Discussion of upcoming Maps

[Buzzsaw]

Please post your comments regarding the planned new maps here.

[BOO]

Link to the announcement here might be a good idea.

[Buffo002]

I want to ask if maps created for online will be available (I play offline though) but I use them for single player campaigns. But such a natural coast or a larger island, inland, etc.?

[Missionbug]

I really do like the idea of expanding the desert theatre.

 

The available sims so far I think have not really covered this aspect of the war in depth like other theatres and yet it is as important to the historical events of the time as anywhere else, the original IL-2 as far as I recall covered the desert mainly in a few small but not very specific area maps with maybe a late addition of Tobruk if memory serves, there have been so many modded maps to deal with this important area properly that I forget exactly what was stock in the old game, so it is a very neglected area as far as most developers are concerned so does need some love and will now hopefully get some.

 

Having more Italian aircraft types will also be a real bonus and so it could eventually be that quite a few rare French and Italian types come with Dieppe and the later Egypt maps to add further interest for the players.

 

Take care and be safe.

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

[Mysticpuma]

 

Links to the TFS updates for this discussion. 

Edited October 28, 2023 by Mysticpuma

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

Nice! Sounds like a very nice plan, even if still years away. Best of luck in accomplishing it! 

 

I'll be there to support it as the modules come out. 

Northwestern Europe, Malta, Eastern Desert... Covers a good chunk of the early to mid war. Awesome. 

And a B-24! 

 

Nice to see the early raids from USAAF heavies mentioned. 

 

Tunisia and then Siciliy and a Italy for beyond this? I guess we will know more in 2025 or so. 

 

Torch shouldn't be too much out of reach either. P-38s? Aircraft carriers? SBDs? Hmmmm. 

[Trooper117]

Nice to see what the proposed maps and plans are for the game... many thanks!

[No.54_Reddog]

Thanks for the transparency. Would buy Malta done well tomorrow. No one will be surprised to hear I have doubts about how long it will take and the quality of what is delivered. But no one can accuse you of not being optimistic with your plans.

[Dagwoodyt]

My recollection is that the decision to go to NA was made years before there was community agitation for TF to be granted source code access.

[Dawson]

Will the new map use the same source of digital elevation model data as the Tobruk map? I find that map's terrain to be course and is especially noticeable in the faces of the cliffs on the shoreline and canyons around Derna. Higher resolution mapping of the earth's surface is being released.

[Lorena_Scout]

aircraft carriers would be awesome + merlin and seafire ❤️

[Volant_Eagle]

Thanks for the updates! Really excited for what’s coming in the future. Also nice to see the reasoning behind the decisions for future and past maps/DLCs. Makes sense.

 

I know this will likely be covered in detail with the upcoming posts for 8.0 and 9.0, but I would like to know what is the hoped for timeline in regards to carriers, flyable seaplanes, naval aircraft, etc. Are these to be expected in 8.0?

 

It was mentioned in the Swordfish update that other FAA aircraft are already planned. I’m certainly excited for those mentioned in that post; those which would be converted from already existing land based aircraft (all fighters). But it was said that some of the planned aircraft would be from already existing airframes. Any chance we can get an update on what the other FAA aircraft TFS is planning to do are? I’m really hoping we can get both the Fulmar and the Skua at some point down the line. Both very iconic FAA aircraft which would add new mission capabilities to the Red side (especially the Skua). The Albacore would be cool too, just not a high a priority given we’re already getting the Swordfish. Basically the same capabilities but less popular with crews. Same thing for the Vincent, just even more similar to the Swordfish.

 

It was said in the first map post that the original game engine couldn’t support maps beyond 400x400km, but in 9.0 the plan is to have a 600x600km map. Really excited to hear this. I’ve always thought the roughly 250x250mi (sorry, my brain gets lost in metric) was going to be a problem moving forward. It works for BoB but only barely. Even if the all the action stays within the map, it’s very common to be seeing the edge of the map which is a bit of an immersion killer. Same for Tobruk. Especially around Derna where at any reasonable cruising altitude the abrupt end of the canyons is visible. I was thinking something closer to 400x400mi would be a better standard size for a map. I just didn’t know if that would be possible in CloD. 600km is pretty close at roughly 375mi so really glad to hear this is possible.

