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

[Gambit21]

5 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

I propose that Gambit21 wage a hunger strike until the next module is announced.

I think you should hold your breath ?

[RealDarko]

Korean war with the proper planeset would be really amazing. If they add a flyable chopper then even better!

[Lusekofte]

19 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

No sim is ever going to have the individual aircraft quality of DCS, (especially current/upcoming standard) certainly not GB. You have to enjoy GB from a ‘big picture’ standpoint.

Yes I know, but Make do scenarios in DCS for Korea is actually good. And probably getting better with incoming LA 7 and Corsair, Korea is a borderline when it comes to DCS vs GB , and I no longer sure what I prefer. 

[RealDarko]

8 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

Yes I know, but Make do scenarios in DCS for Korea is actually good. And probably getting better with incoming LA 7 and Corsair, Korea is a borderline when it comes to DCS vs GB , and I no longer sure what I prefer. 

With Il2 Korea you can have a proper planeset over a proper map with proper assets. On DCS you have only the Mustang and the MiG15 as Korean war planes. Sabre is after war variant, and theres nothing else, map, assets or planes.

[Lusekofte]

Just now, RealDarko said:

With Il2 Korea you can have a proper planeset over a proper map with proper assets. On DCS you have only the Mustang and the MiG15 as Korean war planes. Sabre is after war variant, and theres nothing else, map, assets or planes.

Yes that is also true, but no one cares. Sabre and Migs still show up, And incoming Corsair pretty sure will also show up. That plane only will keep focus on people. La 7 is also a good make do airplane for Korea. DCS survive due to willingness of its people to make do. 

I will buy this DLC only if it contain plane of my interest and map size and todays Hollywoodish super destructive effects is tuned down. DCS allowe you to buy the one plane of interest and leave the rest. and as I said there is a good enough Korea Scenery for me. I hope they chosen something else to do. I am really not too keen

[deathmisser]

15 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

I no longer sure what I prefer. 

That is why I think Korea may not be worth doing as players will be divided on weather to get GB or DCS. 

Even though I said that IL-2 CLOD will be getting aircraft pretty much what we have in the sim. 

[tattywelshie]

So @LukeFF do you have a vague date when we might possibly get to know what the next title will be then? Are we talking weeks away, or months? 

[dburne]

1 hour ago, RealDarko said:

Korean war with the proper planeset would be really amazing. If they add a flyable chopper then even better!

 

Perhaps they will save the choppers for Vietnam. IF of course this is the path they have chosen.

 

[ZachariasX]

It's gonna be Luna vs. Apollo "Race to the Moon".

 

I mean, if they suddenly can do choppers, a bit of Kerbal should be easy to do.

Edited September 27, 2023 by ZachariasX

[ITAF_Rani]

12 minutes ago, deathmisser said:

IL-2 CLOD will be getting aircraft pretty much what we have in the sim

IL2 Clod with this new anouncement have get new appeal ( expecially with B17 flyble). If this appeal  is superior to GB don ' t Know, depends on the next anouncement from GB Devs.  Sure the interest on IL2 Clod is growing expecially if VR will be implemented..

Edited September 27, 2023 by ITAF_Rani

[BladeMeister]

15 hours ago, ITAF_Rani said:

IL2 Clod with this new anouncement have get new appeal ( expecially with B17 flyble).

I agree that the B17 is of the highest interest and I have no question in my mind that TF can and will do top notch work in bringing the B17 to life in CLOD. My only reservation with the execution of this module is; WILL I LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO SEE THE B17 ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED INTO CLOD AND BE ABLE TO FLY AND ENJOY IT???

 

S!Blade<><

Edited September 28, 2023 by BladeMeister

[Guest deleted@83466]

 

57 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

It's gonna be Luna vs. Apollo "Race to the Moon".

 

I mean, if they suddenly can do choppers, a bit of Kerbal should be easy to do.

Yes, but only if they can master expendable fuel tanks!

 

[kendo]

14 hours ago, CountZero said:

well it wont be in GB it will be in new game, who knows what aproach its gona have it may be airplanes and systes more like DCS but with proper map and enviroment to fight over, i belive new game aint gona be caled Great Battles, thats Jasons adition and hes gone from here.

 

 

nope, if you read question and his replay to it, its not about objects from GB being added to new game, its about problems with making PBR work in GB, they wont do change as it would take to mutch work...

"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."

 

Nope again, as AEthelraedUnraed said already, the comment here is that they can't do PBR as that will not allow them to re-use existing assets ....therefore existing GB aircraft/assets will be usable in next installment

 

If they were doing a completely new sim with no requirement to stay compatible with existing content, they could do PBR to their heart's content.

