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

[Lusekofte]

55 minutes ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

More complex system is only an adavantage when the rest also develops. If i want a a complex plane simulation is go FS, i want a good combat simulator.

I do not know where to start. We are not talking advanced startup procedures or click pits. 
what you want is of no interest to me. I am talking more complex damage model. Improved flight models. More complex fuel system , historically accurate auto pilot and bomb aimer interface. If that is of no interest for you, fine. I do not care, I want it

[Bonnot]

1 hour ago, Rjel said:

.......... about what is going to come. The only difference is it’s one year on from when this all started and  we still don’t know s***.  

 

 

True ......and what is worst is it doesn't only concern the SIM world, but also the "Real World" around which looks as s****

Please, give us a good playable game to fly above 

[JG27_Steini]

32 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

I do not know where to start. We are not talking advanced startup procedures or click pits. 
what you want is of no interest to me. I am talking more complex damage model. Improved flight models. More complex fuel system , historically accurate auto pilot and bomb aimer interface. If that is of no interest for you, fine. I do not care, I want it

 

I do respect that, seems that the developer agree more with you than with me. Dont know why both of us can not be satisfied. 

[DD_Crash]

Some of our squad are becoming more interested in DCS even though it is disjointed and you need to buy expensive planes and maps. The love for Il-2 is fading and will be hard to get back.

[danielprates]

3 hours ago, Rjel said:

The message from Han is clear as mud. It basically is the same as his previous talking points about what is going to come. The only difference is it’s one year on from when this all started and  we still don’t know s***.  

 

The communique does feel like something thrown out grudgingly just because there is a growing pressure for more transparency. But since it creates only more doubt at the same time it clarifies nothing, I would say it fell flat.

[dburne]

26 minutes ago, DD_Crash said:

Some of our squad are becoming more interested in DCS even though it is disjointed and you need to buy expensive planes and maps. The love for Il-2 is fading and will be hard to get back.

 

Agreed. That is pretty much where I currently am. 

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, danielprates said:

 

The communique does feel like something thrown out grudgingly just because there is a growing pressure for more transparency. But since it creates only more doubt at the same time it clarifies nothing, I would say it fell flat.

Probably because text from it was posted first as coment on enigmas video "IL-2 Great Battles - The Suffocation of Silence" , then this topic was created from that coment, nothing to do with talk here on forum or TF6 anouncment of B-17, just replay to enigma video.

[RossMarBow]

Why are we waiting we are suffocating 

[Jade_Monkey]

4 hours ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

Great we get new airplane systems and better damage model. I am done reading about those new system reworked on. Some simplest things dont work or wont be revised and they keep telling us about new plane systems. Forums is full of complains about AI, missions, career, radio but all we hear is about the next damage model. Will IL2 sometimes be a good SP combat simulator or will it just be a plane and damage simulator? I dont why team is putting so much effort in damage model while many of us wish something total different. Is damage model so important, when the simplest damage will mostly end your flight, while SP has big issues? I can tell you that i gave up hope after reading those news about new planes systems we dont need. I would be lucky when i will hear about radio revision, AI and mission generating revision. Do i need to have a superb damage model in single player when AI is fighting each other? Do i need a superb DM when AI is dump? What is the benefit for SP? 

 

The only reason I havent fully switched to DCS for SP is because their AI is even worse and egregiously cheats flying backwards like UFOs just to stay on your tail. Their maps are much better and you don't see the barren world. There are decently placed villages with proper decals on the ground, small cars and boats, the roads actually lead to places. Most airfields in IL2 don't even have a road connection, they just magically live in isolation.

 

Some features that would really  improve the SP/mission building experience:

- Engine that can better handle time acceleration, right now it hits a wall pretty quickly even on good PCs.

- In-game mission editor, with a quick way to load and test the changes.

- Improved AI formations, and formation speeds.

- Better radio communication and commands, including airfields.

- Actual scripting, enabling almost endless possibilities.