 

This brings up the question of how big a map is feasibly possible and what are the limiting factors. Is Scotland to Narvik a conceivable possibility in the distant future? Or London to Berlin? Ploesti? Surely the amount of work involved in such a large map would be a huge limiting factor. But if the workload limitation were to be completely ignored, what would be limiting? Is it a game engine problem? Is it a minimum hardware requirement problem?

 

This brings the opportunity to ask another question I’ve often wondered about: Is CloD world flat or round? If it’s flat then I could see how that would be a massive limitation on map size given the distortions required. If it’s round, then is it technically possible to connect existing maps into a single Europe/North Africa map eventually? It’s been standard for a long time now that non-combat flight sims allow continuous flight over the whole earth. Is it purely for workload reasons that modern combat sims have all gone down the road of having individual “maps” like a first person shooter? Or is there a more fundamental reason forcing this format?
 

Even CFS1 from back in 1998 had a single map for the whole earth. Granted, anything outside of Europe was really really low quality (almost unplayable) and even inside Europe was super low rez.

[Mysticpuma]

Have TFS been able to test/experiment with the water features in Truesky for the new maps? If not, are there plans to use Truesky's water simulation? 

I assume large areas of the map will need remodeling  due to the sea floor tiles being about 5 feet under the waves far out from the shore, butat least this would open up Submarines for mission builders against the shipping and carriers. 

[Buzzsaw]

10 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

My recollection is that the decision to go to NA was made years before there was community agitation for TF to be granted source code access.

There were no decisions released to the public so not sure what you are recollecting... and agitation within the community for Source Code Access started immediately on the cancellation of CLIFFS development in late 2012... so long before any idea of a N Africa map was considered.

 

TF made its first of many requests to 1C for access to the SC in early 2013.

4 hours ago, Mysticpuma said:

Have TFS been able to test/experiment with the water features in Truesky for the new maps? If not, are there plans to use Truesky's water simulation? 

I assume large areas of the map will need remodeling  due to the sea floor tiles being about 5 feet under the waves far out from the shore, butat least this would open up Submarines for mission builders against the shipping and carriers. 

Yes.

[No.54_Reddog]

Imagine if, instead of this post there'd been one announcing the actual release of the long overdue and much promised and hyped Visual upgrade rather than some vague and meaningless future promises...what a world that would be.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

Seems some can never be pleased and jabs towards TFS have to be posted instead, no matter what info is given?Anyways, the new maps are something not done since original IL-2, even they were mods in the beginning. MTO is not the most covered area in any combat sim up to date, especially WW2. So warmly welcome them and new planes. 

 

Good luck to TFS ?

[Buzzsaw]

1 hour ago, No.54_Reddog said:

Imagine if, instead of this post there'd been one announcing the actual release of the long overdue and much promised and hyped Visual upgrade rather than some vague and meaningless future promises...what a world that would be.

There are many streams of work ongoing in TF's development of CLIFFS.  We have programmers working on the code, 3D artists working on aircraft/objects, Sound programmers, Map developers, graphics, programmers working on imports, programmers working on flight and damage models, etc. etc.

 

We have had many requests for more transparency about the planning and decisions TF makes in regards to maps and scenarios.

 

The posts made yesterday were all about answering those questions

 

In regards to what is happening with the Visual Update, we have been open regarding progress.

 

I.e.:

 

-  Our programmers are working on solving the crashes which occur during the use of VR and continue to make progress.  Otherwise we are very happy with the implementation.  One of our programmers posted on the ATAG forum an explanation of why it takes so long to find these types of bugs:

 

...the problem is with the game but finding the issue is what is complicated as the issue could be anywhere but you will not notice it until long after it has been triggered.

It's something like leaving a book in a kindergarten. Then, after a few days, you pick it up and start reading it. When you get to page 200, you notice the page has been "painted" with a drawing. The kid who did it would be the "bug" and the page the "crash".

