The status of the yet-to-be-announced title

[Guest deleted@219798]

Deja vu?

[EAF19_Marsh]

Thanks Luke and the team for the update.

 

So, unless I have missed something, after 14 pages we know:

- There is a new title

 

But we do not know

- What it is

- When we will know

- What advances it might or might not have (same core as BoX, somewhat new, totally new etc)

- When it might be released

 

Knocking it out of the park, fellas. Give yourselves a big ol' pat on the back. This moves it from the previous BoX titles' approach as a known unknown pretty much to an unknown unknown.

 

Oh, and 5/4 it is Korea.

Edited October 5, 2023 by EAF19_Marsh

[ITAF_Rani]

2 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

When we will know

As Han stated...probably we will know something in Spring 2024

[Tonester]

Its their funeral, not telling us. The MP servers get more and more empty every week…a shame

[LukeFF]

2 minutes ago, Tonester said:

Its their funeral, not telling us.

 

Not even close. ?

[Lusekofte]

7 hours ago, Tonester said:

Its their funeral, not telling us. The MP servers get more and more empty every week…a shame

This game have entered the stage where hardcore fans stick with their favorite.
little to none recruitment. After a few years of no change the numbers get so low it is almost not sustainable. If no change happens. In this case change will happen. 
All knows it, and are sitting in the fence. 
Whatever coming after a long wait, it better be good, or got potential to improve. 
A dead flight sim is recognised by logistics start crumbling, servermissions not getting renewed and such things. 
We are far from seeing a dead sim

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

It's true that multiplayer numbers are declined, but the game is not dead. If there will be new content and patches it will go on.

Edited October 6, 2023 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Panzerlang]

After 14 pages I've still not been able to work out a logical purpose for withholding just the theatre of operations (Korea, WW2 pacific or whatever). Unless it's some kind of marketing ploy along the lines of creating a hype-fest? It might be just me but if that's what it is, huge mis-fire. It's just frustrating and aggravating. We're adults here guys.

[Lusekofte]

I cannot understand that one either but it is what it is. And I am fed up guessing. 
But why people figure it is Korea beats me. 
I am pretty sure they said no carrier operations and prop focused. To me that is not looking like a Korea scene. 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Lusekofte

[76IAP-Black]

9 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Not even close. ?

You know more than you tell! 

[kendo]

8 hours ago, Hetzer-JG52 said:

After 14 pages I've still not been able to work out a logical purpose for withholding just the theatre of operations (Korea, WW2 pacific or whatever). Unless it's some kind of marketing ploy along the lines of creating a hype-fest? It might be just me but if that's what it is, huge mis-fire. It's just frustrating and aggravating. We're adults here guys.

 

After what Han said in this thread last week I have a feeling it might be that the theatre may depend on how the technology development progresses. Han gave an outline of the tech areas they were working on (or some of them at least), and said development was progressing, but there was also a deep caution in making any promises that specific features would be brought to a fully working state and be included in next dlc.

 

Maybe (?) the final choice of theatre is dependent on which technologies can be brought to successful completion? Just for an example, as I know it has already been ruled out - some Pacific scenarios would be dependent on getting successful tech implementation of an aircraft carrier. Some scenarios may need them to make big steps forward in expanding number of aircaft that can be in formation. Maybe they have a shortlist of possible theatres and need to wait for the tech before making a final decision?

 

Or, maybe, like our UK PM, the decision is made long ago and they are just full of BS.

[Robli]

22 minutes ago, kendo said:

After what Han said in this thread last week I have a feeling it might be that the theatre may depend on how the technology development progresses.

 

That would be probably the only logical conclusion, based on the reasoning that "we can't tell, because we don't want to promise something that we are not sure about", but Han also said, quote, "Map - is in development for 10 months allready and its going well." I am quite sure that that they would not develop a map for 10 months and still not know what area this map would cover. Whatever their reasons of holding the information might be, their reasoning behind it does not hold water, this is clear.

 

I think there are many people that have cut down their playing time and keeping their eyes open, ready to come back, when something exciting is announced, but I also know there are many people that have moved on and currently have no intention of coming back after a year of silent treatment. Some might still come back of course, if they find the new game/theatre interesting enough, some might have found alternatives that they enjoy more nowodays.

