Discussion of upcoming Maps

[jaguar]

The choice of Egypt sounds good given the current planeset. However, I don't get why the B-24D was selected for the title.

 

True, the HALPRO detachment was active in the MTO. On the other hand, the displayed map boundaries do not allow for any base along the Suez Canal, let alone those further to the east like Lydda or Ramat David, and no meaningful targets like Tobruk or Benghazi.

 

Given the tactical scale of the map, a B-25C, Boston or Baltimore would have by a better choice in my humble opinion.

Edited November 3, 2023 by jaguar

[343KKT_Kintaro]

4 hours ago, jaguar said:

I don't get why the B-24D was selected for the title.

 

 

Well, I guess our Channel map allows the use of B-24s during the anti-submarine war over the Atlantic...

 

 

[Buffo002]

I would put both there, B-24 and B-26, A-20 and Baltimore. ?

Edited November 3, 2023 by Buffo002

[Buzzsaw]

On 11/3/2023 at 2:55 AM, jaguar said:

The choice of Egypt sounds good given the current planeset. However, I don't get why the B-24D was selected for the title.

 

True, the HALPRO detachment was active in the MTO. On the other hand, the displayed map boundaries do not allow for any base along the Suez Canal, let alone those further to the east like Lydda or Ramat David, and no meaningful targets like Tobruk or Benghazi.

 

Given the tactical scale of the map, a B-25C, Boston or Baltimore would have by a better choice in my humble opinion.

As mentioned, we hope to have a twin engined US bomber in TF 7.0 as well as a three engined Italian type.  (no, I can't be specific)

 

And yes, the B-24's were based originally in Palestine and near Suez, but they often flew to forward bases prior to missions... for example they flew forward to Mersa Matruh for some missions... so the players would be able to use the TOBRUK map for these raids.

 

But we are limited to 400 x 400 km at the moment... if we put in Palestine, then there would be no room for the El Alamein area... and the area occupied by the Axis during this period.

 

And anyway, in our experience, most players tend to base their aircraft at much further forward bases than historically... because they don't want all the boring flight time over non-combat territory... adding a huge extra area on the map would end providing space no one uses.

[Buzzsaw]

6 hours ago, Buffo002 said:

I would put both there, B-24 and B-26, A-20 and Baltimore. ?

B-26 was not in the Western Desert.

 

A-20 wasn't either.  British used Boston II/III... which were significantly different.  (had forward bombsight and glass nose... bombsight was not on the A-20, also turrets and armament were different)

 

[Missionbug]

The Boston is one of the first aircraft I think I ever truly associated with the desert war, the Kittyhawk as well, they always seemed to be the main focus of any photographs I saw as a youth and my modelling as a youngster featured both, their camouflage schemes and the style of the Boston always kind of grabbed you visually. It would probably be one of my own particular favourites of this type of bomber to add and to use with the the maps we currently have available and that are proposed.  As far as memory serves I think they ranged across the whole of the desert theatre and were used throughout each of those campaigns in the desert, besides that other players might also be more likely to consider the Boston to be a more important addition than any other American type of bomber there except maybe the Maryland and Baltimore. They were all some of the most aesthetically pleasing twin engine bomber designs of their day, again for me all three always seemed to be associated more with the desert than anywhere else at the time.

 

The French also had a version as well, memory fails me now on just how exactly they differed to the RAF ones, if at all, but its addition would give us even more playability both as a Vichy aircraft in the region and in early European missions/campaigns so a win, win, all over providing that is you had the references, modeller and time of course, oh, and TF wanted it in the sim yourselves that is.

 

Don't mind me, just prattling on as always and sharing my thoughts for what little they they are worth.

 

Take care and be safe.

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

[FurphyForum]

Good to hear the news about the Sicily map and Malta.

[No.54_Reddog]

With regards the Malta map, how does TF intend to handle the Safi strip and Qrendi? Given they were both built during the period being covered, will there be multiple versions of the map to cover their non existence and then existence? Or are we looking at a repeat of the DCS Normandy map where the ALGs are all there?