- More multimedia options for the mission briefings.

- Some ground crews, at the very least static ones.

 

Finally some thoughts on tank Crew: what a missed opportunity. The tank modeling is excellent, but they live in that empty world with nothing to do with them. The ground level stuff needs some more love.

 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Thanks for the update.  I understand why the devs aren't tipping thier hand until they have all the cards.  No benefit in showing the competition what your up to.  No benefit in making promises you're not sure you can deliver.   At anyrate,  it's up to them what and when they reveal this new sim.  Competition in the Combat flight sim business is happening . That's a good thing imo.  They are being cautious.  I understand. 

[SCG_Faerber]

The main thing that makes me wary with the main product, in my opinion, is if the content for IL-2 GBS will be ported over with purchases made here being available there in some way (either free or heavily discounted).

If not then why spend money with the future IL-2 GBS releases or why spend money on the new product?

[kissTheSky]

I mean how “bvtt hurt” do you have to be to quote past initiatives to announce a non-announcement?

 

in the past two plus years, development team first refused to admit horrible stutters in single player AI, and when they owned up to it, they said it would take too much of resources to fix it and it was too difficult to test for logistical reasons. 
 

Most recently, they’ve changed how mini map and instrument info are being shown when hud was activated and when questioned they said “it is working as intended, we made the change to suit others”. Excuse me!? After how ever many years of operating in one way, you’ll change it to make it fit “others”?

 

Development team isn’t even willing to fix the QOL issues they’ve created. Way to cater to your community team, I applaud you. Your past and recent interactions with your customers are an indication of what we can expect for the future title. Truth be told, you’re making TFS team look more engaging and informative, which is saying something. 

 

I have to thank you though. Once the computer I built and HMD I bought only to play BOX became idle as the game became increasingly frustrating to play, it pushed me to racing sims/games. So, thank you for making a sim-racer out of this sim-pilot.

Edited September 23, 2023 by kissTheSky

[102nd-YU-devill]

6 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

They may look snarky, but the reality is that there were a lot of features announced too soon. That's just something you cannot do in this business - over-promising and then under-delivering. We tested many iterations of the drop tanks and Air Marshal but the fact is, at the end of the day they were never deemed acceptable for public release. 

If you wanted to you could work with our SEOW development group to help us create a campaign system for the community based on your game.

But there need to be some game features (net code, event logging, etc.) made by the developers for it to work.

Community engagement is always there, you are just not using it. 

 

And be sure, when our SEOW framework is finished for CLOD and there is VR support in that game, my whole community will migrate there because SEOW campaign is something far above and beyond anything currently available in IL2GB.

 

[Enceladus828]

6 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

They may look snarky, but the reality is that there were a lot of features announced too soon. That's just something you cannot do in this business - over-promising and then under-delivering. We tested many iterations of the drop tanks and Air Marshal but the fact is, at the end of the day they were never deemed acceptable for public release. 

Back when Battle of Kuban was announced in 2016 were things like VR, Direct X 11 graphics, and Pilot Career mode announced when the devs were certain they would work as intended or were these at the very least just goals that worked as intended? I just want to know if this is a new doctrine for the devs and if it was applicable back then, Battle of Kuban would not have been announced until 2017 just before VR was released.

 

For Drop Tanks, I wouldn’t say we’ll never get them, are there plans to add them in this upcoming installment?

 

Thank you

[ZachariasX]

I doubt that whatever they release will help that much in raising interest, unless it adresses fundamental shortcomings of the sim:

 

• Long missions must be possible to be accomplished in a realistic time someone with a life can spend on a stretch. In minimum, time accelleration has to improve dramatically, but better ideas about cutting long flights short are welcome.
• AI has to improve A LOT. The only problem they pose now is they can laser-zap you and have excessive SA.
• DM has to improve.
• And yes, the sim world has to be big enough to host the missions as they were flown back then.
• Dynamic weather would help a lot making missions interesting.
• Plane numbers. Hint: Do bombers really need the same FM as the player has? Fighters, looking at the "other sim", probably maybe yes. But do squadrons of robot bombers really need that CPU overhead?