[Freycinet]

1 hour ago, Hetzer-JG52 said:

After 14 pages I've still not been able to work out a logical purpose for withholding just the theatre of operations (Korea, WW2 pacific or whatever). Unless it's some kind of marketing ploy along the lines of creating a hype-fest? It might be just me but if that's what it is, huge mis-fire. It's just frustrating and aggravating. We're adults here guys.

 

Adults you say? The tone of your posting reminds me more of a kid who cannot wait to open his gifts under the Christmas tree. I think the adults among us have no problem waiting for the announcement. We have the best range of flights sim ever to entertain us at the moment, Il-2, DCS World, MSFS, just go and have fun with those and stop moaning over nothing.

[tattywelshie]

I still can't believe this thread is going on!!! Han has said we'd know something around Spring next year, he's given us a bit of a heads up here, my opinion, no point speculating endlessly until then. 

[Robli]

9 minutes ago, tattywelshie said:

I still can't believe this thread is going on!!! Han has said we'd know something around Spring next year, he's given us a bit of a heads up here, my opinion, no point speculating endlessly until then. 

 

Maybe so, but on the other hand, if everybody felt that there was no point coming to talk on these forums until spring 2024, then it would be even more dead.

[tattywelshie]

9 minutes ago, Robli said:

 

Maybe so, but on the other hand, if everybody felt that there was no point coming to talk on these forums until spring 2024, then it would be even more dead.

There are still plenty of things to talk about, quite a few interesting aircraft are on the horizon, both WW2 and WW1. 

[dburne]

I suggest they consider changing the title of this thread:

From:  The status of the yet-to-be-announced title

To:   The status of the yet-to-be-announced announcement.

 

Seems more fitting.

[EAF19_Marsh]

On 10/5/2023 at 7:13 AM, ITAF_Rani said:

As Han stated...probably we will know something in Spring 2024

We might possibly know something in 6 months. Great.

 

7 hours ago, Freycinet said:

. I think the adults among us have no problem waiting for the announcement.

And the adults that work in business are unimpressed with the team’ approach to this.

 

What’s your background?

17 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Not even close. ?

Your evidence of that based on the “not tellin’ you nothin’” revenue model? Would love to see it. Anything from you beyond vague statements ?

 

12-plus months work and still uncertain of key aspects. Sounds like a great exercise in project management.

 

Feel free to respond.

Edited October 6, 2023 by LukeFF
politics

[Panzerlang]

7 hours ago, Freycinet said:

Adults you say? The tone of your posting reminds me more of a kid who cannot wait to open his gifts under the Christmas tree. I think the adults among us have no problem waiting for the announcement. We have the best range of flights sim ever to entertain us at the moment, Il-2, DCS World, MSFS, just go and have fun with those and stop moaning over nothing.

I'm talking more in principle, rather than as a kid who gives a toss about xmas. I'm not a fan of illogical behaviour. Sure, maybe there's a hidden logic and if that proves to be the case I'll be interested to see it when (if) it's revealed.

As for the meat and potatoes (vs the smoke and mirrors), Korea (love the Mig15), WW2 Pacific (love the Zero), I'll pretty much take whatever they end up providing. Couldn't give a toss how long it takes.

[CountZero]

5 hours ago, kendo said:

 

After what Han said in this thread last week I have a feeling it might be that the theatre may depend on how the technology development progresses. Han gave an outline of the tech areas they were working on (or some of them at least), and said development was progressing, but there was also a deep caution in making any promises that specific features would be brought to a fully working state and be included in next dlc.

 

Maybe (?) the final choice of theatre is dependent on which technologies can be brought to successful completion? Just for an example, as I know it has already been ruled out - some Pacific scenarios would be dependent on getting successful tech implementation of an aircraft carrier. Some scenarios may need them to make big steps forward in expanding number of aircaft that can be in formation. Maybe they have a shortlist of possible theatres and need to wait for the tech before making a final decision?

 

Or, maybe, like our UK PM, the decision is made long ago and they are just full of BS.

 

 

 

 

Or map is set in Korea, they just have to decide if they gona do 1950, 1951, 1952 and so on...

