Brief Room Episode 2: 2023 In Review, Plans For 2024, A Glimpse At The Upcoming Title

[MajorMagee]

18 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Assuming we get flyable A-26.

Yes, indeed we can dream!

 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

We don't have to choose between jets and props, we can play both. Even in Berloga the purest dogfighting server possible they'll split the plane sets between early war and late war for better match ups, so there's no reason that even in a pure dogfighting server in Korea we can't just split the sides into jets and props. Other servers will run open objective based missions and rotate through plane sets, so we can do that same style of plane set in Korea too. 

[ACG_Bussard]

52 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

We don't have to choose between jets and props, we can play both. Even in Berloga the purest dogfighting server possible they'll split the plane sets between early war and late war for better match ups, so there's no reason that even in a pure dogfighting server in Korea we can't just split the sides into jets and props. Other servers will run open objective based missions and rotate through plane sets, so we can do that same style of plane set in Korea too. 

Hmmm, was there such a thing as an "early war" air war period in the Korean War and how long did it last in comparison to the overall duration of the conflict?

[LukeFF]

8 minutes ago, Bussard* said:

Hmmm, was there such a thing as an "early war" air war period in the Korean War and how long did it last in comparison to the overall duration of the conflict?

 

The USAF was woefully unprepared for the start of the Korean War and had to make do with older WWII-era types (including F-80s) until near the end of 1950 when Sabres started to arrive. So, the "early" air war time frame is about 3-4 months, give or take.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

21 minutes ago, Bussard* said:

Hmmm, was there such a thing as an "early war" air war period in the Korean War and how long did it last in comparison to the overall duration of the conflict?

The fights being rarer historically than the jet stuff won't stop me from enjoying them. If you want to stick to common historical plane sets only thats your choice, but others are fine with playing rare/alternative match ups. Online will often blur/delete the historical line any ways. 

[CountZero]

So yak-9 and La-11 vs P-51 and F4U is what ppl will wont to do ? in Korea map, in game that will have MiG15s and F-86s, F84s, F80s, F9Fs... 

Yak-9 vs P-51 is not some epic historical battle ppl think about, like its with ww2 props, axis vs allieds, its just not the same thing that will atrackt players to do in mass. If they get bored they will come to GB ww2 to get prop fix, and keep new game MP mostly full of Korea jets.

You can see it in this game when ever some mission dont have popular airplanes it gets empty realy fast. Its Korea , most will expect jets in server, if server try not have jets its gona be low population, so natural selection will come back to where it always was in MP, if you try not to have what most ppl wont , youll have empty server.

[Gunfreak]

1 hour ago, Bussard* said:

Hmmm, was there such a thing as an "early war" air war period in the Korean War and how long did it last in comparison to the overall duration of the conflict?

 

The first few months, US/UN forces could not effectively use the jets the had. As the airfields in Korea was not suited for jets. So while P80s etc did fly they had like 5 minute loitering time before heading home to Japanese fields so P-82s, P51 did a lot of the work, but the most portent force was the US navy and Marine carriers with support fleet air arm. They could do effective close air support. 

And the F9F jets had more time over target.

 

It was a very desperate fight for the UN forces the first few months.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

41 minutes ago, CountZero said:

So yak-9 and La-11 vs P-51 and F4U is what ppl will wont to do ? in Korea map, in game that will have MiG15s and F-86s, F84s, F80s, F9Fs... 

Yak-9 vs P-51 is not some epic historical battle ppl think about, like its with ww2 props, axis vs allieds, its just not the same thing that will atrackt players to do in mass. If they get bored they will come to GB ww2 to get prop fix, and keep new game MP mostly full of Korea jets.

You can see it in this game when ever some mission dont have popular airplanes it gets empty realy fast. Its Korea , most will expect jets in server, if server try not have jets its gona be low population, so natural selection will come back to where it always was in MP, if you try not to have what most ppl wont , youll have empty server.

