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

[Lusekofte]

4 hours ago, BornToBattle said:

Amazing that in the year 2023 games still won’t support multi threading after it’s been available for the past 21 years.

This

[FuriousMeow]

38 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

This

 

Is wrong.

[Lusekofte]

15 minutes ago, FuriousMeow said:

 

Is wrong.

No it’s not. 

[BornToBattle]

On 1/30/2023 at 10:10 AM, FuriousMeow said:

 

Is wrong.

Really?

 

https://stormbirds.blog/2022/12/02/multi-threading-for-dcs-update/comment-page-1/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MicrosoftFlightSim/comments/x8xvxi/why_hasnt_asobo_implemented_multithreading/

 

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/278362-any-news-on-sim-thread-multi-threading/page/3/

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1250410/discussions/0/3453716885204069364/

 

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/278672-multi-core-cpu-s/

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jack_Daniels1983]

On 1/9/2023 at 5:48 PM, Mysticpuma said:

My short list of core features. 

 

1) Code and Netcode that can handle large formations of aircraft. 

 

2) CPU multi-core support

 

3) PBR graphics (for future proofing) 

 

4) VR support

 

5) Clouds and environment like DCS or an enhanced version of Truesky

 

5) 4 engine bombers

 

6) A detailed Quick Mission Builder much like @SYN_Vander has created for BoX. 

 

7) Ai of a coding level like Buddeye created many years back. 

 

I have lots more but as a starting point, those are a few points. 

 

What would yours be? 

 

 

 

8. Dynamic Mission

9. Damage Model (not only Aircraft)
10. More Life in in World (Animals, Air Siren, People in the Streets)
11. Persistens World with Player Feedback (for example, if you bombed the wrong target, you don't get a "mission Failed" you get an negativ entry in your Personals). 

[mb339pan]

• change game name, stop IL2 Sturmovick brand, IL2 is a plane not a game with planes
• native dx11/dx12 graphics engine
• new engine not derived from other game with other planes
• netcode for 100+ players for muliplayer only game or dinamic campain for only SP game (waste of money and energy)
• no tanks, no ww1/2/3 games, only 1 historic period (waste of money and energy)
• less quantity, more quality like DCS simulator combat sim or more quantity, less quality like War Thunder arcade game

[FuriousMeow]

On 2/1/2023 at 9:14 AM, BornToBattle said:

Really?

 

https://stormbirds.blog/2022/12/02/multi-threading-for-dcs-update/comment-page-1/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MicrosoftFlightSim/comments/x8xvxi/why_hasnt_asobo_implemented_multithreading/

 

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/278362-any-news-on-sim-thread-multi-threading/page/3/

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1250410/discussions/0/3453716885204069364/

 

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/278672-multi-core-cpu-s/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. A lot of that is other sim engines, but they are still multithreaded in some ways but not others aka graphics (unless using DX12 or Vulkan) and they will always be limited to the main game loop. There is no way around that code wise yet, we need different code bases and quantum computers.

 

You picked examples of other sims where users show CPU graphs of only one CPU in use, and yet you can capture this particular engine using all cores. You can even see someone say MSFS *is* multi-threaded in this link you posted: https://steamcommunity.com/app/1250410/discussions/0/3453716885204069364/ just that it still has the main game loop.

 

Games rely on a game loop, there is only so much parallel computing that can be done but that doesn't mean they aren't multithreaded. They are multi-threaded and use multiple cores, and have been for years.

On 1/30/2023 at 11:26 AM, Lusekofte said:

No it’s not. 

Is.

[[CPT]Crunch]

Load out menu for weapons configuration while on the parking spot starting engines, save a lot of time and confusion for teams, and give better on the fly mission planning ability.  Also the ability to use it at RRR designated spots to change configurations on sortie regenerations.