 

If we just get API for the 50 cals and things like that, but remain locked to what are essentially bar fights of up to a dozen AC, then there is little to be really excited about. But at least upgrading the DM would help.

 

Same is not adressing longstanding issues with the current planes:

 

Pretty please with sugar on top, have a look at the induced drag of the aircraft. And drag at high AoA in general. I am not just looking at the Tempest that is openly silly in that regard, but it would make it possible for having a P47 that kinda flys like "the other one". Remember the helicopter P47 when it came out? They didn't need to make it "heavier", they needed to add induced drag. Same as we didn't need  "The Patch™", we mainly needed induced drag! (Now we have at least some of that.) I'm not asking for a carbon copy of the "other" P47, but there's a direction of where to go. The Spit XIV pitch response has nothing to do with the real aircraft. That a creative way in simulating the pitch response for the baby Spits on desktop joystiks has some merit, but it should have no consequence of getting something as absurd as we have now by porting that same mechanics to a nose-heavier aircraft and just leave it like that. The 109's slats cause aileron snatching, a well documented and often described issue that doesn't exactly help in aiming during dogfights. We have no effects like that. This just to name a few.

 

Years of competitive use demonstrated some imperfections that might well not have been seen in beta testing. But now we know. It would be about time to do something, especially if the devs are to sell "something new". Nobody is looking for the old flaws in a new sim. What was good some years ago, is nothing special today.

 

It is hard to remain invested when the ad for the product ad basically reads "eat your dogfood!". There has been at least the semblance of interaction between the forum and the devs (sometimes difficult, sometimes productive), but now it is made rather clear that discussions here are essentially a nuisance, when we on the other hand know that the devs are far from never making mistakes. The bar is set rather high indeed and I seriously doubt that ignoring people here is a good strategy meeting that bar.

Edited September 23, 2023 by ZachariasX

[DBFlyguy]

An announcement of a non-announcement.... This was slightly more "informative" (kinda) the last time Han said it:

 

 

 

?

 

 

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, Enceladus said:

Back when Battle of Kuban was announced in 2016 were things like VR, Direct X 11 graphics, and Pilot Career mode announced when the devs were certain they would work as intended or were these at the very least just goals that worked as intended? I just want to know if this is a new doctrine for the devs and if it was applicable back then, Battle of Kuban would not have been announced until 2017 just before VR was released.

 

For Drop Tanks, I wouldn’t say we’ll never get them, are there plans to add them in this upcoming installment?

 

I have not heard anything new about drop tanks.

As for the features announced in 2016, I do not know, because at that time I was still only a beta tester. The thing is, though, even if all those things were announced when they were truly ready to be announced, too many other things were announced far too soon. One example: showing the C-47 with the 3D model of the U-2, etc - things like that should never be shown in that state. There's not another developer out there who would do or does things like that, and neither should they. You show and announce new content and features when they are in a presentable state. ?

 

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

There has been at least the semblance of interaction between the forum and the devs (sometimes difficult, sometimes productive), but now it is made rather clear that discussions here are essentially a nuisance, when we on the other hand know that the devs are far from never making mistakes. The bar is set rather high indeed and I seriously doubt that ignoring people here is a good strategy meeting that bar.

 

They aren't ignoring you all. Seriously, would you rather they spend valuable time reading message boards or working on improving all the things people want improved? ? This is why 1CGS has community managers for all of their titles - we are the liaison between the players and the developers and as such we communicate with you all what they want us to share with you. It's my job to do this sort of thing 4-plus hours a day, not them. 

[von_Tom]

I don’t understand the angst. Play or don’t play the sim. Buy or don’t buy the next iteration of the sim. 
 

if you want systems management etc go DCS. Detailed scenery and systems, go Microsoft. It’ll cost more in the long run but that’s ok if you get value out of it. 
 