A P51 with new graphics, likely api, new fm  etc. not being popular? Those other 3 are also very popular plane types people love. BoX has dated features and people have already been playing for it years, it's normal for old games to get replaced when a more modern one comes along, just look at the old IL2s. People still have a year or two left to play BoX, its not unlikely many prop interested players will want a change by then, and will open their mind to new theatres. I think CP would be the bigger threat to taking prop players, not BoX, but well see.

Hopefully with multiple new flight sims coming out that are up to modern standards, it will expand the pie of players so we can have a healthy ecosystem of servers, instead of having to force every type of player together in one or two servers, but we'll see.

[ACG_Bussard]

A lot of assumptions, suppositions and hopes here.

 

I also don't believe that more choice of flight sims will attract more players. As enthusiasts of historical flight sims, we are probably dying out. The remaining players will be spread across more flight sims, that's all. It's been like this for many computer games (genres), it's nothing new.

[DD_Arthur]

Just now, Bussard* said:

 it's nothing new.

 

Yes, doom and gloom predictions are nothing new yet here we are with two brand new combat flight sims under development and over in the world of civil flight sims they're enjoying an unprecedented number of people enjoying themselves thanks to MSFS2020.

 

The fact is, for all the moaning and groaning, if it's new, exciting and technically innovative people will flock to these new titles.

Whilst these guys may not be the greatest at promoting themselves or their creation, does anybody seriously doubt that Han and the team are going to pull off something special?

[ACG_Bussard]

Is this a serious or just a rhetorical question? ?

[YoYo]

By the way, since we're talking about a new engine and Korea (super great choice btw.), I somehow didn't notice any information about the current IL-2 BoX series? Does this mean that all current combat theathers will be transferred to the new engine (for free, with a fee or what?). The video lacked a clear answer to what we will have with current titles.

 

Anyone can answer?

[Eeafanas]

Look at that quality of elaboration. 
Please give me an addendum with controlled ground vehicles!

[Eeafanas]

02.01.2024 в 00:39, LuftManu сказал:

Dear BlitzPig_EL,

That would be awesome! Maybe we are getting too far away in our minds when Korea is not even officially confirmed, but it certainly would be great.

 

 

Kind regards,

Yes, that would be very interesting!

[Avimimus]

25 minutes ago, YoYo said:

By the way, since we're talking about a new engine and Korea (super great choice btw.), I somehow didn't notice any information about the current IL-2 BoX series? Does this mean that all current combat theathers will be transferred to the new engine (for free, with a fee or what?). The video lacked a clear answer to what we will have with current titles.

 

Anyone can answer?

 

The video mentions two new 3rd party maps, and possibly three more collector aircraft (for a total of six or seven unreleased collector aircraft) planned for Il-2 Great Battles, so there will be activity until the end of 2024 at least. There is no word regarding what will happen after that though.

 

The video was originally planned to be paired with a Q&A video, but it didn't finish translation and editing before the holiday, so it will be released separately sometime this month - it may contain clearer indications regarding what will happen after 2024.

[Lusekofte]

7 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

people just need to tighten up their technique and stay ahead of the plane, which they should probably be doing anyway, whether piston or turbojet

I am pretty sure I can hit a tree with a jet too. I will prove it is more lethal. 

[YoYo]

52 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

The video mentions two new 3rd party maps, and possibly three more collector aircraft (for a total of six or seven unreleased collector aircraft) planned for Il-2 Great Battles, so there will be activity until the end of 2024 at least. There is no word regarding what will happen after that though.

 

The video was originally planned to be paired with a Q&A video, but it didn't finish translation and editing before the holiday, so it will be released separately sometime this month - it may contain clearer indications regarding what will happen after 2024.

 

Thx. So it looks like I'm not the only one who feels that not everything has been said here. Personally, I think that if they want to continue on the same path, the reheated chop, the current theaters of operations should be included in it. It's basically like with DCS, moving from 2.7 to 2.8 (multithreading) and now to 2.9 (DLSS and new features) = all for free. They shouldn't kill this series. I still have a lot of work to do here and a lot of stuff I bought and never used. 

