and ego.  But it's like golf... that one good shot erases a day of garbage play... once it sticks, there is no going back.  You hit someone in MP, you see the immediate impact of whatever damage you did reflected in their flying.  That's a real person, and maybe they are shocked/scared, maybe they are calm and smooth and reverse you like this is what they do for a living. 

 

In my experience, once a sim pilot has a positive experience in cooperative combined arms team vs. team humans vs. humans, it's extremely rare for them to go back to single player as their main adrenaline fix, unless there extenuating circumstances (scheduling, Internet availability, etc.)  

 

If IL-2 BoX multiplayer wasn't some of the most amazing experiences (and I game across the entire spectrum of genres, SP/MP, for what it's worth), I wouldn't bother to comment.  Per capita, it's one of the very best MP communities out there these days, and anyone who has not given it a shot recently should (and Combat Box's Friday Night Flights is a great place to start)

 

(This post is not meant to ? on SP, or imply that an SP-only focused development couldn't result in a better SP experience than a development split betwixt SP/MP, etc.)

 

Edit: Expanded upon my initial dumbass assertion that artificial intelligence is artificial.

SP is also for ppl that dont have mutch time to play and wont historical feal for missions.

 

I would think if what they say is true that 15% players are MP and rest SP, that would have no impact on sales considering development of MP aspect of game, if they just ditch that 15% of player base. 85% and they still have this poor SP content and poor AI, ditching that 15% would change nothing if now SP aspect of game is so bad.

 

But it would be stupid to make air sim without MP aspect, players can wish for it but it wont be ditched in next IL-2 .

Edited January 11, 2023 by CountZero

[Lusekofte]

15 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

I think even if you aren't comfortable or enjoy a competitive environment against players being able to fly alongside friends even just against the AI is so much better than having any bot for a wing in any game. I don't think I would spend money on a sim I can't share with my friends

Comfortable? I avoid mp mostly because it contain very little historical, tactical context.

If you are not interested in dogfighting or rather lurking about waiting for an easy prey. MP offers nothing.
AI is rubbish in some aspects good in others.

But they at least try to do a mission. 
mp is fps and the only thing you provide in a bomber, transport or attacker is giving them a fat juicy target and a free kill. 
If SP , ME and AI is improved much is done. Also making gunners more authentic. By now we had snipers and rubbish useless gunners. 
 

[CountZero]

For me its just strange that they dont see how placing more focus on SP aspects of game would be benefit for them if core of the player base is SP, so its either its to hard/to mutch money to make SP interesting how it was in old games, or they just see it SP players will just buy next DLC no mather what so focus is on new map new airplanes and not what they will do in SP.

Edited January 11, 2023 by CountZero

[[CPT]Crunch]

First a modular design built with the future in mind.  Shouldn't have to tear into the guts and rearrange everything over months just to find and fix simple things. 

 

Good AI are essential for complex cooperative play, eventually even online players get tired of the same old dogfights.  Just look at what the fellas from Combat Box and Finnish did, pumped some real life into the online game and brought its play somewhat back to life.  Everyone enjoys more complexity in the skies.  Dogfight is fun for so long but than every wart on the planes eventually gets revealed in the limited monotony, than we get arguments and forum wars. 

 

The game is missing its soul, we ought to be busy fighting a war together or singly, but there really isn't much of one. 

 

Online, offline, in the end we're really looking for the same thing.

[Rei-sen]

No AI-only planes. At all.

[Robli]

No multiplayer is one of the most important requirements for some? This is just weird. 

 

Must have feature: no multiplayer.

It could have the flight models (or not), it could have the best damage models (or not), best AI, best single player campaigns and careers, photorealistic maps and all, but "must have" is no multiplayer? Won't buy it, if it has multiplayer, no matter how perfect it is otherwise?

[Noisemaker]

3 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

Yes, some are even natural born killers, but those are the exception from the rule. Here, look at these two AI chaps which I took from my BoM career over to my BoS career. They rock!

 

You managed 7.5 kills per hour of flight.