[LLv34_Temuri]

Proper icons:

http://coshacks.blogspot.com/2016/03/why-icons-are-needed-in-combat-flight.html?m=1

[CountZero]

4 minutes ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

Proper icons:

http://coshacks.blogspot.com/2016/03/why-icons-are-needed-in-combat-flight.html?m=1

nah man icons is so unrealistic, 800x600rez on 4K monitor is real thing for contact spoting ?

 

[LLv34_Temuri]

1 minute ago, CountZero said:

nah man icons is so unrealistic, 800x600rez on 4K monitor is real thing for contact spoting ?

 

People want simulate planes as close as possible, but forget that the human eye’s capability needs to be simulated too when using flat screens.

[CountZero]

5 minutes ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

People want simulate planes as close as possible, but forget that the human eye’s capability needs to be simulated too when using flat screens.

i was sarcastic, pointing out that ppl would rather lower rez to make game look so unrealistic then have icons, icons also need more options, like in old il-2 46, so you as server host can select when what part of it show up for players, and on what side... but players are alergic on use of icons, its same as with techchat, they would have it off even if that means they cant get info they would be able to get flying real airplane... 

Edited February 4, 2023 by CountZero

[LLv34_Temuri]

29 minutes ago, CountZero said:

i was sarcastic

I was tired and tipsy. It’s the second day of The Urban Blitz

[FeuerFliegen]

Not sure if this has been mentioned here yet, but I feel that in a true WW2 simulation, the maps that we use to navigate should be MUCH less detailed than what we have now.

 

As if WW2 pilots had the most detailed maps with every corner of every city, railroad, river, and forest perfectly lined up in the most precise detail.

 

Even with the difficulties some new players have with navigation, I suspect it was MUCH harder to navigate in real life.

 

A trail through a forest should not be so wide that it is obvious that a landscaping crew comes through every couple months to clear our any vegetation, and a lone road throughout the countryside should not have a perfect placement of trees lined alongside it.  I doubt the Soviet Union had all these "countryside beautification" projects going on like we see in this game.

 

I have seen people talk about how it's unrealistic that we can't bomb the railway line in front of the train, so that it can be de-railed.   The problem with this, is that if they made that possible, it also wouldn't be realistic that it would be SO easy to locate and spot every single railroad in service throughout the entire country.

[Charon]

@SCG_FeuerFliegen I mostly agree, although I think with regards to railroads, specifically, they would have been one of the most reliably charted features. They're of military significance, hard to hide, and easy to map in peacetime. I'm pretty sure Lipfert mentions counting the number of rail lines leaving a city after he became lost, for example.

 

But the way one can examine the sharp-edged shapes made by edges of towns and villages and compare that to a map? That strikes me as generally a gameism.

 

BTW, "China - China Coast, Ningpo to Canton" is an interesting browse if you want to see some very high quality WWII Approach and Target maps. I'd love a source for other wartime maps, so far this is all I've been able to find.

 

Edited February 11, 2023 by Charon

[FeuerFliegen]

4 hours ago, Charon said:

@SCG_FeuerFliegen I mostly agree, although I think with regards to railroads, specifically, they would have been one of the most reliably charted features. They're of military significance, hard to hide, and easy to map in peacetime. I'm pretty sure Lipfert mentions counting the number of rail lines leaving a city after he became lost, for example.

 

But the way one can examine the sharp-edged shapes made by edges of towns and villages and compare that to a map? That strikes me as generally a gameism.

 

BTW, "China - China Coast, Ningpo to Canton" is an interesting browse if you want to see some very high quality WWII Approach and Target maps. I'd love a source for other wartime maps, so far this is all I've been able to find.

 

 

 

Those are the types of maps we should have in the sim; basically exactly what pilots would have recieved. 

 

Regarding railroads, that makes it seem like it would be incredibly easy to just bomb a railroad and prevent trains from passing through.  Was this the case?   If not,  what made it difficult to bomb railroads?

[Charon]

1 hour ago, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

Regarding railroads, that makes it seem like it would be incredibly easy to just bomb a railroad and prevent trains from passing through.  Was this the case?   If not,  what made it difficult to bomb railroads?