 

Given the vast numbers of bespoke buildings required to do Malta alone justice, beyond the requirements of generic house A, house B type stuff has TF got the resources to actually pull this off successfully and "properly"?

[FTC_Oakwoodson]

How would mission makers be expected to handle the 'recreation' of the Siege of Malta given that majority of Luftwaffe that harassed the infamous 'convoy' meant to supply the island came from mainland Africa? From what I'm seeing, even the slightest part of the African Northern coast will not be included (Which is understandable). Would the players representing Germans be limited to air spawn only then or will a specific module that will include some airfields along the African coast + Malta and minus Sicily will be developed to solve that issue? 

Edited December 4, 2023 by FTC_Oakwoodson

[Missionbug]

Looking forward to seeing how Malta progresses, it is an area many have wanted for a very long time, me included.

 

Better get some Gladiator practice me thinks.

 

Take care and be safe.

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

This is more and more interesting, I wish the IL2 GB team was as open and transparent for their new project. 

[Buzzsaw]

2 hours ago, FTC_Oakwoodson said:

How would mission makers be expected to handle the 'recreation' of the Siege of Malta given that majority of Luftwaffe that harassed the infamous 'convoy' meant to supply the island came from mainland Africa? From what I'm seeing, even the slightest part of the African Northern coast will not be included (Which is understandable). Would the players representing Germans be limited to air spawn only then or will a specific module that will include some airfields along the African coast + Malta and minus Sicily will be developed to solve that issue? 

Hi Oakwoodson

 

Actually if you are referring to Operation Pedestal and the convoys preceding it, few of the German aircraft which attacked the convoy came from Libya... and the Vichy controlled area of Tunisia/Algeria/Morrocco was off limits to the Germans at that time.

 

Most German aircraft came from Sicily or Sardinia... although there might have been a few based on Pantelleria.  Italians were based mostly in Sicily, Sardinia and Pantelleria.

 

We are limited in map size currently to approx. 400 km X 400 km... and the map has been created using that restriction.  It is not possible to include Tunisia in this size map and have Sicily properly represented.

 

There is still quite a bit of room to show the attacks on the convoy... and also, because of the repeating nature of the terrain system... map edges which are sea are repeated indefinitely for the purposes of the player flying in the game.  (although movement in the FMB cannot be plotted in these areas)

 

And of course, many players do not like flying long distances, they do not have the patience to do this.  (although we do have a 16 X speed for singleplayer, that is not available for the live multiplayer environment.)  So we think the planned Malta/Sicily map area will be enough of a challenge.

 

Every game out there has limits in the size of their maps... at the moment CLIFFS is the same.  But we are working on expanding our allowable map area to 600 km X 600 km or 800 km X 800 km for maps beyond TF 8.0.  (more on that later)

12 hours ago, No.54_Reddog said:

With regards the Malta map, how does TF intend to handle the Safi strip and Qrendi? Given they were both built during the period being covered, will there be multiple versions of the map to cover their non existence and then existence? Or are we looking at a repeat of the DCS Normandy map where the ALGs are all there?

 

Given the vast numbers of bespoke buildings required to do Malta alone justice, beyond the requirements of generic house A, house B type stuff has TF got the resources to actually pull this off successfully and "properly"?

Hi Reddog

 

We are looking at the options there... quite likely we will have early and late versions of the map.  There is also RAF Kalafrana and Tal' Vecchia... the latter opened later too  (we expect to have new code for Seaplanes for TF 8.0)

 

Yes, there are a lot of landmark buildings in Malta, but we are hoping to be able to create enough so the environment looks good.  ?

 

That being said, our 3D artists have a lot on their plates with all the aircraft/ships etc. we need to create, so we welcome new 3D artists to join TF to do building work... the skill level to create buildings is quite a bit less than for aircraft/ships.  Anyone who has a good entry level knowledge in Blender/3dsMax would be encouraged to contact me via message on this forum or on the ATAG forum.  Anyone interested in helping with the map development, which requires only a good knowledge of the game's Full Mission Builder, (with photoshop skills a bonus) should also contact me.  ✌️

[5th_Barone]

Even if it feels like we are years or ages far from this, the new maps and explanations looks promising.