Bang for buck this plus the original IL-2 have been worth every penny, and continue to be. 
 

Yes it’d be grand to know the plans but we can wait, and make our minds up when we know what’s happening.
 

Any delay is a first world problem that pales into insignificance next to real world events. Get some perspective people. 

 

von Tom

[ROCKET_KNUT]

This is the sound of players, who left over the course of the last year or so, right now coming back running, throwing money at the game, just because of the introduction of a "check-fuel-state"-feature and a "bear-with-us"-sort of a statement... Don´t you hear it (the cm can)???

Wait, what do you mean by: "I can´t hear a thing!" You clearly have lost the faith, haven´t you? So have a lot of players. 

And 1c´s response to it is..., well, uhm, this "announcement"??? ??? Bless them. 

[Art-J]

I don't quite get the drama-obsession some posters here have with concept of devs maintaining transparency / communication or hype with playerbase. Must be some American thing (?). Jason left, new guys do interaction their own, Russian way. It's polar opposite and some don't like it. Well, tough luck, it's indeed a case of "take it or leave it". Sure, I agree it would be nice to see the devs reveal more info, at the same time, however, despite of what many posters in this thread think, I'd say the devs' ambiguity won't affect the future of the upcoming game at all. 

 

I can bet any money right here right now that whenever the new project is released, all the grumpy doom-and-gloom sayers here will run naked with cash in their teeth to buy it immediately IF it contains at least one of their favourite planes, theater of ops they find interesting and half of core gameplay improvements Zach listed above.

 

Conversely, if the new sim has content of zero interest for these guys, or insufficient improvements, they simply won't buy it and no amount of interaction and hype will persuade them otherwise. Will they go play something else? Yes, but that's OK, perfectly understandable and natural. We've been doing it for years switching back and forth between GB, DCS, CloD and MSFS (or even other types of games) depending on current state of each of them.

 

There's a third scenario possible as well: initial release is a flawed but the product evolves into something better later (as it was the case with GB itself). In that case the guys who left initially will come back (again - exactly like it happened with GB). I, for example, didn't like what BoS was at first, so I didn't buy it. Got back years later after BoK came with planeset and map I found somewhat fitting my requirements.

 

Besides, we won't really know how hinted core improvements REALLY work until the product is released anyway. What's the point of desperate need for early interaction with devs then? Look at CloD. Has the 3-year tease about visual update without much to show for it brought us anywhere closer to anticipated experience? Not really. The recent Dieppe announcement also won't change much until something can actually be downloaded and tested on our computers (not talking about closed beta testing).

 

About the "re-purchasing something I'v already bought" argument - by this logic, nobody would advance from Il-2 '46, because all next sims have had exactly the same planes the '46 had. So yes, you will buy them again IF the next gen sim makes it worth doing so.

 

To sum it up, If the new product is good, it will sell. If it isn't, it won't. With or without devs interaction.

 

A bit of a storm in a teacup this thread is.

[Lusekofte]

9 hours ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

I do respect that, seems that the developer agree more with you than with me. Dont know why both of us can not be satisfied. 

I think you will. They already got a good simulation of air war.  I simply cannot understand why you won’t be satisfied with more realistic inflicted damage. And for bomb aim and historical correct autopilot , if you are not into bombers why bother?

Edited September 23, 2023 by Lusekofte

[Mysticpuma]

If it is a 'new sim', I hope the doubling the size if the team is ai that the assets from BoX can be loaded into it? 

 

But if not, then I hope the new sim is built for future proofing in place to have handle large Ai formations, PBR textures and maybe much more realistic ground/land textures. 

[Jade_Monkey]

What does primary game mode design mean in this context?

[Gambit21]

17 hours ago, Mtnbiker1998 said:

I for one, am happy with the "time period of the war being simulated" comment, since it sounds an awful lot like they're staying with WW2 and NOT Korea. Thank god.

 

 

Umm - Korea has “time periods” FYI.