New technologies, planty of it in Korea,

Props, ok early war mostly props, maybe they think MiG-15 vs F86 is not what ppl wont so they start with Yak-9s vs P-51s B-26s vs Tu-2, F4Us vs IL-10s...

Carriers didnt play big roll all the time, they can easy do it without them and have airplanes used by Marines from land bases...

Everything they said fits Korea, most what they said dont fit other guesses that ppl hope for because they like WW2 nothing els.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Props, no carriers, ww2, Russian planes, new map....Manchuria...   ?

[AEthelraedUnraed]

50 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Everything they said fits Korea

Not really. "No Pacific", "piston-engine themed" and "No carriers" definitely do not fit Korea.

 

Sure, you could explain some of those with "yeah but the Sea of Japan is a marginal sea of the Pacific rather than the pacific itself", "early war mostly props", "Carriers didnt play big roll all the time" or "it's all deliberate misinformation to put us on the wrong track".

 

However, there's also Ockam's Razor telling us that if there are several things that don't clearly fit Korea without some creative interpretations, then it's probably not Korea.

 

I'm not entirely discounting Korea, but I don't think it's nearly as definite as some people here seem to think.

[Youtch]

While I understand they might not be willing to reveal their cards or commit to anything concrete, what i cannot understand is why they don t clarify if it will be compatible with GB or not.

 

I really fear that the only reason why they are not issuing a clear statement that next module will be compatible with GB, it is because it is not, and they don t want to say it and scare potential buyers of new planes away (not willing to invest in a product which lifespan is coming to an end).

 

Otherwise it just makes no sense.

Edited October 6, 2023 by Youtch

[Noisemaker]

13 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Not really. "No Pacific", "piston-engine themed" and "No carriers" definitely do not fit Korea.

 

Sure, you could explain some of those with "yeah but the Sea of Japan is a marginal sea of the Pacific rather than the pacific itself", "early war mostly props", "Carriers didnt play big roll all the time" or "it's all deliberate misinformation to put us on the wrong track".

 

However, there's also Ockam's Razor telling us that if there are several things that don't clearly fit Korea without some creative interpretations, then it's probably not Korea.

 

I'm not entirely discounting Korea, but I don't think it's nearly as definite as some people here seem to think.

They also keep referring to it as "the war".  There's only one war which the Russians I know, would refer to as "the war", and it isn't Korea.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

56 minutes ago, Youtch said:

what i cannot understand is why they don t clarify if it will be compatible with GB or not.

 

If it's not compatible, would you buy any additional content for the current game? It's a business. They need revenue to stay in business. 

[LukeFF]

5 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Your evidence of that based on the “not tellin’ you nothin’” revenue model? Would love to see it. Anything from you beyond vague statements ?

 

12-plus months work and still uncertain of key aspects. Sounds like a great exercise in project management.

 

My evidence of that is the internal discussions and screenshots that are posted practically every day. Real, true progress is being made, but obviously, I cannot give out details, because that's not what our marketing people want. It's up to Han and others on the team what sort of details they want to reveal right now. But obviously I can't just go around and start posting details and screengrabs on my own. ? That's no different than any other business.

[Koziolek]

8 hours ago, Hetzer-JG52 said:

After 14 pages I've still not been able to work out a logical purpose for withholding just the theatre of operations (Korea, WW2 pacific or whatever). Unless it's some kind of marketing ploy along the lines of creating a hype-fest? It might be just me but if that's what it is, huge mis-fire. It's just frustrating and aggravating. We're adults here guys.

Well, what Han wrote - they do not want to announce anything they are not 100% will be there.

Which means after 1 year of working on forests, rivers and buildings they are still not 100% sure which country will come out of this ?

[Trooper117]

Honestly... who, at this point really cares what they do? 

If they think their marketing technique of 'tell them nothing' for months on end is going to keep their fan base happy, then good luck to em!

But as fickle as we flight simmers can be, when they do eventually churn something out, if it's any good, word will soon get around and people will buy it.

They have changed the way that they want to do business with the paying public, but they should understand that the paying public may change the way they want to buy stuff off of them.

Perhaps the days of many fans who bought everything to support the team under Jason will now have a different view of their loyalties...

