Pacific WW2 sim - COMBAT PILOT

[Trooper117]

46 minutes ago, sevenless said:

Three years plus X?

 

Three years plus 10 eh?... I don't think it would be that long somehow.

[DBFlyguy]

Enigma just dropped a pretty cool video with a bit more info and prototype footage:

 

 

 

[CountZero]

its all good but this is so far from anything playable, and i dont mean zero vs f4f in quick fights, thats not interesting, im thinking about full on SP and MP with big battles and many airplane types, and still no one knows what fidelity they will have to sacrefice to even have big numbers of airplanes and ships and active guns and so on, and its expected to have carriers in full detail, i just dont know how they gona make all that posible, some ppl are to exicited about this, i just hope its not ww2 StarCitizen type of hype

[simfan2015]

They don't get SC-type funding so no over-hyping I guess, otherwise that would be a very good idea .... unlimited $$$. Korea detailed up to a grass hopper 🙂

[Trooper117]

What they have put together in just over 12 months is pretty amazing... and of course it's not remotely playable yet, look at the timescale involved.

I think I have more than two brain cells, so even I could work out we aren't going to be playing this anytime soon... but one thing is certain, they are keeping us in the loop, with regular info and status reports when there is something to show... I'm pretty sure this will be something worthwhile waiting for.

[Aapje]

They only have the most basic stuff for a flying sim. All the combat stuff still needs to be added, plus lots more features, plus most content. But they are expanding the team, so it is hard to predict how fast they will go. They probably don't know themselves.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

What caught my eye was that they have developed tools to help the development now and in future, speeding up the process. Also the modularity and advanced MT support was nice to see. 

[Gambit21]

I’ll happily buy a more complete tech demo build, with flight model dialed in, even if I can only practice carrier traps with it for a year. 

The community as a whole doesn’t always handle Early Access well. (See DCS) That’s on the customers, not ED.
However if framed a bit differently /expectations managed, it’s totally doable for CP.

[Mysticpuma]

On 6/26/2024 at 4:52 AM, sevenless said:

How far away from release are we? Three years plus X?

Probably be here before VR in CloD 👀😁

[Koziolek]

17 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

Probably be here before VR in CloD 👀😁

As much as I hate to say it ............ you're probably right 😉

[Ribbon]

On 6/26/2024 at 9:51 PM, LLv34_Flanker said:

S!

 

What caught my eye was that they have developed tools to help the development now and in future, speeding up the process. Also the modularity and advanced MT support was nice to see. 

I guess expanding dev team is much easier since they use widely popular UE5 engine so new guys dont learn from scratch as in case of inhouse engine.

If i had to guess i'd say playable Midway might be out in 3 years.

 

For sure i will back their kickstarter in whatever option they offer it.

Mere attempt of going PTO deserves my money even if i dont get anything in return.

[Aapje]

21 hours ago, Ribbon said:

I guess expanding dev team is much easier since they use widely popular UE5 engine so new guys dont learn from scratch as in case of inhouse engine.

 

Yes, but only to a point, because a bunch of things will require custom development, like the flight models, damage modelling, etc, so new developers will still need to learn that.

[Lusekofte]

On 6/26/2024 at 9:58 PM, Gambit21 said:

I’ll happily buy a more complete tech demo build

Wasn’t that what we did on Gb too? Personally I would support them in a personal affordable way as long as it takes. 
I am kind of tired of people believing they own huge stocks of a sim once they buy a module. 
Even with the most expencive rig and hardware flight sim still is the cheapest hobby I got if you count hours of use. Scuba diving and hunting is far more expencive. 
I am still not sure how this will materialise, making a simulator with western salaries is pretty ambitious. 
For me this has become the only ww2 combat sim apart from Clod I believe will have a quality I can appreciate. 

[Ribbon]

On 7/3/2024 at 6:09 AM, Aapje said:

 

Yes, but only to a point, because a bunch of things will require custom development, like the flight models, damage modelling, etc, so new developers will still need to learn that.

I got that, mostly referring to 3D modeling as that part takes a lot of time if not the most....got that consclusion from current sim development, maybe im wrong.

[Gambit21]

On 7/5/2024 at 7:52 AM, Ribbon said:

I got that, mostly referring to 3D modeling as that part takes a lot of time if not the most....got that consclusion from current sim development, maybe im wrong.