 

 

[IckyATLAS]

First I would thank Luke for the good job he is doing. After all he is the one that does seem to care about what we say and try to do what he can to connect the devs to the community. It does not seem to be an easy task.

 

Now that is very nice to know that the team doubled and that they do fantastic new things with incredible new graphic engine etc. etc. Okay I could even believe it, but it does no more good that not knowing it after all. Why? simply because we want to see and feel this progress, every week, every month, to live it alongside the dev team. That is also what makes me pay for early access.

 

The strategy that is to show things only when they are perfect and sure, and basically done, then it is simple, you announce it one day before it is released and there you go, you are sure that there will be no issues, no errors, just list what you deliver. Clearly this does not motivate me at all to dish money for early access. But maybe there will be no early access at all. Just buy it when it comes out or not. That's it.

 

I see no problem at all into showing unfinished stuff, maybe communicating on what you try to achieve, what you would like to do, which functionalities, visual effects, the kind of engine, the issues etc. And then you may also say that finally you will not do this, or that or maybe not in the first releases. Where is the problem with that. We will not get certain things, we will get others done etc. or maybe we can hope to get them later. But this two way link on a regular basis is what makes all the excitement and a kind of crescendo as the time for the release approaches. As long as it is honest, we are very happy to know what are the difficulties, and why certain things cannot be done etc. then the community will stay hooked and excited and live alongside the devs during all the period that may last years.

 

If you know nothing then there is no excitement and you may even forget about it, and so you loose interest, and switch to other things.

And frankly it is a little how I feel by now. What comes out is what was planned and promised long ago, so fine, you deliver, keep your word, that's excellent and I praise that.

But the excitement is gone. Dull times ahead.

 

 

[[CPT]Crunch]

Nobody gives a rip about interacting with the developers, and this overshooting the mark trajectory in multiple aspects of the game they've been harping on ain't exactly encouraging, quite an underwhelming track record as of late, makes many of us wonder if they actually have a plan at all.  Death of every game ever launched is stagnation, and moving another year on what is it that you were expecting, your an exception to the rules?  Good luck with that.

[Enceladus828]

Quote

But the time period of the war which will be simulated... these aspects of the new project in development but details are not established for 100%. 

This is a bit disconcerting for me as it implies that a location has been determined but when it will take place has not been finalized. However, it does lead me to consider some areas where the installment will take place.

Option 1: Pacific. Guadalcanal (1942), a Rabaul focused campaign with New Guinea or the Solomon Islands (1943), Philippines (1944) or Iwo Jima and Okinawa (1945)

Option 2: Tunisia Campaign (1942-43) or Invasion of Sicily (May 1943 to September 1943)

Option 3: Korea. I don't know much about the Korean War but it could either be 1950-51 or 1952-53.

[Gambit21]

2 hours ago, Enceladus said:

This is a bit disconcerting for me as it implies that a location has been determined but when it will take place has not been finalized. However, it does lead me to consider some areas where the installment will take place.

Option 1: Pacific. Guadalcanal (1942), a Rabaul focused campaign with New Guinea or the Solomon Islands (1943), Philippines (1944) or Iwo Jima and Okinawa (1945)

Option 2: Tunisia Campaign (1942-43) or Invasion of Sicily (May 1943 to September 1943)

Option 3: Korea. I don't know much about the Korean War but it could either be 1950-51 or 1952-53.

Well it’s not 2 of those options

 

 

 

[creamersdream]

I hope its not Korea to be honest.

I hope its not Korea to be honest. That period doesn't really interest me at all. 

[=FI=Blue2]

8 hours ago, Art-J said:

I don't quite get the drama-obsession some posters here have with concept of devs maintaining transparency / communication or hype with playerbase. Must be some American thing (?).

Well, not just American.  Plenty of others represented here.  Yes, lack of patience is definitely typical in U.S. culture today, but we're not the only ones guilty of that fault.