 

Also, regarding Korea, surely their past statement that the next instalment will be "prop-based" rules that out? I know it's been said that there could be Mig and Sabre and the rest props, but surely that turns 'prop-based' on its head and renders it ridiculous?  

[deathmisser]

12 minutes ago, kendo said:

"prop-based" rules that out?

I've completely forgot about that. Plus Burma is beautiful, exotic and with it hosting something new with new ammunitions and hardy any city's there for needing a bigger map to make sure we actually have runways to take off from. Also being a Japanese focused area they would need a lot of recourses. 

 

It ticks a lot of boxes Burma does. Speaking of I just found what unit my great grandfather was in too. 

Spoiler

 

Any help of where the unit was stationed I would be grateful. 

 

[DBFlyguy]

1 hour ago, kendo said:

 

Also, regarding Korea, surely their past statement that the next instalment will be "prop-based" rules that out? I know it's been said that there could be Mig and Sabre and the rest props, but surely that turns 'prop-based' on its head and renders it ridiculous?  

So, Bodenplatte and Normandy aren't 'prop based' since they include the 262 and Arado?  ?

[Enceladus828]

Because it was mentioned we’re getting “new ammunition”, this could mean the next installment will be Korea as what parts of WW2 had different ammunition that was very different from what we already have in the game?

Edited September 27, 2023 by LukeFF
no CloD talk, please

[deathmisser]

2 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

we’re getting “new ammunition”, this could mean the next installment will be Korea as what parts of WW2 had different ammunition that was very different from what we already have in the game?

Like I said this could also mean new type of ammunition from another country. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, DBFlyguy said:

So, Bodenplatte and Normandy aren't 'prop based' since they include the 262 and Arado?  ?

Those are prop-based because props flew the vast majority of all combat missions on both sides. Korea has (outside of the early stages of the war, as well as for some niche mission types) a majority of jet combat, so calling it prop-based is a bit of a stretch. Akin to how calling Bodenplatte jet-based also wouldn't make any sense, even though it includes two jets.

Edited September 27, 2023 by AEthelraedUnraed

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

28 minutes ago, deathmisser said:

Like I said this could also mean new type of ammunition from another country. 

I think incendiary ammunition.

[DBFlyguy]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Those are prop-based because props flew the vast majority of all combat missions on both sides. Korea has (outside of the early stages of the war, as well as for some niche mission types) a majority of jet combat, so calling it prop-based is a bit of a stretch. Akin to how calling Bodenplatte jet-based also wouldn't make any sense, even though it includes two jets.

 

 While yes, the end of the war definitely had more jet than prop sorties,  there are more than enough prop aircraft to include  in the current format of past "Battle of" releases to make a 'prop based' Korean release. Heck, they could do 2 or 3 releases primarily with prop aircraft (including some flyable medium bombers finally) with a couple jets thrown in if they chose to...

 

Folks really need to move away from the "Korea War = F86 vs Mig15" mindset, it's not based on the actual history of the conflict:

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/1000korea/

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1957/july/naval-aviation-korean-war

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/naval-aviation-history/naval-aircraft/aircraft-in-the-korean-conflict.html

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196089/air-superiority-controlling-the-skies/

https://www.kirtland.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/389199/this-week-in-history-f-51-downs-yak-9-during-korean-war/

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-p-51-mustang-made-korean-war-comeback-52242

 

Granted, as I've said previously, I don't think the Korean War is next...I think it'd be cool and a welcome change but I think the current team is running gleefully right back to the eastern front of WWII ?

 

But I guess we'll all see eventually....

Edited September 27, 2023 by DBFlyguy

[Jade_Monkey]

If you know it's Korea, you don't come out and say "it's prop based".

 

Everything else is mental gymnastics.

[ZachariasX]

9 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

If you know it's Korea, you don't come out and say "it's prop based".

It would be Chinese-based, if you know what I mean.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, DBFlyguy said:

While yes, the end of the war definitely had more jet than prop sorties,  there are more than enough prop aircraft to include  in the current format of past "Battle of" releases to make a 'prop based' Korean release. Heck, they could do 2 or 3 releases primarily with prop aircraft (including some flyable medium bombers finally) with a couple jets thrown in if they chose to...

 

Folks really need to move away from the "Korea War = F86 vs Mig15" mindset, it's not based on the actual history of the conflict:

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/1000korea/

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1957/july/naval-aviation-korean-war

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/naval-aviation-history/naval-aircraft/aircraft-in-the-korean-conflict.html

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196089/air-superiority-controlling-the-skies/

https://www.kirtland.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/389199/this-week-in-history-f-51-downs-yak-9-during-korean-war/

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-p-51-mustang-made-korean-war-comeback-52242

 

Granted, as I've said previously, I don't think the Korean War is next...I think it'd be cool and a welcome change but I think the current team is running gleefully right back to the eastern front of WWII ?