Thanks for the new transparency and communication in future modules, appreciated.

[Buffo002]

The biggest problem is that the original game (former creators) didn't plan for VR or Truesky and other other effects in the game, the problem is to synchronize the game that was created on old codes and which have a problem with VR and True sky synchronization, once the TF team succeeds in this important and solve the basic problem, I believe that work on additional maps and new aircraft and of course other new elements will continue much faster ...

 

[4SCT_V-Twin]

On 11/3/2023 at 10:21 PM, Buzzsaw said:

as well as a twin engined Italian type.

??? PLEASE SPARE US THE Ba88! She was sh*t, plain & simple, and was used ONLY as ground target. DO NO WASTE TIME WITH IT! Moreover given the scarce resource you have.
I sincerely thank you for adding italian planse, but there aren't twin engined italian planes worth modelling, except the Fiat Br20, which saw extensive use also over Malta. Other twin-engine were used in small numbers and in irrelevant roles. So please concentrate the effort on the planes that historically fought over Malta:
Macchi C200, which is absolutely mandatory, since the G50 is NOT a substitute
Macchi C202, already available

Reggiane Re 2001, which equipped the 150th, 152th and 358th Squadron of 2nd Fighter Groups and fought in good number over Malta (and were met even by Buerling)
Siai Marchetti SM79, also mandatory, since she's the iconic italian bomber of the early WWII and was heavily used over Malta and against the ship convoys

The said Fiat BR20

Cant Z1007, which also was extensively used on Malta
If you plan to use the map also for the following Sicily and Tunisia theatre, then the C205 shall be added, which were based in Pantelleria from february 1943.

 

[Blitzen]

I should have asked this initially: Is this the news for this month that we were alerted of 3 weeks ago, or are there more updates to look for?

[FTC_Oakwoodson]

19 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

Hi Oakwoodson

 

Actually if you are referring to Operation Pedestal and the convoys preceding it, few of the German aircraft which attacked the convoy came from Libya... and the Vichy controlled area of Tunisia/Algeria/Morrocco was off limits to the Germans at that time.

 

Most German aircraft came from Sicily or Sardinia... although there might have been a few based on Pantelleria.  Italians were based mostly in Sicily, Sardinia and Pantelleria.

 

We are limited in map size currently to approx. 400 km X 400 km... and the map has been created using that restriction.  It is not possible to include Tunisia in this size map and have Sicily properly represented.

 

There is still quite a bit of room to show the attacks on the convoy... and also, because of the repeating nature of the terrain system... map edges which are sea are repeated indefinitely for the purposes of the player flying in the game.  (although movement in the FMB cannot be plotted in these areas)

 

And of course, many players do not like flying long distances, they do not have the patience to do this.  (although we do have a 16 X speed for singleplayer, that is not available for the live multiplayer environment.)  So we think the planned Malta/Sicily map area will be enough of a challenge.

 

Every game out there has limits in the size of their maps... at the moment CLIFFS is the same.  But we are working on expanding our allowable map area to 600 km X 600 km or 800 km X 800 km for maps beyond TF 8.0.  (more on that later)

Hi Reddog

 

We are looking at the options there... quite likely we will have early and late versions of the map.  There is also RAF Kalafrana and Tal' Vecchia... the latter opened later too  (we expect to have new code for Seaplanes for TF 8.0)

 

Yes, there are a lot of landmark buildings in Malta, but we are hoping to be able to create enough so the environment looks good.  ?

 

That being said, our 3D artists have a lot on their plates with all the aircraft/ships etc. we need to create, so we welcome new 3D artists to join TF to do building work... the skill level to create buildings is quite a bit less than for aircraft/ships.  Anyone who has a good entry level knowledge in Blender/3dsMax would be encouraged to contact me via message on this forum or on the ATAG forum.  Anyone interested in helping with the map development, which requires only a good knowledge of the game's Full Mission Builder, (with photoshop skills a bonus) should also contact me.  ✌️

That I did not know, thank you for educating me on the subject! 

