A personal opinion after update 5.101 and from the last announcements

[IckyATLAS]

The first thing to say is that the devs are still developing the sim and adding features which is very appreciated. But if we look carefully at what is announced what can we make of it:

 

We have now two objects in GB: BOX and FC. TC stays but seems to have disappeared completely (except from bug corrections) and as I am not a tank fan I will not comment here. 

 

The devs will be for the coming two years at least, fully invested into the WWI theater and basically upgrade and improve Rise of Flight to the BOX standard of quality. Excellent news you may say and indeed it is partly true. As an example there were some objects that I would like to have in BOX, like animated horse driven carriages, or vehicles pulling artillery pieces that are also very useful to have on the WWII maps. So it may be that in the future updates some elements for FC may also be a plus for BOX.

 

Now that WWI maps are the priority, I hope that they will really improve the quality of the no man's land area that is riddled with craters and trenches. It is welcome to add new buildings, railway stations, farms and a variety of objects, but please, please improve the quality of the no man's land front area which is one of the major areas in the map. Make those craters real 3D holes in the ground (with some having water in it), and make the same for the trenches and put soldiers in it. We are in a 3D game and with todays graphic technology and power it is incredible that we have this kind of flat and primitive cheap visual rendering of this area. When you fly low on this area it is just abysmal, and it is one of the reasons why I am not too much into it, it lacks immersivity. If you crash land in that area it is really poor.

 

Regarding BOX which is my major concern the devs seem to stick to what has been promised in the past and deliver which I appreciate. The Spitfire with bubble canopy, the IL2 and I hope that the IAR-80 Romanian fighter will also be delivered as promised. There are some other objects too, like the Normandy missions that were lacking, and correcting bugs and that's important. You can also add in the future some new Campaigns and Missions on the existing maps, which will indeed increase the market interest and allow for regular revenue. There is absolutely nothing about any new BOX theater in the future. So what to think. Some may argue there may be an announcement later about this. I do not believe there will be any for some time and I would love that you just prove me wrong on that.

 

I think that due to the geopolitical situation that is not improving to say the least and not making it easy for the devs, there is probably a financing issue here and the path chosen is the one that costs the less possible or requires the less possible investment. Maybe some past sources of investment are no more too. Rise of Flight is existing, the improved engine is here thanks to GB and is good enough. All the planes from Rise of Flight existed already as 3D models and you "just" have to improve them. You work on existing material and improve it adding some pluses here and there. This is an excellent way to get a reward from your past efforts and investments which I completely understand and will keep body and soul together as we say. And to be frank besides DCS there is nothing on the market to compete, and even DCS is not really a one to one direct competitor. I am not a jet fan too, so DCS does not appeal much to me. I prefer FC for sure. MFS is on a much higher level of realism, but again another world of flight sim too. So the choice is quick to make, and due to that I can understand that the devs do not feel a to big pressure from competitors and are not in a hurry to move a major step forward.

 

We are on a niche market of flight sim enthusiasts, former pilots etc. I can very well imagine that they will keep alive GB with regular extensions and updates of the existing BOX, and improve FC with not too much financial effort and thus keep some good revenue, but then maybe work in other projects completely different for a much larger different audience to be able to get more financing from new sources.

 

 

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Regarding the game surface, the  current tech do not allow to have structures under the ground level, like trenches or craters. There are technology Imitation unfortunately.

About new western map , the ROF map had pines trees, i believe new map do not have those. For me also what should be updated is game environment , the far  lod of fores, river, road, cities are very bad . For example river view from large altitude become stream of separate ponds, loosing continuity. Cites from far  look like parks trees or flat pancakes. Objects on airfields disappear. The no man's land texture is monotonous and also bad looking. 