 

But I guess we'll all see eventually....

No-one is saying that the Korean war didn't feature prop planes, and with some distinction at that. Even if you don't count all the carrier-based planes, since they already said that there's no carriers in this "project".

 

However, "prop based" implies at least a certain dominance of propeller aircraft, and that's not really what the Korean war is known for.

 

I do agree with your assessment/opinion that the Korean war would be cool but unlikely though.

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, tattywelshie said:

So @LukeFF do you have a vague date when we might possibly get to know what the next title will be then? Are we talking weeks away, or months? 

 

I do have a vague idea, but I'd rather not be hounded as soon as I give out a vague timeline. ? 

[CountZero]

23 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

No-one is saying that the Korean war didn't feature prop planes, and with some distinction at that. Even if you don't count all the carrier-based planes, since they already said that there's no carriers in this "project".

 

However, "prop based" implies at least a certain dominance of propeller aircraft, and that's not really what the Korean war is known for.

 

I do agree with your assessment/opinion that the Korean war would be cool but unlikely though.

But did he realy say based on prop airplanes, this all comes from last year enigma video with han, 

 

i dont think he says based when talk about prop airplanes, but best piston engined combat planes, not based, just that it will be there, he say based on real historical conflict and historical bases after...

 

so if they are doing Korea and wont to keep it unknown, they would not say oh its about jets... they would just say its gona have props, to keep it mistery for 1-2-3 years untill they are ready to check how many ppl they lost by then without informing them about anything important in that time... you dont just say its gona have jets, then everyone knows what it is, and you cant see how many ppl you lose after no marketing for 1-2-3 years.

Edited September 27, 2023 by CountZero

[Mm1ut1]

Italy/Med would would make a lot of people happy, but France 1940 or Winter War would trip my trigger. I just love the early year plane sets. I only hope I live long enough to see it. I’m sliding towards 70 and my days are numbered!

[DBS]

Sicily and or Italy would be fantastic. It's one of the most intriguing tactical air campaigns of WW2 and the map could/would be beautiful and varied.

[Koziolek]

1 hour ago, Mm1ut1 said:

 I only hope I live long enough to see it. I’m sliding towards 70 and my days are numbered!

Well, You should be OK for the next GB release, not so optimistic about CLoD, but definitely forget about Star Citizen ?

[S10JlAbraxis]

I think I have figured out what the next release will be.  Southern California (specificly a small coastal area just north of LA) in 1941 just after Pearl Harbor. On the allied side we would have the P40 and missions would consist of flying around north LA looking for submarines.  On the axis side would be the first BOX release of navel combat with Japanese subs shelling houses in Beverly Hills and trying to avoid marauding P40s.  The first add on would be AA gunner and shore battery action. Don't know about you guys but I would buy this in an instant.  

[BladeMeister]

8 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

I do have a vague idea, but I'd rather not be hounded as soon as I give out a vague timeline? 

Oh, that's you just being vague again Luke. Go ahead we're use to it Sir.

?

S!Blade<><

Edited September 28, 2023 by BladeMeister

[MiGCap]

4 minutes ago, S10JlAbraxis said:

I think I have figured out what the next release will be.  Southern California (specificly a small coastal area just north of LA) in 1941 just after Pearl Harbor. On the allied side we would have the P40 and missions would consist of flying around north LA looking for submarines.  On the axis side would be the first BOX release of navel combat with Japanese subs shelling houses in Beverly Hills and trying to avoid marauding P40s.  The first add on would be AA gunner and shore battery action. Don't know about you guys but I would buy this in an instant.  

 

 

 

[DBFlyguy]

14 minutes ago, MiGCap said:

 

 

 

One of Spielberg's weaker films... but it had some cool P-40 footage

[deathmisser]

I don't know if this has already been posted but I think Engima puts it right. 

 

 

[Gambit21]

9 hours ago, kendo said:

 

5 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

If you know it's Korea, you don't come out and say "it's prop based".

Sure you do, I would… to throw everyone off the scent. As has already been demonstrated, more than enough props involved to say “prop based” even if heavy quotes or a small wink is involved. We already have a prop-based release with jets. Not sure how people forget that.

 

I wish I had time to find, post the Q/A with Jason/Han and time-stamp where Han said that he wanted to go to Korea. It doesn’t actually mean anything by itself course…but also hardly mental gymnastics especially when combined with later Q/A comments,(prop-based, something completely new etc)  never mind this thread.

 

Also never-mind a Russian team, and late Russian Uber props (La-11 for example)  that they can get excited about, never mind the MiG 15. 

 

That’s all public, currently accessible  stuff that I can freely point out without being an asshat. Enough has been said in the public domain to warrant public commentary in other words.