3D modeling, while a time-consuming slog (I’m a 3D guy/DCS 3rd party assistance here and there as well) and requiring some hard-earned experience and skill…it’s not necessarily the most time-consuming part of aircraft development.  That would fall to the programming involved.

 

 

[DD_Arthur]

On 7/2/2024 at 10:29 AM, Ribbon said:

I guess expanding dev team is much easier since they use widely popular UE5 engine so new guys dont learn from scratch as in case of inhouse engine.

If i had to guess i'd say playable Midway might be out in 3 years.

This is very true. Lockheed-Martin, who absolutely dominate the professional simulation market, are switching to the UE5 engine for  their next simulation base for exactly those reasons.

 

[Ribbon]

2 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

This is very true. Lockheed-Martin, who absolutely dominate the professional simulation market, are switching to the UE5 engine for  their next simulation base for exactly those reasons.

 

Didn't knew that, wow, it really removes my doubts about UE5 engine in flight sims.

[Gambit21]

On 7/7/2024 at 6:57 AM, Ribbon said:

Didn't knew that, wow, it really removes my doubts about UE5 engine in flight sims.

Well for me it was the fact that the team chose it, and they obviously did their research first.

[Aapje]

3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Well for me it was the fact that the team chose it, and they obviously did their research first.

 

They didn't know that it was going to work out. The early development was the research to see if it would work.

 

This is pretty common in programming, where you build something that is just good enough to show that the stuff that you worry about will work out, but is utterly unfinished and very far from what a real user can use. It's just good enough to be able to judge with acceptable certainty that you want to continu. Which is still not the same as being certain that the project will work out. It's pretty typical that you run into things that you thought would be pretty easy, but that turn out to be quite hard or even impossible.

[Gambit21]

Just now, Aapje said:

 

They didn't know that it was going to work out. The early development was the research to see if it would work.

 

Of course not….Then they did know - that’s what I’m referring to. 

[Ribbon]

53 minutes ago, Aapje said:

 

They didn't know that it was going to work out. The early development was the research to see if it would work.

 

This is pretty common in programming, where you build something that is just good enough to show that the stuff that you worry about will work out, but is utterly unfinished and very far from what a real user can use. It's just good enough to be able to judge with acceptable certainty that you want to continu. Which is still not the same as being certain that the project will work out. It's pretty typical that you run into things that you thought would be pretty easy, but that turn out to be quite hard or even impossible.

Im not into programming but as we all heard devs talking about it when it comes to specific games with "certain needs" like flight sims or Arma...subject for those kind of games is always inhouse vs UE engine, it's pros and cons.

If problem pops out i hope they can "rework" engine parts to their needs.

[Gambit21]

UE absolutely wasn’t appropriate for flight sims until recently. 

[Rei-sen]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

UE absolutely wasn’t appropriate for flight sims until recently. 

Can you elaborate, please? Just curious if it's due to the limitations of the previous UE versions in terms handling large maps or is it something else? 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

UE absolutely wasn’t appropriate for flight sims until recently. 

I don't know if that is entirely true. The Nor platform ( Matrea simulations) was on UE in 2022. But for sure standard UE5.4 increased terrain size from 21km to 88 000 000 km, this is huge!

Edited July 10, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Aapje]

10 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Of course not….Then they did know - that’s what I’m referring to. 

 

Perhaps it's a language issue, but what you said was simply not correct. They chose UE5 before they knew that it was truly viable. The later decision was to move from creating a prototype to creating a full game. It was not a choice for the game engine at that point.

 

We don't know what they would have done if UE5 was found to be lacking. It's plausible that they would have simply abandoned the idea of creating a new flight sim, since there doesn't seem to be another off the shelf game engine that could work, and creating a fully new game engine might not be considered viable.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Many industry actors and new entrants to the simulation community have contacted us to get guidance on where to start when building a flight simulator with Unreal Engine.

To meet this need, Epic Games has created the Antoinette Project, a comprehensive set of resources to support the creation of the next generation of flight simulators. By extension, these resources also support the many types of vehicular simulators in development today.Many industry actors and new entrants to the simulation community have contacted us to get guidance on where to start when building a flight simulator with Unreal Engine.

 

To meet this need, Epic Games has created the Antoinette Project, a comprehensive set of resources to support the creation of the next generation of flight simulators. By extension, these resources also support the many types of vehicular simulators in development today.

 

 

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/blog/antoinette-project-tools-to-create-the-next-generation-of-flight-simulators

 

This is from may 2022

Edited July 10, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Gambit21]

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

I don't know if that is entirely true. The Nor platform ( Matrea simulations) was on UE in 2022. But for sure standard UE5.4 increased terrain size from 21km to 88 000 000 km, this is huge!