[=621=Samikatz]

IMO a BoX 2.0 refresh is much more likely than developing two games at once, with Flying Circus filled up for the next two years I can't see them juggling development back and forth like that (or expecting the community to invest in two products at once). imo some of the smaller notes in the updates point towards this game being kept, too. A few months back they posted job listings for a sound engineer and this patch we get new gun sounds in a more realistic and punchy rendition (go fly a Shvak armed plane and shoot something, sounds great), as sounds for sims are very much tied to the engine and how it renders sound in a 3D space I can't see them working on that if they were going to scrap the whole engine, they'd have to do everything over again

[S10JlAbraxis]

Assuming what the devs say about increasing staff by 50% is true, I think you may be assuming a much worse situation than is the case.  

 

I do agree and would love to see major strides in map realism and density of objects.  Normandy map looks good close to the coast of France but as you move inland the farms go away and the towns become more and more sparse.   Trees and textures need to be more detailed with more variety.  Need more roads, little villages, military installations, and unique industry types.  The list goes on.  Perhaps this is why the devs are looking to build an updated product infrastructure.  I am guessing it is extremely resource intensive to build maps with the current technology BOX is using.  With more modern tools this should not be the case and detailed and realistic maps should be easier to create.  Here’s hoping!

[Noisemaker]

7 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Regarding the game surface, the  current tech do not allow to have structures under the ground level, like trenches or craters. There are technology Imitation unfortunately.

 

I've never really understood this limitation.  Sea level should be the base level (Or lower if we consider subs can dive below the surface and not explode from crashing into a hard boundary)?  I mean we have valleys and cliffs on some maps, so terrain height can be sharply increased, and what is a trench or a crater other than a small cliff or valley in the terrain?  The limitation, as I see it is as seeing these things as objects, and not terrain features.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 minutes ago, Noisemaker said:

I've never really understood this limitation.  Sea level should be the base level (Or lower if we consider subs can dive below the surface and not explode from crashing into a hard boundary)?  I mean we have valleys and cliffs on some maps, so terrain height can be sharply increased, and what is a trench or a crater other than a small cliff or valley in the terrain?  The limitation, as I see it is as seeing these things as objects, and not terrain features.

There is also the a map height mesh resolution, it will not allow to have narrow (real dimension) trenches. The tech is limited, smillar as we ask why there is no hedges on Normandy map - they said it is engine limitation.

[ACG_Bussard]

I think this is a good and appropriate summary by IckyATLAS of what the future of this simulation series might look like. With yesterday's announcements of FC3 + FC4 and the ambitious release schedule, it is now clear that the two expansions from sub-contractor Yugra Media are expected to bring another major revenue stream for the upcoming engine improvement development. Perfectly fine from my point of view, since I already liked ROF and therefore also bought the FC series.

 

Of course, I hope that an announcement for the Tank Crew expansion will be made soon because the sub-contractor Digital Forms could be kept as well. There´s still hope and will generate more income too.... ? 

[simfan2015]

9 hours ago, IckyATLAS said:

All the planes from Rise of Flight existed already as 3D models and you "just" have to improve them. You work on existing material and improve it adding some pluses here and there.

I am pretty sure it is not really that 'easy' and/or just an improvement of old stuff.

Whatever tools they use, contemporary and/or legacy software engineering remains a human-resource hog.

 That may change one day some kind of AI can do these things but I am not holding my breath.

In fact I think that even the spit with bubbletop has taken quite some man-hours.

You get the 2D as well as 3D plane, inside, outside, main menu/hanget, variants, addons like camera in case of the bubbletop, dedicated skins ...

 that 15 USD I paid for it won't make them rich !

Edited March 30, 2023 by simfan2015

[Vastarien]

Not only No Man’s Land but countryland and meadows too. I wish those textures were at least on par with Normandy.

Edited March 30, 2023 by Vastarien

[RyanR]

IL-2 is surprisingly viable.