 

Honestly, the fact that we are not clear is not good because it may not be worth buying anything if there is a new title.

They should migrate everything and say it clearly in the new video, that's my opinion. Otherwise, they will have to maintain two series, provide support twice and perhaps issue separate updates due to driver or even Windows changes. It would be pointless. Currently, my wallet will probably be in the "hold on" position until everything is resolved.

 

 

 

[ACG_Bussard]

12 minutes ago, YoYo said:

Honestly, the fact that we are not clear is not good because it may not be worth buying anything if there is a new title.

They should migrate everything and say it clearly in the new video, that's my opinion. Otherwise, they will have to maintain two series, provide support twice and perhaps issue separate updates due to driver or even Windows changes. It would be pointless. Currently, my wallet will probably be in the "hold on" position until everything is resolved.

 

So true, but I feel the answer, but don't speak it until I see or read it myself in an official publication.

[BraveSirRobin]

3 hours ago, YoYo said:

Honestly, the fact that we are not clear is not good because it may not be worth buying anything if there is a new title.

Why is it not worth buying anything if there is a “new title”?  I’m already assuming that the new game will not be compatible with existing content.  But I’ll still buy stuff for GB if I’m interested in it.  It’s just silly to act like a game is instantly dead when the developer stops updating it.  I played RoF MP for years after development was stopped.

[Lusekofte]

12 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Why is it not worth buying anything if there is a “new title”?  I’m already assuming that the new game will not be compatible with existing content.  But I’ll still buy stuff for GB if I’m interested in it.  It’s just silly to act like a game is instantly dead when the developer stops updating it.  I played RoF MP for years after development was stopped.

I actually think, GB got a lot more to offer for me after this new thing is delivered. Looking at so-called dead sims, those staying are more mission oriented. And about all scripted campaigns are really good. 
for the new thing, I will expect a lot of effort is put in to deal with the short comings of current engine. So that do make me interested 

[DD_Crash]

The issue about backward compatibility is important. People who bought the original A-10C 13 years ago can still fly with the latest version and have a lot of stuff to look forward to. If your product is still growing it makes for a more optimistic outlook and that is what is lacking with GBS

[Noisemaker]

13 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

It’s just silly to act like a game is instantly dead when the developer stops updating it.  I played RoF MP for years after development was stopped.

Well, for single player focused folks, it is actually quite worrisome that after 2024/25 that IL-2 GB will be End of Life, as missions are generated by the developers remotely, rather than locally.  If they drop that support, then IL-2 GB SP campaign mode is essentially dead, allowing only for scripted campaigns and self made missions.

[US103_Baer]

13 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Why is it not worth buying anything if there is a “new title”?  I’m already assuming that the new game will not be compatible with existing content.  But I’ll still buy stuff for GB if I’m interested in it.  It’s just silly to act like a game is instantly dead when the developer stops updating it.  I played RoF MP for years after development was stopped.

 

Exactly.

BoS was released in 2013, Flying Circus early access was 2018.  Rise of Flight was just fine for most of those 5 years.

 

I would not be surprised by them using a similar, if more accelerated model with the new Sim, to that used in the transfer of RoF to Great Battles.
A couple of years developing the maturity of the new product, then start 'porting' Great Battles modules into it. Heck, could be Ugra Media doing that again too while core team continue to develop the main game and engine.

Yeah, it'd mean buying the modules again, but having gone through that with RoF/FC as well as buying several GB modules across multiple accounts, I actually think it's a decent commercial model. The advantages of the new engine justified it.

 

Sure, there are a couple of watchouts, like FMs getting ported over warts and all. But one hopes that these lessons have been learned and incorporated into a future process.