[Buzzsaw]

5 hours ago, 4SCT_V-Twin said:

??? PLEASE SPARE US THE Ba88! She was sh*t, plain & simple, and was used ONLY as ground target. DO NO WASTE TIME WITH IT! Moreover given the scarce resource you have.
I sincerely thank you for adding italian planse, but there aren't twin engined italian planes worth modelling, except the Fiat Br20, which saw extensive use also over Malta. Other twin-engine were used in small numbers and in irrelevant roles. So please concentrate the effort on the planes that historically fought over Malta:
Macchi C200, which is absolutely mandatory, since the G50 is NOT a substitute
Macchi C202, already available

Reggiane Re 2001, which equipped the 150th, 152th and 358th Squadron of 2nd Fighter Groups and fought in good number over Malta (and were met even by Buerling)
Siai Marchetti SM79, also mandatory, since she's the iconic italian bomber of the early WWII and was heavily used over Malta and against the ship convoys

The said Fiat BR20

Cant Z1007, which also was extensively used on Malta
If you plan to use the map also for the following Sicily and Tunisia theatre, then the C205 shall be added, which were based in Pantelleria from february 1943.

 

Hi Twin

 

It was my mistake in saying 'twin engine'... (late night)  That only applies to the US type.

 

Actually we are planning on a three engine Italian bomber...  I can't be more specific as to the type at this time...  'nuff said.  ?

[Lorena_Scout]

Seafire will be available? ❤️

[=FEW=Hauggy]

Very interesting news indeed. I think everybody is really dying to have news from the progress on Speedtree, the clouds and especially VR (I'm about to finally upgrade from a trackir to a reverb G2).

Any announcement planned? Any advances in that sector of the front if I may? It would help greatly to fill up servers and bring some new interest to this (unfortunately) almost forgotten sim.

To be perfectly honest the Malta DLC doesn't come to me as a huge surprise as I have been aware of these plans for quite a while, being a long time follower of your relentless work of passion, I even remember seeing an early model of a British Aircraft carrier and I do remember a Seafire with it's arresting hook.

These are indeed wonderful news, let us hope they come to fruition in a not so distant future.

I mean who wouldn't want things like ww2 carrier ops or heavy bombers especially in VR.

[ITA-SUP-Bigans]

On 12/4/2023 at 9:17 PM, Buzzsaw said:

....

1-Most German aircraft came from Sicily or Sardinia... although there might have been a few based on Pantelleria.  Italians were based mostly in Sicily, Sardinia and Pantelleria.

 

2-We are limited in map size currently to approx. 400 km X 400 km... and the map has been created using that restriction.  It is not possible to include Tunisia in this size map and have Sicily properly represented.

.....

 

3-And of course, many players do not like flying long distances, they do not have the patience to do this.  (although we do have a 16 X speed for singleplayer, that is not available for the live multiplayer environment.)  So we think the planned Malta/Sicily map area will be enough of a challenge.

 

4-Every game out there has limits in the size of their maps... at the moment CLIFFS is the same.  But we are working on expanding our allowable map area to 600 km X 600 km or 800 km X 800 km for maps beyond TF 8.0.  (more on that later)

 

5-...There is also RAF Kalafrana and Tal' Vecchia... the latter opened later too  (we expect to have new code for Seaplanes for TF 8.0)

......

Hi Buzzsaw,

1-Not completely true, S79 italian planes searching for convoy also started from Tobruk or Tripoli too in the period 1940-1943.

 

2-I worked on a old Maraz map for il2-1946 that is 800*800 km including Tunisia fully working in HSFX and BAT also, how is possible that Cliff is limitated 400*400?

Re: Progetto Mappe - Kunena (maw-superaereo.it)

(at 21st page instructions how to join this map in HSFX7 and BAT)

 

I also did another 800*800 map of center Italy with no problems.

 

3-This "problem" should no affect any project, as players could create their own mission airstarting wherever they want, without flying boring hours of flight.

 

4-I bet Cliffs could reach 800*800 km

 

5-About airfield added during the war, the solution could be only one: build all airfileds and then make different maps for every period and covering with trees the not available airfields, cleaned by buildings/objects.