 

I took the DCS plunge over the last month, and it's amazing how disappointing it is. How long has it been around?.... yet so few planes.... and a mish-mash of planes that don't really go together. The lack of cohesiveness is astounding. Granted I bought the F-86 because I was having MiG Alley nostalgia.... then bought the P-47, because P-47. Clickable cockpits might be cool, but all the important stuff you bind to keys. So, what's the point? The modules are dated, and the graphics in the cockpits are bland. Forget the fact that you have to buy the plane, then buy a place to fly the plane, then buy a campaign so you have a reason to fly the plane.

 

Amazing to hop back into IL-2 GB and be amazed at the depth of the graphics. The flight models are fine, and it's easy to hop into a random, period correct scenario.

 

-Ryan

 

[S10JlAbraxis]

4 hours ago, RyanR said:

IL-2 is surprisingly viable.

 

I took the DCS plunge over the last month, and it's amazing how disappointing it is. How long has it been around?.... yet so few planes.... and a mish-mash of planes that don't really go together. The lack of cohesiveness is astounding. Granted I bought the F-86 because I was having MiG Alley nostalgia.... then bought the P-47, because P-47. Clickable cockpits might be cool, but all the important stuff you bind to keys. So, what's the point? The modules are dated, and the graphics in the cockpits are bland. Forget the fact that you have to buy the plane, then buy a place to fly the plane, then buy a campaign so you have a reason to fly the plane.

 

Amazing to hop back into IL-2 GB and be amazed at the depth of the graphics. The flight models are fine, and it's easy to hop into a random, period correct scenario.

 

-Ryan

 

Regardless of the ill-informed people who left the silly laughing face emojis on your post - I totally agree with your points.  I own a lot of DCS planes and maps because I love flight sims.  But once I learn a new plane and fly a few single missions I am done.  I am not interested in building missions, and I am not a big fan of single missions or DCS MP.  I play the single missions once and I am done - what is the point of flying again - you know exactly what will happen. 

 

DCS seems like a random mishmash of stuff to me. No career mode, no coherent WW2 experience.  And clicking cockpits is just a pain.  Great for learning every detail of flying a real plane but after that just a pain.  If IL2 had fuel system management, as was previously planned, better radio comms/wingman AI, and more detailed maps it would close to a perfect WW2 flight experience.  DCS is a looooong way off from that and even a long way off from matching current BOX WW2 experience.  Until DCS builds a dynamic career mode and can create an entire coherent theater with most of the correct planes available it is just a big yawn.

 

PS - I know what you mean about the bland cockpits in DCS WW2 planes - all the right controls are there but everything seems washed out and cartoonish with poor textures.  Not to mention the sometimes bizarre flight modles and AI WW2 planes that fly like jets LOL...

Edited March 31, 2023 by S10JlAbraxis
Typo

[Guest deleted@83466]

40 minutes ago, S10JlAbraxis said:

 

Regardless of the ill-informed people who left the silly laughing face emojis on your post - I totally agree with your points.  I own a lot of DCS planes and maps because I love flight sims.  But once I learn a new plane and fly a few single missions I am done.  I am not interested in building missions, and I am not a big fan of single missions or DCS MP.  I play the single missions once and I am done - what is the point of flying again - you know exactly what will happen. 

 

DCS seems like a random mishmash of stuff to me. No career mode, no coherent WW2 experience.  And clicking cockpits is just a pain.  Great for learning every detail of flying a real plane but after that just a pain.  If IL2 had fuel system management, as was previously planned, better radio comms/wingman AI, and more detailed maps it would close to a perfect WW2 flight experience.  DCS is a looooong way off from that and even a long way off from matching current BOX WW2 experience.  Until DCS builds a dynamic career mode and can create an entire coherent theater with most of the correct planes available it is just a big yawn.

 

PS - I know what you mean about the bland cockpits in DCS WW2 planes - all the right controls are there but everything seems washed out and cartoonish with poor textures.  Not to mention the sometimes bizarre flight modles and AI WW2 planes that fly like jets LOL...

 

I have many thousands of hours in both sims.  So me and the others who handed out a laugh are ill-informed? How so?