 

Essentially, I’d be surprised if it’s not Korea rather than surprised if it is. Doesn’t mean I can’t be surprised.

Hope that makes sense.

@kendo I couldn’t delete your quote thing on my phone.

[tattywelshie]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

I do have a vague idea, but I'd rather not be hounded as soon as I give out a vague timeline. ? 

Haha we promise to not mention it ever again if you give us a clue...honest....?

[deathmisser]

15 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

but also hardly mental gymnastics especially when combined with later Q/A comments,(prop-based, something completely new etc)  

Well jet's are not really new as we got the Me 262 from the BOBP and the Arado from BON. 

 

Many here are not thinking about the one major things about each module is that most will allow to be mixed with each other.

So the BONP can mix with BON and the other way around same with BOS and BOM. There can even be some aircraft that can be used in every module.

Like the Spitfire and Fw 190's. 

 

I'm not sure if a Korean module would allow this while with Burma and North Africa you can. As some Italian aircraft can be used in the Balkans and Greece. 

[MajorMagee]

10 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

It's gonna be Luna vs. Apollo "Race to the Moon".

 

I mean, if they suddenly can do choppers, a bit of Kerbal should be easy to do.

 

Or the master race coming back from the moon...

[danielprates]

10 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

10 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

It's gonna be Luna vs. Apollo "Race to the Moon".

 

I mean, if they suddenly can do choppers, a bit of Kerbal should be easy to do.

 

KSP is already doing that better than any other game, better than KSP2 as a matter of fact.

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

Sure you do, I would… to throw everyone off the scent. As has already been demonstrated, more than enough props involved to say “prop based” even if heavy quotes or a small wink is involved. We already have a prop-based release with jets. Not sure how people forget that.

 

I wish I had time to find, post the Q/A with Jason/Han and time-stamp where Han said that he wanted to go to Korea. It doesn’t actually mean anything by itself course…but also hardly mental gymnastics especially when combined with later Q/A comments,(prop-based, something completely new etc)  never mind this thread.

 

Also never-mind a Russian team, and late Russian Uber props (La-11 for example)  that they can get excited about, never mind the MiG 15. 

 

That’s all public, currently accessible  stuff that I can freely point out without being an asshat. Enough has been said in the public domain to warrant public commentary in other words.

 

Essentially, I’d be surprised if it’s not Korea rather than surprised if it is. Doesn’t mean I can’t be surprised.

Hope that makes sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@kendo I couldn’t delete your quote thing on my phone.

 

 

I won’t be surprised if it is.  I won’t be surprised if it isn’t.  As long as it isn’t something ridiculous like Spanish Civil War, I’ll buy it.

[MAJ_Boatswain]

On 9/23/2023 at 11:58 PM, 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.

@LukeFF  Post this blurb in the very first post of the thread.  This is much more informative and relevant, in terms of content and should ease the 'non-annoucement' angst.

To transcribe a bit for western readability: 

"The only issue that worries us is developing a new GUI. Scale-form API has been dead for 6 years already, which means it is almost impossible to find developers for it. That means that continuing to improve our current GUI is not possible, (the marshall-story is a consequence of that) and necessitates us building a new one from scratch.  Last year we made the decision we should have made many years ago - to develop a new GUI for IL-2 using a new API we're making from scratch, to allow the design of the IL-2 franchise to evolve with modern technology.

Why is there worry about this? We've evolved our current GUI over the last five years into something incredibly complex. This new project, of course, will have less deadlines and be done much faster, but don't forget - the GUI is not just a visualization tool; it also makes the game logic.  Career modes have half their algorithms inside the GUI.  Another side of it, is that this time we want to develop a brand-new look to the GUI (everyone was tired of the existing 'mobile-like' design), and with that comes new functionality we've not implemented before. That incurs risk in the development, and is very ambitions - hence our worry.

Graphic technologies for the new project are mostly complete, and content development is underway. New aircraft systems and a new damage model are nearing completion as well, but we still have more work on them to do (while the new aircraft 3d models are still being developed.) The map is in active development (for about 10 months so far) and is going well.  It, too, carries risks because it is the largest storage-volumed content in the game. The new map is larger, and has much more variation than any other we've previously done. We've even developed new tools for the map team to help them meet their milestones on time. 

We remember the CLOD legacy.  CLOD started everything entirely from scratch, and there were too many risks involved. We are taking that lesson, and only generating from scratch the required modules we need for a new project (GUI, shading, radio, new AI, and a few others) while bringing as much of the existing modules from IL-GB as we can up to modern development status to match the new, scratch-made components.

We have a lot of basis to ancticipate a positive announcement and outcome, and the hope and current track is to have everything done in the timeline we've set forth internally, which should not be too long this time. "

Edited September 27, 2023 by MAJ_Boatswain