I've been pretty sure that the communication changes are largely cultural.  Sounds like you think so too, and since you live 'right next door' it seems like you would probably have an accurate sense about that.

8 hours ago, Art-J said:

To sum it up, If the new product is good, it will sell. If it isn't, it won't. With or without devs interaction.

 

A bit of a storm in a teacup this thread is.

Agree with pretty much everything else you wrote, including these last 2 statements.  But I can certainly understand the frustration and venting.  The drastic change in communications style & philosophy has been quite a shock to this community, at least on this forum.  (I wonder how it's gone on the Russian speaking one... I don't check that one since I can't read it.)

Anyway I'll be waiting, confident that good things will come in due time.  Meanwhile, there is plenty of life to live as I wait!

 

It's funny, but I remember posting something very similar to this amid all sorts of forum angst over GB, back in 2014 or 2015.  The sky was falling back then too.  But wouldn't you know it?  Things turned out pretty darn good after all, and I've enjoyed this sim for 10 years now. 

[Tonester]

I fear that this is going along the lines of TFs fiasco with CLOD…i.e taking WAAAAYYY too long…in this case

to just tell us something…instead of nothing at all….people are slipping away…from what i see there are less numbers on the servers than there has ever been…at least in my GMT+8 timezone…once people go, they rarely come back…i believe they are making a terrible mistake in staying mum…just my two bobs worth

[Han]

1 hour ago, Tonester said:

I fear that this is going along the lines of TFs fiasco with CLOD…i.e taking WAAAAYYY too long…

Lets hope we're not.

At the moment every is going according to the plan.

 

Only fear we have - the new GUI development. While Scale Form API is dead for 6 years allready - its become impossible to find developers for it. So evolution of current GUI have stuck. "Marshall sad story" - one of the cosequences of that.

Last year we have took decision which should be taken several years ago - to develop new IL-2 GUI using another API from the scratch to allow IL-2 gamedesign to evolve.

 

Why there is a fear? Because IL-2 GUI evolved during 5 years. New project, offcourse, have lesser deadlines and should be done way faster. And don't forget, that GUI is not just a visalizator, bur also it makes game logic - Career game mode have a half of itsalgorythms inside the GUI. And, from another side, this time we want to develop brand-new GUI look (everyone tired of existing "mobile-like" design), and some new functionality. So there is a risk while this development is very ambitious.

 

Graphics technologies are mostly done and content development is in progress. New airplane systems and damage model are near to be done but we still have some room in timeline for it (while new airplanes 3Ds are in development). Map - is in development for 10 months allready and its going well. Map development have some risks too while its most volumed content in the game and new map is way larger and variative than any other we done before - but we have allready developed new tools for the map team which should help them to met the milestones in time.

 

So we remember of ClOD destiny. ClOD started totaly everything from the scratch - there were too many risks. So we doing from the scratch just several, most critical modules (GUI, Shading, Radio, new AI feature and couple other things). Many other modules are evolving using what we have before.

 

So, we have a strong basis to hope, that everything will be done in time and this time will be not too long.

[JG27_Steini]

11 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

I think you will. They already got a good simulation of air war.  I simply cannot understand why you won’t be satisfied with more realistic inflicted damage. And for bomb aim and historical correct autopilot , if you are not into bombers why bother?

 

I dont have problem with a good DM, dont get me wrong. It might be even more exciting. I have a problem that so much resources are put in, meanhile we have multiple system not working correctly and never been really worked out. For my understanding a good simulator needs to simulate a squadron of pilots and planes. It needs to create an immersion. But when your flight follows strange mission parameter, often not understandable, or you can not lead your flight correctly, when radio messages are spammed, when your flight is wipped out each and every time (depends on career), when you can not use commands, when AI has often strange behavior, than, i am sorry to say ist again, it would be great to make those things better right before we get the next damage model. The DM is fine, could be better sure, many things are really bad or not functional as intendet, would be great to fix those things first.