Now another parent with a different book (the PC) does the same just to find the "drawing" on page 300 instead of 200.

At this point you have two drawings (crashes) in different places of the book (game) but you are not any closer to identify the kid that is making the drawings (the bug).

This is why being able to reliably replicate a crash is so important. If you can somehow make the book to get drawn always on the same page, you can monitor that page until someone draws on it and then you will find the culprit.

On the other hand, if you don't even know what page to look at, then it is very, very, very, very, very, very hard to catch the culprit red handed.

----
Now, the same explanation but in IT language:

The game has a bug somewhere that writes to the wrong place in memory. This place is random and can be anything from game code to the speed of a bullet that has been fired 5 seconds ago.

Depending on where the random memory falls, you can experience a crash or not even notice it. Worst than that, the memory address might not affect anything for some time.

For example:

- The bug is triggered and writes junk to a place of memory used by the gears down animation. After 1 hour playing you come back to landing, extend the gear and the game crashes.
- To make matters more complicated, it happens to be that in your particular setup, the bug always overwrites the same address and you always get the crash when extending gears.
- Thinking that is reproducible, you report a crash when extending the gear but as you can now imagine, it the gear has nothing to do with it and in other setups it doesn't even happen so the devs can spend 2 weeks debugging the gear code just to find nothing.

The devs know there is a bug (or more) but locating these kind of bug is extremely hard. Reproducible bugs are easy in the sense that in a couple of days the root cause can be found but finding the root cause of a bug that jumps around and can't be caught.

Also, the same devs are also being asked to add more functionality to the game. Making their time limited.

 

---

 

-  We are 80% on the integration of trueSKY, with a number of bugs remaining... the problematic interaction of the original game smoke/effects and the new trueSKY clouds as well as shimmering on ground objects being our focus.

 

-  We continue work on the implementation of Speedtree, with the in house Alpha progressing well.  When we can add this work to the VR Beta we will do so.

 

When the Visual Update will be complete, we can't say for certain.  Our most pessimistic estimate would be a release with TF 6.0.

[Dagwoodyt]

No happy talk in that forecast. We might not see a "public" VU beta in 2024. Certainly the "private" beta will long survive its' second birthday celebration. ?

[Enceladus828]

Did you hear something? Huh, must have been my imagination. ‘shrugs’. Oh well.

[OBT-Lionel]

Hi Buzzsaw,

 

Thank you for all this information on future projects and on the difficulties encountered in implementing VR.

 

You write "Our most pessimistic estimate would be a release with TF 6.0." That is to say perhaps the end of 2024.

 

If the visual update works well on screen, don't you think it would be interesting to make it available?

 

I don't think the majority of gamers fly in VR.

[Gunfreak]

6 minutes ago, OBT-Lionel said:

Hi Buzzsaw,

 

Thank you for all this information on future projects and on the difficulties encountered in implementing VR.

 

You write "Our most pessimistic estimate would be a release with TF 6.0." That is to say perhaps the end of 2024.

 

If the visual update works well on screen, don't you think it would be interesting to make it available?

 

I don't think the majority of gamers fly in VR.

From my understanding the visual update and vr is a are intertwined and can't do one and not the other.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

1 minute ago, Gunfreak said:

From my understanding the visual update and vr is a are intertwined and can't do one and not the other.

 

 

I think Lionel is asking for a visual update release as soon as possible so that the 2D-screen players enjoy the visual update even if the VR doesn't work correctly at 100%. Players using monitors would be happy, players using headsets wouldn't be.

 

 

[Gunfreak]

44 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

I think Lionel is asking for a visual update release as soon as possible so that the 2D-screen players enjoy the visual update even if the VR doesn't work correctly at 100%. Players using monitors would be happy, players using headsets wouldn't be.

 

 

I don't know if the beta is more stable if you don't use vr, as I haven't tested it in none vr. They also haven't added the last version of speed tree which I assume must be done before anything can be released. 

[Dagwoodyt]

I believe what is finally being recognized by even the most avid TFS supporters is that a five or six year hiatus between launch of DWT and FFW is tough to swallow. Historically there is a "several" year extension of launch time over the Team's initial projected launch dates, invariably attributed to "real life" intrusions.