That alone speaks volumes to what's wrong with career mode.  It's currently an arcade game, where the enemy is always there, follows you around the map (Since you're their waypoint), and you almost never have flight time that doesn't involve air to air combat (Which for the bomber and attack players is a real problem).

Personally, again, going back to what I wrote earlier, I'd like to have a realistic historical mode, where enemies would be a surprise (or, perchance to dream, we get vectors from ground control), but most missions would be without contact.  If you want action, there is always quick missions, or multiplayer.  Me, personally, I'd like to earn my ace status.

[sevenless]

6 minutes ago, Noisemaker said:

You managed 7.5 kills per hour of flight.

 

Exactly, I only do airstarts. Don´t have time, nor any inclination for 2 hour missions, appreciate the career dependant development though. A game with only quickmissions I would not spend money on.

[dbuile]

3 hours ago, Noisemaker said:

I'd like to have a realistic historical mode ... If you want action, there is always quick missions, or multiplayer.

 

So, having settings in career mode like "air opposition: historical" vs "air opposite: heavy" would accommodate two styles/expectations, yeah?  

  

3 hours ago, Noisemaker said:

enemy is always there, follows you around the map (Since you're their waypoint)

 

That's a pet peeve of mine, but I blame the mission builder routine rather than AI. 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

3 hours ago, G_Schwarz said:

 i remember reading that most of the community prefer single-player, but i also mentioned that the tools be available for anyone to create server or co-op, not denying anyone anything, but if you read the replays on this post a lot want a better AI, what i understood is that they want better AI to have a good signal-player experience and am one of them, used to play multiplayer but it wasn't fun, plane dancing and damage suddenly appears from no where, i didn't like it.

So you didn't like it because you didn't feel like putting in the time to become good?

[DBFlyguy]

Career mode in this game is boring.  The background and aesthetics are cool and seem to be well researched but the actual flying in them gets old very fast.  Flights are too small, the AI is as dumb as a brick and the ways to communicate are seriously lacking.  Encountering enemy aircraft should be an event, but instead it's like clubbing baby seals currently. Air combat/getting intercepted shouldn't be on every single mission no matter what side or time period your flying in.

 

Multiplayer is fine.  It's really the only reason I bother starting up this game now.  But multiplayer should be a distant secondary to a fully fleshed out single player experience.  This game will never have the multiplayer numbers of Warthunder ...or DCS for that matter, a GB 2.0 or whatever they are working on is called should focus primarily on the single player experience, get that right first then worry about multiplayer.

[Noisemaker]

51 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Exactly, I only do airstarts. Don´t have time, nor any inclination for 2 hour missions, appreciate the career dependant development though. A game with only quickmissions I would not spend money on.

I also do airstarts, in order to shorten the missions into something that I can manage to play in the limited amount of time I have to play.  That said, I also don't want every mission I fly, to be a slaughter fest with 3 flights of 8 190s/109s bearing down on my flight, especially in BoBP (I fly allied).

I never suggested a game with quick missions only, that would be a total non-starter for me as well.  I'd just like a bit more realism.

40 minutes ago, dbuile said:

 

So, having settings in career mode like "air opposition: historical" vs "air opposite: heavy" would accommodate two styles/expectations, yeah?  

  

 

That's a pet peeve of mine, but I blame the mission builder routine rather than AI. 

Yeah.

Never said it was AI, it's always been poor mission building, that I've reported repeatedly (And I have to admit, sometimes it gets better for a while, then after a while, it swings back into kobayashi maru territory, and I make another bug report).

10 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

Flights are too small, the AI is as dumb as a brick and the ways to communicate are seriously lacking.  Encountering enemy aircraft should be an event, but instead it's like clubbing baby seals currently. Air combat/getting intercepted shouldn't be on every single mission no matter what side or time period your flying in.

This is what I mean, though I disagree about clubbing baby seals, as the enemy AI, given that there are up to 24 of them attacking your aircraft at one time, can be, let's say, challenging, especially if you're flying a bomber or attack aircraft.