[Mysticpuma]

5 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Well it’s not 2 of those options

 

 

 

I quite liked flying Korea in the 'old' IL2

 

[JG27_Steini]

10 minutes ago, Han said:

Lets hope we're not.

At the moment every is going according to the plan.

 

Only fear we have - the new GUI development. While Scale Form API is dead for 6 years allready - its become impossible to find developers for it. So evolution of current GUI have stuck. "Marshall sad story" - one of the cosequences of that.

Last year we have took decision which should be taken several years ago - to develop new IL-2 GUI using another API from the scratch to allow IL-2 gamedesign to evolve.

 

Why there is a fear? Because IL-2 GUI evolved during 5 years. New project, offcourse, have lesser deadlines and should be done way faster. And don't forget, that GUI is not just a visalizator, bur also it makes game logic - Career game mode have a half of itsalgorythms inside the GUI. And, from another side, this time we want to develop brand-new GUI look (everyone tired of existing "mobile-like" design), and some new functionality. So there is a risk while this development is very ambitious.

 

Graphics technologies are mostly done and content development is in progress. New airplane systems and damage model are near to be done but we still have some room in timeline for it (while new airplanes 3Ds are in development). Map - is in development for 10 months allready and its going well. Map development have some risks too while its most volumed content in the game and new map is way larger and variative than any other we done before - but we have allready developed new tools for the map team which should help them to met the milestones in time.

 

So we remember of ClOD destiny. ClOD started totaly everything from the scratch - there were too many risks. So we doing from the scratch just several, most critical modules (GUI, Shading, Radio, new AI feature and couple other things). Many other modules are evolving using what we have before.

 

So, we have a strong basis to hope, that everything will be done in time and this time will be not too long.

 

Hi Han, could you tell us wheter other modules except damage model are being worked on? Will we eg. have a better radio command system?

[Mysticpuma]

16 minutes ago, Han said:

Lets hope we're not.

At the moment every is going according to the plan.

 

Only fear we have - the new GUI development. While Scale Form API is dead for 6 years allready - its become impossible to find developers for it. So evolution of current GUI have stuck. "Marshall sad story" - one of the cosequences of that.

Last year we have took decision which should be taken several years ago - to develop new IL-2 GUI using another API from the scratch to allow IL-2 gamedesign to evolve.

 

Why there is a fear? Because IL-2 GUI evolved during 5 years. New project, offcourse, have lesser deadlines and should be done way faster. And don't forget, that GUI is not just a visalizator, bur also it makes game logic - Career game mode have a half of itsalgorythms inside the GUI. And, from another side, this time we want to develop brand-new GUI look (everyone tired of existing "mobile-like" design), and some new functionality. So there is a risk while this development is very ambitious.

 

Graphics technologies are mostly done and content development is in progress. New airplane systems and damage model are near to be done but we still have some room in timeline for it (while new airplanes 3Ds are in development). Map - is in development for 10 months allready and its going well. Map development have some risks too while its most volumed content in the game and new map is way larger and variative than any other we done before - but we have allready developed new tools for the map team which should help them to met the milestones in time.

 

So we remember of ClOD destiny. ClOD started totaly everything from the scratch - there were too many risks. So we doing from the scratch just several, most critical modules (GUI, Shading, Radio, new AI feature and couple other things). Many other modules are evolving using what we have before.

 

So, ww have a strong basis to hope, that everything will be done in time and this time will be not too long.

I hope you are considering PBR textures to make the environments much more realistic. 

My only visual frustration with BoX was the muted, flat, lifeless colours and colour cast in the sky and landscape. 

[Han]

25 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

I hope you are considering PBR textures to make the environments much more realistic. 

My only visual frustration with BoX was the muted, flat, lifeless colours and colour cast in the sky and landscape. 

PBR texturing requires to redevelop all existing objects textures. It is not possible to have PBR and non-PBR objects in one render. And GB have 100+ playable objets, 100+ AI objects, dosens of buildings, bombs, rockets, cliffs and ect. It have took 11 years to develop all this content. Yes, redevelop them to PBR not requires to repeat these 11 years while it is not 100% redo. But its still huge ammount of resources required to do this in GB.