 

Ciao

 

Edited March 9 by ITA-SUP-Bigans

[Buzzsaw]

2 hours ago, ITA-SUP-Bigans said:

Hi Buzzsaw,

1-Not completely true, S79 italian planes searching for convoy also started from Tobruk or Tripoli too in the period 1940-1943.

 

2-I worked on a old Maraz map for il2-1946 that is 800*800 km including Tunisia fully working in HSFX and BAT also, how is possible that Cliff is limitated 400*400?

Re: Progetto Mappe - Kunena (maw-superaereo.it)

(at last page instructions how to join this map in HSFX7 and BAT)

 

I also did another 800*800 map of center Italy with no problems.

 

3-This "problem" should no affect any project, as players could create their own mission airstarting wherever they want, witohut flying boring hours of flight.

 

4-I bet Cliffs could reach 800*800 km

 

5-About airfield added during the war, the solution will be only one: build all airfileds and then make different maps for every period and covering with trees the not available airfields, cleaned by buildings/objects.

 

Ciao

 

Hello Bigans

 

As I mentioned in several posts, we plan on expanding allowable map area to either 600 X 600 or 800 X 800 km.  Not possible now.

 

Regarding SM.79's based out of Tripoli, I did say some might have been based there... Tobruk I don't think so.  Maybe Benghazi.  Any aircraft based there were mostly attacking convoys from Alexandria to Malta.

 

However, by far the majority of those who attacked convoys coming from Gibraltar and were based from Sicily and Sardinia.

 

If you want a detailed day by day account of all the missions flown, I would suggest you consult the two books by Christopher Shore, Brian Cull and Nicola Malizia:  Malta: The Hurricane Years 1940-41, and Malta: The Spitfire Year, 1942.

 

If you have worked on maps for IL-2, maybe you might want to consider joining TF and working with us on TF 8.0 and the Malta/Sicily module.  Feel free to contact me by private message.  Although of course, there are differences in the game systems...  ?

[ITAF_Rani]

I know Sicily is scheduled as future development, I don t know if it expected to be released in 2024 or 2025...

Other thing, do you plan to develop also serie 5 about italian fighters? 

[Koziolek]

On 12/14/2023 at 6:44 AM, ITAF_Rani said:

 I don t know if it expected to be released in 2024 or 2025...

 

I think closer to 34 or 35, Sicily will be TF8.0 and right now we just started to talk about 6.0

 

EDIT BY MODERATOR:

 

Timelines for these modules are not known, but unlikely to be as long as suggested above.

 

All depends on how FORTRESSES AND FOCKE-WULFS and the Visual Update is received... if the game is popular, then the release schedule will be accelerated.

[Buzzsaw]

On 12/14/2023 at 6:44 AM, ITAF_Rani said:

I know Sicily is scheduled as future development, I don t know if it expected to be released in 2024 or 2025...

Other thing, do you plan to develop also serie 5 about italian fighters? 

We plan on developing aircraft which would historically fit the time period of the DLC.

 

I can't be specific.

[No.54_Reddog]

16 hours ago, Koziolek said:

I think closer to 34 or 35, Sicily will be TF8.0 and right now we just started to talk about 6.0

 

EDIT BY MODERATOR:

 

Timelines for these modules are not known, but unlikely to be as long as suggested above.

 

All depends on how FORTRESSES AND FOCKE-WULFS and the Visual Update is received... if the game is popular, then the release schedule will be accelerated.

 

Editing a post to reply is bad form imo. It also means I can't quote the right person.

 

But, let's be honest for a second here, Team Fusion don't have the greatest track record when it comes to timelines and predicting release dates. 

 

 

 

 

[Koziolek]

16 hours ago, Koziolek said:

I think closer to 34 or 35, Sicily will be TF8.0 and right now we just started to talk about 6.0

 

EDIT BY MODERATOR:

 

Timelines for these modules are not known, but unlikely to be as long as suggested above.

 

All depends on how FORTRESSES AND FOCKE-WULFS and the Visual Update is received... if the game is popular, then the release schedule will be accelerated.