The dynamic foveated rendering mod for Il-2 BoX can crash after running flawlessly for 10-20 minutes, but when running it gives a definite increase in FPS that is, to me, worth the hassle. If the 2D version of the VU runs as well as some seem to suggest, certainly no one begrudges 2D users that experience, even if VR remains forever flawed.

[Dawson]

20 hours ago, Volant_Eagle said:

 Is CloD world flat or round?

I'm almost certain it's round. You can see this if you fly at twilight, if you have enough altitude the sun is still visible.

[FTC_Karaya]

Looks round to me

 

Edited October 29, 2023 by FTC_Karaya

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

25 minutes ago, FTC_Karaya said:

Looks round to me

 

The only thing this picture shows is how ubermodelled the Spitfire is. 

 

The first one is obviously a real picture. 

 

?

Edited October 29, 2023 by 9./JG52_J-HAT

[FTC_Karaya]

36 minutes ago, 9./JG52_J-HAT said:

The only thing this picture shows is how ubermodelled the Spitfire is. 

 

Normal CAP altitude for Mk.IIs during SoW before the atmosphere bug got fixed ?

[Mysticpuma]

I'll be honest there are a couple of points the intrigue me. 

First:

So, there are likely two other game engines in play. The first is BoX and the other is Combat Pilot. 

Not sure about BoX but Combat Pilot already have a couple of TFS members working for them, it does make me wonder if a chunk of TFS are looking elsewhere after so long in CloD and the seeming development hell/delays? I would guess most of the team would have hoped the VU would have been out by now so they could concentrate on VR and F&F. 

That leads to the amount of work to do before December next year. Reading the Speedtree is still in Alpha is really concerning after all these years and Truesky still not ready. 

 

Time waits for no man... TFv9 feels like it could be late 2030 at this rate....? 

I would have to hope that even though it has taken 7 years to get where we are since TFS got the Source Code, three more modules in the same amount of time takes us to 2030...and I don't see that as a realistic timeline. 

I just hope players have the patience to stick with it but it's hard to believe they will. 

[=FEW=Hauggy]

13 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

I'll be honest there are a couple of points the intrigue me. 

First:

So, there are likely two other game engines in play. The first is BoX and the other is Combat Pilot. 

Not sure about BoX but Combat Pilot already have a couple of TFS members working for them, it does make me wonder if a chunk of TFS are looking elsewhere after so long in CloD and the seeming development hell/delays? I would guess most of the team would have hoped the VU would have been out by now so they could concentrate on VR and F&F. 

That leads to the amount of work to do before December next year. Reading the Speedtree is still in Alpha is really concerning after all these years and Truesky still not ready. 

 

Time waits for no man... TFv9 feels like it could be late 2030 at this rate....? 

I would have to hope that even though it has taken 7 years to get where we are since TFS got the Source Code, three more modules in the same amount of time takes us to 2030...and I don't see that as a realistic timeline. 

I just hope players have the patience to stick with it but it's hard to believe they will. 

Seems to me map making and especially developping new tech is the most time consuming part, with most the new tech planned to be released in the worst case scenario by the end of next year and the next map already being made I think it doesn't sound as bad as you put it.

Also some of the setbacks were previously explained such as the guy in charge of VR leaving amidst the Covid pandemic which itself was a problem for all sorts of companies and individuals.

Your added negativity is just unecessary. I want to believe that waiting until next year will show enough concrete results to justify any future plans.

[No.54_Reddog]

Oh I'm sure Joshua Newton will have it all sorted by then, he seems a very eager chap.

[Mysticpuma]

2 hours ago, =FEW=Hauggy said:

Seems to me map making and especially developping new tech is the most time consuming part, with most the new tech planned to be released in the worst case scenario by the end of next year and the next map already being made I think it doesn't sound as bad as you put it.

Also some of the setbacks were previously explained such as the guy in charge of VR leaving amidst the Covid pandemic which itself was a problem for all sorts of companies and individuals.