[S10JlAbraxis]

So SeaSerpent I take it you can not tolarate people whose opinions differ from yours?  You must enjoy DCS and that is great and I actually do not find that particulary funny.  I actually enjoy DCS as well but not so much as IL2 since I like the career feature not in DCS.  

Edited March 31, 2023 by S10JlAbraxis

[Guest deleted@83466]

Giving somebody a negative emoji is my own “opinion”.   You expressed your opinion of DCS, but I refrained from giving mine, since this is the IL-2 forum.  I gave you emojis instead.  Who can’t tolerate other people’s opinions, again?

[S10JlAbraxis]

10 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

I have many thousands of hours in both sims.  So me and the others who handed out a laugh are ill-informed? How so?

My "ill-informed" comment was a reaction of your rude laughing emoji reaction to the previous post.  I felt you were ill informed regarding the content and intent of RyanRs post not regarding your knoledge of different flight sim which I am sure is extensive.  Usually, a laughing emoji relates to a funny post in a good-hearted sense.  Rather yours was a means of demeaning the posters’ opinion, which I find rather immature.  At any rate don't take it personally.

Enough of this and no ill intent meant towards you.

Edited March 31, 2023 by S10JlAbraxis

[Guest deleted@83466]

We’re good.

[S10JlAbraxis]

Excellent enjoy DCS and IL2!

[dburne]

1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

I have many thousands of hours in both sims.  So me and the others who handed out a laugh are ill-informed? How so?

 

Amen brother...

[PatrickAWlson]

One thing to note about FC: it is being done by a third party, not the core company.  FC 2 is finally here and plans were announced for the future, but that future is a long way off.  Just because Ugra (did I spell that correctly?) is going to continue work on WWI does not mean that there will be a great impact on anything else.  

[ST_Catchov]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Just because Ugra (did I spell that correctly?) is going to continue work on WWI does not mean that there will be a great impact on anything else. 

 

Conjecture. At the end of the day when everything else is taken into consideration and in the final analysis when all is said and done, in the fullness of time and sooner or later, ultimately, it's good for WW1 enthusiasts.

[PatrickAWlson]

1 hour ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

Conjecture. At the end of the day when everything else is taken into consideration and in the final analysis when all is said and done, in the fullness of time and sooner or later, ultimately, it's good for WW1 enthusiasts.

 

Conjecture?  Not sure why you say that.  FC 3 has been announced so that is not conjecture.  Urga is a separate company that has handled all of the WWI stuff so that is not conjecture. 

 

Impact on WWII?  To the extent that Urga needs help from 1C to complete the task then that is a drain, so the idea that they will not need a lot of help is conjecture.  However, Urga has been working FC for years now so one would suspect that they are mostly self sufficient at this point.  I could be wrong about that, but it does make sense.

 

As a WWI enthusiast (more than WWII) I was very happy to hear that FC2 was out and FC 3 and the other RoF planes were planned, so I certainly agree that it is good for WWI enthusiasts.

[[CPT]Crunch]

They did deliver in a huge way with multi threading, on my system it's performance is suddenly vastly superior in VR, it can't be beat there.  Same guys who managed that have a team busy working on a dynamic campaign system for a persistent war.  If they pull that one off they're much better positioned and future proofed.  At least they have a Pacific Ocean, dream big, talk less.

[IckyATLAS]

45 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

They did deliver in a huge way with multi threading, on my system it's performance is suddenly vastly superior in VR

I would agree that compared to many years ago the time dilation effect is reduced. I check time dilation by using the cockpit watch against my real physical watch and I must say that time dilation is greatly reduced or just is not measurable even in loaded scenarios. Sure over time I have improved too by optimizing the load and resources keeping the dynamics player centric, that means what you cannot see or that cannot influence, in short out of your senses bubble, is kept out. Over the years the hardware (CPU/GPU) has improved too. So all put together time dilation is not really an issue anymore but there are specific circumstances where it does creep in however being extremely localized and as a few percent impact only. I am planning a new rig 13900KS + 4090 + Win11 and I am very curious about how this will compare against my present 11900K + 3090 + Win10. The 11900 did not have all this P-Core and E-Core delirium so this is some kind of novelty and I have no idea if it bodes well or not for this sim.