 

From what I understand, yes, they were easy to bomb. I recall one 8th AF fighter pilot talking about how (in '44ish) they'd just fly along a track scattering bombs over many miles, some of them on very long time-delay fuses, just to make work for the Germans. But dirt and timber and steel are cheap, so repairing them was relatively easy. My impression is that the primary value of this is in adding friction. Troops and supplies can still get through in the end, but they'll be delayed, and it adds an element of unpredictability to the timing of anything the enemy wants to do.

 

Bombing trains, bridges, and marshalling yards is more destructive, since the troops, supplies, bridges and rolling stock are harder to replace, but those are going to be better defended most of the time.

 

Also, I suspect in Il-2 we generally see trains closer to the frontline than was realistic, simply because people mostly don't want long missions, but this is not something I know much about. Does anyone know offhand reasonable railhead distances during WWII?

[LLv34_Temuri]

Almost forgot:

Dserver with API that allows you to spawn any game object anywhere, in any orientation, with any speed. And of course delete any game object.

[[DBS]Tx_Tip]

On 2/11/2023 at 2:31 AM, Charon said:

 

…

Also, I suspect in Il-2 we generally see trains closer to the frontline than was realistic, simply because people mostly don't want long missions, but this is not something I know much about. Does anyone know offhand reasonable railhead distances during WWII?

Operation Chattanooga Choo Cho gives you an example of distances by RAF and US 8th-9th AF sorties in May and June ‘44 starting from bases in Britain against targets in Germany, France and Northern Europe.

http://ww2f.com/threads/on-may-22-1944-operation-chattanooga-choo-choo.31717/

 

There are better resources but this one shows the enormity of the effort.

 

[spreckair]

Career Co-Op.  It would be nice to have a career with friends.

[Livai]

1. Unparalleled visual fidelity
2. Fully instrumented world simulating everything
3. Recreating the world with real data using multiply layers of information
4. Fully simulated cockpits and systems
5. Competitive Ai adversaries

[BlitzPig_EL]

All at an affordable price too?

 

[BraveSirRobin]

6 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

All at an affordable price too?

 

With smooth frame rates on a 2010 PC.

[Guest deleted@83466]

4 hours ago, Livai said:

1. Unparalleled visual fidelity
2. Fully instrumented world simulating everything
3. Recreating the world with real data using multiply layers of information
4. Fully simulated cockpits and systems
5. Competitive Ai adversaries

DCS?

[BOO]

5 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

DCS?

DCS has perhaps 1 out of those 5 - perhaps its the closest but thats like saying Mars is closer than Saturn - both are still a long way off

[Lusekofte]

A man with a vision, I like that.  
Guys his list would have been mine, if my English was good enough. 
You got to have a vision to reach for, it is not going to be that way, because budget and other stupid stuff will prevent it from happening. Vision is always there on top of everything else, and as a vision it was a good list

[[CPT]milopugdog]

On 3/19/2023 at 3:12 PM, Livai said:

1. Unparalleled visual fidelity
2. Fully instrumented world simulating everything
3. Recreating the world with real data using multiply layers of information
4. Fully simulated cockpits and systems
5. Competitive Ai adversaries

I think you want a time machine to go back in time and be a pilot in WW2.

[Lusekofte]

14 hours ago, [CPT]milopugdog said:

I think you want a time machine to go back in time and be a pilot in WW2.

That would really be fun. Apart from being rejected as a pilot and drafted to join the infantry and die. Or being a pilot just not as focused as I should be and meet an ace and die.  Or nah. I think I do not want that

[BraveSirRobin]

On 3/20/2023 at 4:02 AM, Lusekofte said:

A man with a vision, I like that.  

That post wasn’t a vision.  We all want that stuff.  It’s just ludicrously unrealistic right now, and probably even many years from now.