I really hope I was not even close ?

[BladeMeister]

Come on, you guys are talking and debating about modules that are 10 years out? Seriously? LMAO! How about TF just finish something, anything, let's say maybe the graphics, TruSky, SpeedTree VR work and make the update? I get it that this all takes time but damn, TF hasn't made any update of any significance in what almost 4 years now? I literally haven't looked in this section of the Forums for months now and I see no need to look here again until maybe, and that is a HUGE maybe, the end of 2024. Hell, I am putting my money on Combat Pilot making it's debut before TF puts out anything of significance. It is getting harder and harder to have any confidence that TF is in touch with reality when it hasn't produced and released anything in almost 4 years. See you next Christmas,....

Hopefully??? Maybe???

Possibly??? Is there a shred of a chance???

Nah, lets talk about module 9, 10 and 11 in lets say 2036, 2042 and 2050.

LMAO, what a joke. ?

 

S!Blade<><?

[No.54_Reddog]

2 hours ago, BladeMeister said:

Come on, you guys are talking and debating about modules that are 10 years out? Seriously? LMAO! How about TF just finish something, anything, let's say maybe the graphics, TruSky, SpeedTree VR work and make the update? I get it that this all takes time but damn, TF hasn't made any update of any significance in what almost 4 years now? I literally haven't looked in this section of the Forums for months now and I see no need to look here again until maybe, and that is a HUGE maybe, the end of 2024. Hell, I am putting my money on Combat Pilot making it's debut before TF puts out anything of significance. It is getting harder and harder to have any confidence that TF is in touch with reality when it hasn't produced and released anything in almost 4 years. See you next Christmas,....

Hopefully??? Maybe???

Possibly??? Is there a shred of a chance???

Nah, lets talk about module 9, 10 and 11 in lets say 2036, 2042 and 2050.

LMAO, what a joke. ?

 

S!Blade<><?

Are you feeling alright old chap, this isn't like you.? Had a bit too much of the Christmas mulled wine or something? ?

[Dagwoodyt]

all based on the premise that trueSKY and Speedtree 8/9 will eventually be fully compatible with the game engine, that an army of unpaid volunteers will file in to create a plethora of new game assets  and neglecting the inconvenient reality of lethargic forum activity

[PO_Baldrick]

18 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

all based on the premise that trueSKY and Speedtree 8/9 will eventually be fully compatible with the game engine, that an army of unpaid volunteers will file in to create a plethora of new game assets  and neglecting the inconvenient reality of lethargic forum activity

Going a bit OT but I am a long term sim racer, an adopter of early access, alpha, beta developments over 30 years always looking for the next latest and greatest sim. I recently revisited Richard Burns Rally in VR after being a bit disappointed with EA WRC23, a game from almost twenty years ago kept alive and current by unpaid volunteers. It is astonishingly good. The original title didn’t even have rear wheel drive cars but the Group 4 Escort is what dreams were made of when I started sim racing with RAC Rally 30 odd years ago.

 

It has taken an age to get to where RBR is now with Rallysimfans, yet the game engine has proven capable of remaining the best in class in spite of its age.

 

To get back on track I kind of view CLIFFS and TF in a similar light. A bunch of enthusiasts can do stuff that profit driven organisations simply can’t. If they do then great, if it doesn’t pan out then so be it but I won’t get upset about it, the financial investment is peanuts and if I choose to invest my time in it than that is down to me. I admire the aspirations and wish them all the best, rain or shine.

[Trooper117]

A man after my own heart... good man Baldrick. 

[Mysticpuma]

11 hours ago, PO_Baldrick said:

Going a bit OT but I am a long term sim racer, an adopter of early access, alpha, beta developments over 30 years always looking for the next latest and greatest sim. I recently revisited Richard Burns Rally in VR after being a bit disappointed with EA WRC23, a game from almost twenty years ago kept alive and current by unpaid volunteers. It is astonishingly good. The original title didn’t even have rear wheel drive cars but the Group 4 Escort is what dreams were made of when I started sim racing with RAC Rally 30 odd years ago.