Your added negativity is just unecessary. I want to believe that waiting until next year will show enough concrete results to justify any future plans.

It seems every time I post a objective post on what I see, straight away it comes to me just being negative. 

I have said it many times, I support this and love Clod, having a realistic expectation of the module releases isn't negative it's just being a realist. 

I would have assumed as VR, Truesky and Speedtree were coding issues so the map makers and modellers would have been far ahead of the coders creating content while they have been waiting, but this appears not to be the case. 

Ultimately, December next year will be the proving ground as to whether future modules may hit a reasonable timeline. 

 

Time will tell. 

 

I'll be here, waiting and ready to take it for a spin. 

It's fair to say the beta is very promising, Truesky looks superb with certain cloud types and hopefully the final 20 percent will sort out the graphical issues. Buzzsaw mentioned the removal of shimmering shadows with Speedtree 8.2 so there is a lot of expectation, but hopefully they'll overcome them and release v6 to huge fanfare. 

 

Good luck TFS. 

[PO_Baldrick]

2 hours ago, Mysticpuma said:

I just hope players have the patience to stick with it but it's hard to believe they will. 

I am not sure players need to stick with it as their only combat flight sim patiently waiting for updates. This isn’t a multiplayer only game that will die without numbers of players or a subscription service. Of course there will be a small core of players who duel online week in week out but as fun as it is it isn’t a necessity to keep players wedded to the product to purchase new releases in my view.

 

The community don’t really need to know the intricacies of development progress for something they might buy in a year’s time, it is just satisfying fans’ curiosity as fellow enthusiasts.

 

If the product is good enough it will feature in all the flight sim websites, it has never been easier to find games a player might be interested in.

 

Of course there are fans of products but in my experience the majority just want to play whatever is considered best at the time.

[Buzzsaw]

10 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

From my understanding the visual update and vr is a are intertwined and can't do one and not the other.

No, we can release the Visual Update to non-VR users... we already have non-VR users flying it as testers... and as a courtesy we offered both MP and Reddog an opportunity to look at it and test it.  We did that because they are both community leaders with a lot of experience in analyzing and evaluating the game... we consider their comments to be valuable to the development.  We also have given access to the members of our normal Beta Tester group.

 

But we don't want to release the VR Beta to the general 2D community until we have a working implementation of Speedtree.  Once that is in the VR Beta and working properly, then we will look at offering access to the general community.  But anyone getting access would be expected to test according to our requests... it would not be for Tourists or Looky-loo's who just want to cruise by without actually providing useful feedback.  ?

[Dagwoodyt]

7 minutes ago, Buzzsaw said:

would not be for Tourists or Looky-loo's

 

Wow!  Would ATAG registration also be required?

[Buzzsaw]

3 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

 

Wow!  Would ATAG registration also be required?

All the normal requirements for Beta testers would be in effect while the VR Beta is in development.

 

The VR Beta is a Beta.

[Dagwoodyt]

So the only VU beta would still be "private".?

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

Sure will apply for the possible VU beta, if opened. Have no issues following rules, procedures and orders.  Latest beta testing was a few years ago ? 

 

So am I totally wrong here if got an Image that in 2D the VU has only very few issues and main culprit is VR working with VU? 

[Mysticpuma]

1 minute ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S!

 

Sure will apply for the possible VU beta, if opened. Have no issues following rules, procedures and orders.  Latest beta testing was a few years ago ? 

 

So am I totally wrong here if got an Image that in 2D the VU has only very few issues and main culprit is VR working with VU? 

2D has issues, especially with shaders, as these are yet to be completed. Speedtree has shimmering shadows, but that is because v8.2 hasn't been implemented yet. As Buzzsaw said, smoke and effects are causing problems with Truesky which is 80% ready. So there are still issues, but it is a beta. VR, as has been mentioned elsewhere, still has crashes, the analogy for which Buzzsaw posted about two pictures (above).

Ultimately, it's a beta and it's testing. 2D or VR, there are issues but they are working on them.

[5th_Barone]

Good to hear that beta will be some day opened to also 2D testers.

these are good moves, the more testers the more tests and feedback.