Edited April 1, 2023 by IckyATLAS

[ST_Catchov]

4 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Impact on WWII?

 

Precisely. That is what I thought you were referring to? Conjecture on the future of the WWII modules and TC. Who knows? It matters not to me as I'm a WW1 guy. And I'm pleased with the current status. No offence intended.

[Trooper117]

I'm glad that FC will continue as many here do enjoy playing it... however, the time frame needed to complete it could well be more than a couple of years, and a lot can happen between now and then... still, the premise is there to get it done, that's the main thing at the moment.

[PatrickAWlson]

6 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

I'm glad that FC will continue as many here do enjoy playing it... however, the time frame needed to complete it could well be more than a couple of years, and a lot can happen between now and then... still, the premise is there to get it done, that's the main thing at the moment.

 

Now that it has been announced I'm pretty sure that it will get done.  It will take years to finish, but as we know, the content will flow over that time.  Right now we have a solid basis for June 1917 forward.  If they develop as I hope they will, chronologically backwards and not leaving two seaters for last, then we will gradually be able to move the start time back until we get parity with RoF.

 

I think a robust effort on FC is more urgent now than ever for the company.  Their cash cow is going to be dormant and they might be living off of the FC revenue stream for awhile.  Could be wrong about that though.  Successful game producers often build up a war chest on previous successes that they can use for future development.

[Guest]

On 4/1/2023 at 1:46 PM, [CPT]Crunch said:

They did deliver in a huge way with multi threading, on my system it's performance is suddenly vastly superior in VR, it can't be beat there.  Same guys who managed that have a team busy working on a dynamic campaign system for a persistent war.  If they pull that one off they're much better positioned and future proofed.  At least they have a Pacific Ocean, dream big, talk less.

Wait, what? Multi-threading? And is that just FC or also GB?

Edited April 2, 2023 by Hetzer-JG51

[kendo]

Think he was talking about the recent DCS update - multithreading has had a very positive effect on the latest beta version

[Trooper117]

37 minutes ago, kendo said:

Think he was talking about the recent DCS update - multithreading has had a very positive effect on the latest beta version

 

Yep, it has had a huge positive effect for many on DCS...

[S10JlAbraxis]

Multithreading both increased my overall frame rate and reduced the number of framerate dips.  I am getting between 90 and 100 FPS in 4k on the channel map which considering the amount of detail on that map is very good.  Hopefully BOX will go the same route in the future. 

[PatrickAWlson]

4 hours ago, S10JlAbraxis said:

Multithreading both increased my overall frame rate and reduced the number of framerate dips.  I am getting between 90 and 100 FPS in 4k on the channel map which considering the amount of detail on that map is very good.  Hopefully BOX will go the same route in the future. 

GB is multithreaded. 

 

Multithreading is a double edged sword.  If it's done really well then independent assignments are handled on different threads and several things get done in parallel.  Done badly it's worse than just keeping things single threaded.  Hard to find, intermittent bugs pop up all  over.  Performance might be no better or possibly even worse.  

[S10JlAbraxis]

3 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

GB is multithreaded. 

 

Multithreading is a double edged sword.  If it's done really well then independent assignments are handled on different threads and several things get done in parallel.  Done badly it's worse than just keeping things single threaded.  Hard to find, intermittent bugs pop up all  over.  Performance might be no better or possibly even worse.  

 

Interesting I didn't know GB was multithreaded.  GB still runs at higher frame rates than DCS for me even after the DCS multithreaded update.  

Edited April 2, 2023 by S10JlAbraxis

[RossMarBow]

No mans land is the biggest and quickest turn off in FC.