 

It has taken an age to get to where RBR is now with Rallysimfans, yet the game engine has proven capable of remaining the best in class in spite of its age.

 

To get back on track I kind of view CLIFFS and TF in a similar light. A bunch of enthusiasts can do stuff that profit driven organisations simply can’t. If they do then great, if it doesn’t pan out then so be it but I won’t get upset about it, the financial investment is peanuts and if I choose to invest my time in it than that is down to me. I admire the aspirations and wish them all the best, rain or shine.

But, there is a large group who have access to this software/code (Rally) who can use the code to create lots of features, similar to HSFX and SAS for 1L2:1946.

 

However due to the locked down nature of CloD, those large groups just aren't available to Clod so experimentation and creation only comes from a very small amount of people with access to the code, so that creative process is bogged down by man hours available. 

 

The 'problem' isn't the software, it's the inability to 'play' with it. 

 

There are definitely tens if not hundreds of people out their who could work wonders with the code if they had time to access and play with it, but currently I think there are three main coders using the Source Code and if each of them spend 3 hours per day of their own time working on features, in the grand scheme of things, the CloD software is barely having its surface scratched. 

 

It's a shame the team can't open the game up to modding like BoX does because then players could be creative and have the possibility of having features they make (like map redskins) added to the Steam downloads for free. That would be an easy way to engage the community without them having to join TFS and see if the tools they want are available? 

[PO_Baldrick]

2 hours ago, Mysticpuma said:

But, there is a large group who have access to this software/code (Rally) who can use the code to create lots of features, similar to HSFX and SAS for 1L2:1946.

 

Whilst RBR is abandonware, the key updates (e.g. next gen physics) are done by one guy, VR by another. I have been occasionally re trying it over the years but was put off by the myriad of mods much of which really weren't very good and complex to install. Only since a Hungarian group - rallySimFans packaged the good stuff up and made a simple installer did I get to give it another go.

 

The key thing for me with RBR is the development of the (old) game engine to enhance the physics and enable new content. There is no shortage of content for games which have any modding capability but it seldom makes for making the game feel current other than keeping an old game alive for a die hard group for a while.

[No.54_Reddog]

1 hour ago, PO_Baldrick said:

Whilst RBR is abandonware, the key updates (e.g. next gen physics) are done by one guy, VR by another. I have been occasionally re trying it over the years but was put off by the myriad of mods much of which really weren't very good and complex to install. Only since a Hungarian group - rallySimFans packaged the good stuff up and made a simple installer did I get to give it another go.

 

The key thing for me with RBR is the development of the (old) game engine to enhance the physics and enable new content. There is no shortage of content for games which have any modding capability but it seldom makes for making the game feel current other than keeping an old game alive for a die hard group for a while.

How many times have your rally sim fans promised and not delivered? Or missed their own deadlines by multiple years? How many paid DLCs have they released? Or tried to hype not the next paid for DLC but the one after that?

[Dagwoodyt]

17 hours ago, PO_Baldrick said:

Going a bit OT but I am a long term sim racer, an adopter of early access, alpha, beta developments over 30 years always looking for the next latest and greatest sim. I recently revisited Richard Burns Rally in VR after being a bit disappointed with EA WRC23, a game from almost twenty years ago kept alive and current by unpaid volunteers. It is astonishingly good. The original title didn’t even have rear wheel drive cars but the Group 4 Escort is what dreams were made of when I started sim racing with RAC Rally 30 odd years ago.

 

It has taken an age to get to where RBR is now with Rallysimfans, yet the game engine has proven capable of remaining the best in class in spite of its age.

 

To get back on track I kind of view CLIFFS and TF in a similar light. A bunch of enthusiasts can do stuff that profit driven organisations simply can’t. If they do then great, if it doesn’t pan out then so be it but I won’t get upset about it, the financial investment is peanuts and if I choose to invest my time in it than that is down to me. I admire the aspirations and wish them all the best, rain or shine.

When unable to response substantively, change the subject ?