Edited October 6, 2023 by Trooper117
can't spell, lol!

[Gambit21]

42 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

our marketing people 

A term you use loosely of course

 

[LukeFF]

5 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

A term you use loosely of course

 

 

One of them posts in here from time to time. ? 

[Gambit21]

17 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

One of them posts in here from time to time. ? 

Oh I know they exist,

 

 

[Skycat1969]

It's funny that I'm on my annual vacation and sitting in the same chair I was sirting in last year at this time, 2000 miles from home, reading the same speculations about the next expansion and/or the new sim in the series. Meanwhile the IAR-80/81 still hasn't been released.

 

My opinion is that the next map will make good use of the IAR-80/81 and maybe even offer it with the EA and Premium Edition. So ... Romania? Maybe 'new technology' means a very large map that extends to Egypt? Or four-engined bombers?

[Trooper117]

[LukeFF]

16 minutes ago, Skycat1969 said:

Meanwhile the IAR-80/81 still hasn't been released.

 

End of this calendar year. It's been published on the roadmap for some time now. ?

[CountZero]

21 minutes ago, Skycat1969 said:

It's funny that I'm on my annual vacation and sitting in the same chair I was sirting in last year at this time, 2000 miles from home, reading the same speculations about the next expansion and/or the new sim in the series. Meanwhile the IAR-80/81 still hasn't been released.

 

My opinion is that the next map will make good use of the IAR-80/81 and maybe even offer it with the EA and Premium Edition. So ... Romania? Maybe 'new technology' means a very large map that extends to Egypt? Or four-engined bombers?

EA for what, get game 1 day before everyone els, if after 20+ months of work at time where they anounce it game is not done, whats the point of holding it secret for that long, from how they behave there aint gona be EA, as that means things are not 100%, and thats to scary

 

Funny thing is that somehow they dont care about ppl voicing concerns about this strange strategy in 2023, but few ppl asking where droptanks or where my iar80 they do care about so mutch to make this drastic turn in how they make game, strange logic to me

Edited October 6, 2023 by CountZero

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

24 minutes ago, CountZero said:

EA for what, get game 1 day before everyone els, if after 20+ months of work at time where they anounce it game is not done, whats the point of holding it secret for that long, from how they behave there aint gona be EA, as that means things are not 100%, and thats to scary

 

Funny thing is that somehow they dont care about ppl voicing concerns about this strange strategy in 2023, but few ppl asking where droptanks or where my iar80 they do care about so mutch to make this drastic turn in how they make game, strange logic to me

Yep , you are right, no logic at all. 

[JG5_Schuck]

Well, i'm sure like me a lot of people play this sim because it contains WWII aircraft, the biggest conflict the world has known.
And with such a large conflict the possibilities are endless, and IL2 GB has only just scratched the surface, nothing before 41", no Italy, Malta, North Africa, Battle of Britain, Murmansk, Leningrad, Ukraine, the battles around Balaton Hungary, not to mention torpedoes, drop tanks, depth charges (if they included subs or Atlantic convoys and subs!).
I just have this horrible feeling GB will go the way of CLOD a half finished sim with so much more potential wasted, especially now its a tank sim and WWI sim rolled into one.
Would a new project abandon these guys to the bin?
I hope I'm proven wrong.

[=gRiJ=Roman-]

The status of the yak3-to-be-announced title

[Skycat1969]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

End of this calendar year. It's been published on the roadmap for some time now. ?

I was only suggesting that work on the IAR-80/81 could be simultaneous to a theater that will showcase its operational use; and that bundling it with the new map would be efficient because it is one Collector Plane already in the can.

 

For consideration:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theaviationgeekclub.com/the-day-romanian-iar-80-fighters-claimed-to-have-shot-down-24-american-p-38-lightnings/

[ROCKET_KNUT]

6 hours ago, =gRiJ=Roman- said:

The status of the yak3-to-be-announced title

Within the next 36 months or so, they might be considering to consider an announcement of, ummmm,... ehhh, ...welll, ...they won´t be doing it... except a third party is going to make it.

Just ask for another 109 variant. You want a 209 V5, with a radial? No Problem, here you are.

 

I do feel your pain... The smile is fake, the tears are for real though. ?