2022 is recent.

UE has been around since late 90’s.

 

 

FYI

9 hours ago, Aapje said:

Perhaps it's a language issue, but what you said was simply not correct. They chose UE5 before they knew that it was truly viable. The later decision was to move from creating a prototype to creating a full game. It was not a choice for the game engine at that point.

 

We don't know what they would have done if UE5 was found to be lacking. It's plausible that they would have simply abandoned the idea of creating a new flight sim, since there doesn't seem to be another off the shelf game engine that could work, and creating a fully new game engine might not be considered viable.

Then they stayed with “chose” it - see how that works?
 

I was never talking of the “trial” recon period. They picked/settled on UE some time ago now. That was clear evidence that the engine is up to the task. 

[Mysticpuma]

New update:

"The cockpits for both the A6M and F4F-4 are officially underway!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More info. here:

 

https://forum.combatpilot.com/topic/48-combat-pilot-developer-diaries/?do=findComment&comment=9950

Edited July 12, 2024 by Mysticpuma

[Mysticpuma]

New DD released, here's a few pics (from many) with the link.

 

 

 

 

 

https://forum.combatpilot.com/topic/48-combat-pilot-developer-diaries/?do=findComment&comment=10465

[Trooper117]

The detail in the many pics on the site is superb... I'm so looking forward to this!

[Vishnu]

1 hour ago, Mysticpuma said:

New DD released, here's a few pics (from many) with the link.

 

 

 

 

 

https://forum.combatpilot.com/topic/48-combat-pilot-developer-diaries/?do=findComment&comment=10465

I recall them saying here they didn't feel comfortable taking on the Pacific because there is a lack of data.    Is Jason just spit balling the specs and technical aspects to push it out?

 

[354thFG_Leifr]

Presumably he's found enough to make a start, and has said he will be using CFD to help fill in the blanks.

We flew for years in CFS2 and 1946 in the Pacific, and it always seemed good enough. I don't see how it's any different now, new data or not - just get it done and make it believable, even if some data is fudged.

[GOA_Karaya_VR]

My man, this is totally a new simulator.. New engine, new technology.. etc.

 

This is what we dream , and we are close to get it in.

 

Cheers for Jason and his team.

 

S.

 

[BOO]

9 hours ago, Vishnu said:

I recall them saying here they didn't feel comfortable taking on the Pacific because there is a lack of data. Is Jason just spit balling the specs and technical aspects to push it out?

 

 

The posts pinned to the top of every page of this thread would indicate differently. 

 

I would suggest every sim "spitballs" to one degree or another. If its believeable I dont think the majority would care about the numbers after the decimal point. 

Edited August 14, 2024 by BOO

[Trooper117]

Even if they did get it 100% absolutely correct, there would still be some rivet counter out there complaining his favourite ride is borked in one way or another... us humans will always find something to whinge about. 🤣

[Deacon352nd]

Is there any estimate of when it will be available?  Please don’t respond with “two weeks”.  We’re looking for a true estimate. 

[Trooper117]

Not 2 weeks, and not soon, not early 2025 either...

[AndyJWest]

2 hours ago, Deacon352nd said:

Is there any estimate of when it will be available?  Please don’t respond with “two weeks”.  We’re looking for a true estimate. 

 

The only place you'll get that is from Jason, or his team. And I'd be very surprised if they give one until the project is much more advanced. 

[Avimimus]

I'd assume EA in 2026 is more reasonable as an expectation... unless the EA is very limited in what is offered.

  

18 hours ago, Vishnu said:

I recall them saying here they didn't feel comfortable taking on the Pacific because there is a lack of data.    Is Jason just spit balling the specs and technical aspects to push it out?

 

A lot of the data that was missing was flight tests - and we've seen some other developers (DCS/DCS third parties) using CFD to try to fill in the gaps.

 

Another solution is just to have only two or three flyables (e.g. have the Zero as the only Japanese flyable). Previous sims were often like that... they'd be missing bombers entirely, or allow one to fly only American aircraft (and maybe one 'OpFor').

[BOO]

6 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

Even if they did get it 100% absolutely correct, there would still be some rivet counter out there complaining his favourite ride is borked in one way or another... us humans will always find something to whinge about. 🤣

Every one of my favorite planes is borked. Just mine. Noone elses.