9 hours ago, S10JlAbraxis said:

 

Interesting I didn't know GB was multithreaded.  GB still runs at higher frame rates than DCS for me even after the DCS multithreaded update.  

Fixing the netcode so lagging servers don't cause fps drops on connected clients will have a much bigger effect.
I never looked into single player performance but its highly likely the same issues that cause load spikes on servers causes load spikes on single player.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Never had fps drops because server overload, you could experience slowing the  time or warping/ lagging planes, damage not registered etc all this ---- at 100 plus fps.

Edited April 3, 2023 by LukeFF
Don't try to get cute with circumventing the profanity ban

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, RossMarBow said:

its highly likely the same issues that cause load spikes on servers causes load spikes on single player.

Based on what?

And which are those issues according to you?

[Lusekofte]

11 hours ago, S10JlAbraxis said:

 

Interesting I didn't know GB was multithreaded.  GB still runs at higher frame rates than DCS for me even after the DCS multithreaded update.  

For me also, but MT in DCS increased performance significantly. 
It will be issues and are some. But I think they did a good job of it. 
Still GB suffer its since birth problem like comms and number restrictions. Personally I believe this is why they make a new thing. That and fuel management. 
for me GB got a new lease of life when I discovered how hard it was to hit something level bomb with the Arado and survive. 
with bomb strapped to its belly it is not fast enough to be safe and ground fire is lethal. 
I think that will keep me occupied long time. To get a successful mission and return on combatbox 

[parkerc341]

honestly the no mans land looks fine to me but im not too picky

 

[Lusekofte]

6 minutes ago, parkerc341 said:

honestly the no mans land looks fine to me but im not too picky

 

Trenches both in this and ROF is just funny. 
old IL 2 solved this by making the trenches go over the surface and gravel or lumber in front. Witch I found to be a better solution to this 

[percydanvers]

It's a bummer to me that TC seems to have gone by the wayside. I've honestly had quite a lot of fun with TC and the various collector vehicles. There's not a lot that's quite as satisfying as landing a clean hit on a difficult target in a tank. 

 

I'm probably going to buy FC III to support the faintest hope of BoX not being dead, but so help me I just can't get into flying WWI planes. 

Edited April 3, 2023 by percydanvers

[RyanR]

On 3/31/2023 at 5:33 PM, S10JlAbraxis said:

 

Regardless of the ill-informed people who left the silly laughing face emojis on your post - I totally agree with your points.  I own a lot of DCS planes and maps because I love flight sims.  But once I learn a new plane and fly a few single missions I am done.  I am not interested in building missions, and I am not a big fan of single missions or DCS MP.  I play the single missions once and I am done - what is the point of flying again - you know exactly what will happen. 

 

DCS seems like a random mishmash of stuff to me. No career mode, no coherent WW2 experience.  And clicking cockpits is just a pain.  Great for learning every detail of flying a real plane but after that just a pain.  If IL2 had fuel system management, as was previously planned, better radio comms/wingman AI, and more detailed maps it would close to a perfect WW2 flight experience.  DCS is a looooong way off from that and even a long way off from matching current BOX WW2 experience.  Until DCS builds a dynamic career mode and can create an entire coherent theater with most of the correct planes available it is just a big yawn.

 

PS - I know what you mean about the bland cockpits in DCS WW2 planes - all the right controls are there but everything seems washed out and cartoonish with poor textures.  Not to mention the sometimes bizarre flight modles and AI WW2 planes that fly like jets LOL...

 

 

Glad I'm not alone with my impressions. Clickable cockpits have obvious utility in newer AC than I'm interested in flying. I'd like to revisit my Falcon roots from the 1980's and 90's with the F-16 in DCS soon. It's fun to learn and see how everything works.

 

I think what I meant to say in my post is that no sim is perfect. They all have major/minor niggles. IL-2 is still very competitive.

 

-Ryan