[PO_Baldrick]

18 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

all based on the premise that trueSKY and Speedtree 8/9 will eventually be fully compatible with the game engine, that an army of unpaid volunteers will file in to create a plethora of new game assets  and neglecting the inconvenient reality of lethargic forum activity

 

37 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

When unable to response substantively, change the subject ?

 

In my response to your quote above I gave an example where another game had added technology that simply didn't exist when the game was developed. Where unpaid volunteers created a plethora of new games assets and btw the group of volunteers don't even have a forum.

 

Personally I am not so keen on such extended roadmaps, preferring a bit of surprise closer to release. Yet it seems there is an insatiable desire to know what is coming next after the next one and the one after at. It seems the case in all sims; once a new plane, car, map or track gets announced for creation the forums light up with "what are we getting next?/what we really need is..." posts galore.

[Enceladus828]

On 12/17/2023 at 8:00 AM, No.54_Reddog said:

Are you feeling alright old chap, this isn't like you.? Had a bit too much of the Christmas mulled wine or something? ?

I agree with you on this. For over 2 years TF kept saying that there would be a TF 6.0 announcement in that it was just around the corner but then it kept getting pushed back due to COVID, Ukraine, Jason leaving 1C and the game being sold to Fulqrum. When this announcement finally came we get a title, new aircraft actually flying and even a release date. For them to risk shooting themselves in the foot if it's not released by December 31st 2024 shows they are confident that Dieppe will be out by then. A few months later we get an announcement on the next two installments with early WIP images of the maps and there's going to be another for TF 9.0. And as Buzzsaw stated above:  "Timelines for these modules are not known, but unlikely to be as long as suggested above [2034-35]. All depends on how FORTRESSES AND FOCKE-WULFS and the Visual Update is received... if the game is popular, then the release schedule will be accelerated." We are going to get El Alamein and Malta because there is no use making these maps if it turns out it will be for nothing.

 

Compare this with IL-2 Great Battles whom for almost a year gave us no new updates on the next installment after BoN and when we did get an update it was the devs were still unsure if new features would work as intended though the exact location and planeset were known. No information on where it's going to be until Spring 2024. I told LukeFF many times that if he said it would be in the ETO or PTO then in both locations there could be many places it could be (Sicily, Bagration, Barbarossa; Guadalcanal, New Guinea, Philippines, Okinawa, Korea) without revealing the location but even that couldn't be said. This is more frustrating than waiting for a TF 6.0 announcement because the devs can make their announcements whenever and it appears to be because of features that may not work as intended when the location and planeset are known and can be announced to us. We'll likely not see the final release of this installment until 2025 or 26, Combat Pilot likely won't be released until then as well.

 

As for the Visual Update, I know it's frustrating but I don't use VR so this isn't that big of a deal for me and hey according to the Steam page it will be available by next year: Improved graphics, including 4k textures for aircraft externals and cockpits, extended viewing distance, 4k terrain modeling, full 3D implementation for players with Virtual Reality headsets, updated vegetation and new cloud and weather systems. Think of all these things that were planned for Great Battles that have yet to be released like Drop Tanks. For some games implementing or adding something doesn't take very long while for other games it takes longer but overall it gets released. With BoN and BoBP, Drop Tanks are a must need for IL-2 GBs... or a way to simulate carrying a Drop Tank by having the ability to select 130% fuel for a Spitfire Mk. XIV in the loadout until they are added.

 

 

I feel we should just be glad that we're even getting El Alamein and Malta because what was the last non-arcade game that had those places or the last time someone even tried going there? I don't think anyone... maybe Desert Fighters for the former. There's more I wish I could say in my first paragraph but can't. TF 8.0 will likely be released before Avatar 4 is released ?

Edited December 18, 2023 by Enceladus828

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

While waiting, I have other games to play too. And having an actual life helps too  While I would like a bit more progress updates from TFS, there is nothing I can do about it. Any amount of loud mouthing, bickering or waah waah on the floor won´t help  Glad to see plans are extending beyond 6.0, even the wait can be a bit of a pain in the rear end ?

[Trooper117]

Just get on with life, enjoy other flight sims and games, and when the new stuff from TF turns up we can enjoy that as well...