32 minutes ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

Hi Han, could you tell us wheter other modules except damage model are being worked on? Will we eg. have a better radio command system?

Please check for initial thread message - I dont want to promise anything what is just supposed to be done but we have no sure it will be done. Any development is a risk. Remember of Fuel Systems and Marshall.

Community may be diapponted by the lack of info of new project, but it will be disappointed 10 times more if we will promise something and it will not be done.

[Trooper117]

Thanks for that heads up Han... from what you are saying, it sounds like you will be trying to incorporate all the stuff from GB into the new project?... (or is my reading between the lines all wrong?)...

[ZachariasX]

14 hours ago, LukeFF said:

They aren't ignoring you all. Seriously, would you rather they spend valuable time reading message boards or working on improving all the things people want improved? ? This is why 1CGS has community managers for all of their titles - we are the liaison between the players and the developers and as such we communicate with you all what they want us to share with you. It's my job to do this sort of thing 4-plus hours a day, not them. 

Maybe I owe you some context. This is not about me telling them what to do. But this is about the perception that developpers got a lot less curious about the items they produce for us. Before, there was a good exchange with the developers when good material was provided. I am talking about provided info, not gossip across threads. This changed (at least that is how it is percieved on this side of the forum). So, if they don't care that much for their modules, why should I?

 

You know, Scott form A2A went silent for three years until he had the Comanche. Even before the engagement became limited by A2A producing bespoke military software.  The community cratered over there as well during this time but in the end, he came up with the Comanche. So, if you are shedding your community, you better stomp the market when you make a new entry. Jörg did that with MSFS after MS told their player base to get lost. The bar is high for that kind of splash.

 

@Han thanks for those clarifications, I appreciate that!

[CountZero]

5 hours ago, Tonester said:

I fear that this is going along the lines of TFs fiasco with CLOD…i.e taking WAAAAYYY too long…in this case

to just tell us something…instead of nothing at all….people are slipping away…from what i see there are less numbers on the servers than there has ever been…at least in my GMT+8 timezone…once people go, they rarely come back…i believe they are making a terrible mistake in staying mum…just my two bobs worth

 

 

So we remember of ClOD destiny. ClOD started totaly everything from the scratch - there were too many risks. So we doing from the scratch just several, most critical modules (GUI, Shading, Radio, new AI feature and couple other things). Many other modules are evolving using what we have before.

 

I dont think hes talking about clod start but how all this last year or so looks like mistake TF made back when they had best MP enviroment and then decided to play safe by not informing comunity about plans and fixing MP bugs, so ppl then went here and never come back to Clod TF 5 when it come out, they maybe check it out but didnt stay as they build their own enviroment and comunity in onother game, and no mather how good TF 5 or 6 will be they wont come back after years of nothing.

 

You can see this starting to happend here, thats the point of his coment, TF decisions 2016 and onwards, not terible CloD start 2011. You stay 1-2 years playing safe not informing ppl about plan especialy when they think there is no point playing this game when they will make new game insted making real content here, then its pointless to comit to GB 1.0 any more when all new stuff will be in this GB 2.0 that is separate, ppl go play other things form conections there, dont come back. 

 

I may be miss it but will new project have any improvments to how SP works, as controling flights is mess here, no real formations, is time acclarations be working proparly or well gona wait for PC equipment to catch up so we get full 8x 16x and so on.. map gona be big... sitting 1h doing nothing is not combat players thing.. thats for MSF2024 guys... is mission builder geting improved for ease of use and so on... coms, net stuff, will it be 30 vs 30 or 100 vs 100... you see if next level is just another its preatyer, or its 96% insted 93% accurate FM or DM but we get same poor game expiriance in AI or other compartments then point of making new game insted more DLCs for this one is hard to justifie from players view

Edited September 24, 2023 by CountZero