[[CPT]milopugdog]

On 3/21/2023 at 6:53 AM, Lusekofte said:

That would really be fun. Apart from being rejected as a pilot and drafted to join the infantry and die. Or being a pilot just not as focused as I should be and meet an ace and die.  Or nah. I think I do not want that

Well, all of that would be a matter of where, when, and what type of pilot you would be of course. Maybe something else about the strange hand of fate. Personally, I think the scariest part would be... the paperwork. For everything else? You'd probably get training. Paperwork? That's learn as you do.

[Bonnot]

On 3/21/2023 at 12:53 PM, Lusekofte said:

Apart from being rejected as a pilot and drafted to join the infantry and die

....or being an armchair pilot and die......no real alternative but this one more comfortable    ?

[IckyATLAS]

On 1/9/2023 at 5:48 PM, Mysticpuma said:

My short list of core features. 

 

1) Code and Netcode that can handle large formations of aircraft. 

 

2) CPU multi-core support

 

3) PBR graphics (for future proofing) 

 

4) VR support

 

5) Clouds and environment like DCS or an enhanced version of Truesky

 

5) 4 engine bombers

 

6) A detailed Quick Mission Builder much like @SYN_Vander has created for BoX. 

 

7) Ai of a coding level like Buddeye created many years back. 

 

I have lots more but as a starting point, those are a few points. 

 

What would yours be? 

 

 

You just forgot to add and 50 to 100  Million Dollars to do a proper Battle of the Pacific ?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Many things, but when others might omit, in current genre we don't have trenches, game do not allow hollows in the ground  surface. Static objects physic,  not just one frame animation after destruction like now most have.

[thrila]

Inbuilt voice comms with a user friendly UI

Channels as a minimum for:

1.  Command and Control

2. Individual Squadrons

3. Proximity (e.g within 2km range)

4. Lobby

 

 

 

[FeuerFliegen]

On 3/24/2023 at 1:22 PM, thrila said:

Inbuilt voice comms with a user friendly UI

Channels as a minimum for:

1.  Command and Control

2. Individual Squadrons

3. Proximity (e.g within 2km range)

4. Lobby

 

 

 

 

 

Definitely need this.  Combat Box has been able to implement this in their server utilizing SRS and they aren't even a for profit business.

[FuriousMeow]

That's precisely why CB can use SRS, they aren't making money with it in use. When money starts exchanging hands, you either have to develop in-house or pay a fee.

[Kattern]

New graphic engine?
Please, I built a new computer and now I can run this great game with the best graphics settings, maybe they should at least stay with the current graphics engine, for me the graphics are perfect ?

 

BUT - A big dynamic Pacific campaign as DLC for the current version, that would be awesome!

Have a good life ?

 

Kattern

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

4 minutes ago, Kattern said:

New graphic engine?
Please, I built a new computer and now I can run this great game with the best graphics settings, maybe they should at least stay with the current graphics engine, for me the graphics are perfect ?

 

BUT - A big dynamic Pacific campaign as DLC for the current version, that would be awesome!

Have a good life ?

 

Kattern

 

Planes do look fine. But environment graphics and it's technology is outdated, excluded the clouds. Objects destruction, explosions, smoke and dust are also from last decade.

Those can improve by  simulating physical behavior of objects and the elements or with good looking animation of those.

[DougW]

For a new flight sim, designed for the future. Completely agree on your first 4 points:

 

1) Code and Netcode that can handle large formations of aircraft. 

 

2) CPU multi-core support

 

3) PBR graphics (for future proofing) 

 

4) VR support

 

I would add the following:  A means for the game to adjust to the specifications of the user's GPU.  Example - the player has an option to direct the game to use a set amount of GPU memory. Example; currently I have 16GBs of RAM but IL-2 BOX is only using about 3GBs.  A setting in the game allowing the user to direct the game to use more in order to improve game performance or less to improve performance based on the individual's PC.

 

Looking at a game with a foundation designed for performance, adjustable to configure to older systems, current systems and future system capabilities.

 

 

[krraatumi]

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

download apk
 

Edited April 12, 2023 by krraatumi