 

Edited January 7, 2024 by US103_Baer

[Avimimus]

2 minutes ago, Noisemaker said:

Well, for single player focused folks, it is actually quite worrisome that after 2024/25 that IL-2 GB will be End of Life, as missions are generated by the developers remotely, rather than locally.  If they drop that support, then IL-2 GB SP campaign mode is essentially dead, allowing only for scripted campaigns and self made missions.

 

There is no indication that this will happen. Rise of Flight, while not having received a patch in ten years, still has its authentication servers up, its campaigns working, and is still available for sale.

[Avimimus]

 

  

1 minute ago, US103_Baer said:

Yeah, it'd mean buying the modules again, but having gone through that with RoF/FC as well as buying several GB modules across multiple accounts, I actually think it's a decent commercial model. The advantages of the new engine justified it.

 

Honestly, I'd feel a bit better if the porting of aircraft to Flying Circus was a bit more complete (e.g. Channel Map) or if there were a few more minor enhancements. Even just giving us a couple of slow 1916 two-seaters would've been a major improvement over Rise of Flight. Currently, we have somewhat better graphics, the new clouds, improved damage models (but still needing work), and reduced gun dispersion, and improved AI... actually that sounds pretty good. ? 

 

Somehow it still feels like rebuying less of the same content we had in Rise of Flight. Maybe that is because we'll have three less aircraft overall (in spite of the release of the SSW D.IV and Sopwith Snipe) than we had in Rise of Flight. There is also that lingering incompleteness that comes from a lack of slower two-seaters for the 1916 types to hunt... makes early campaigns hard (or rather impossible) to do realistically.

[US103_Baer]

12 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

  

 

Honestly, I'd feel a bit better if the porting of aircraft to Flying Circus was a bit more complete (e.g. Channel Map) or if there were a few more minor enhancements. Even just giving us a couple of slow 1916 two-seaters would've been a major improvement over Rise of Flight. Currently, we have somewhat better graphics, the new clouds, improved damage models (but still needing work), and reduced gun dispersion, and improved AI... actually that sounds pretty good. ? 

 

Somehow it still feels like rebuying less of the same content we had in Rise of Flight. Maybe that is because we'll have three less aircraft overall (in spite of the release of the SSW D.IV and Sopwith Snipe) than we had in Rise of Flight. There is also that lingering incompleteness that comes from a lack of slower two-seaters for the 1916 types to hunt... makes early campaigns hard (or rather impossible) to do realistically.

 

Yes, there are critical gaps with early 2-seaters, totally agree. The Snipe and SS D.IV although new content, certainly don't address them.
But I could make a case that other RoF omissions helped streamline the product and maintain its core while helping devs hit budget targets.

 

Just pointing out to the doom merchants that things will probably be just fine and likely end up being a good thing for the Sim experience. I tried playing RoF recently. No thank you.

 

Edited January 7, 2024 by US103_Baer

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

I don’t think those planes are “trying to kill you.”  They really shouldn’t be any harder to fly than pistons, and the engines aren’t Jumos.  The biggest gotcha I can see is in the engine spool time, which is considerable back then.  You can’t just firewall the engine on a go-around, and get instant power and blown lift.  And then you go down short of the runway or do a ramp strike on a carrier.  So people just need to tighten up their technique and stay ahead of the plane, which they should probably be doing anyway, whether piston or turbojet.

 

There is the slow response time of the engine (and poor accelleration at low speeds compared to a prop), but the impact of swept wings on stall characteristics, and higher landing speeds. Less significantly, the forward cockpit position and lack of a straight wing made it harder for some pilots (trained on earlier aircraft) to judge their attitude during landing. Add in some unreliability...

 

Well, 1422 aircraft written off and 573 deaths outside of combat (if I'm not reading the data incorrectly anyway)... as was usual for aircraft of this era, the non-combat losses exceed combat losses significantly.

[Trooper117]

Sooner or later, someone will make an all singing and dancing, brand new up to date WWI flight sim... some billionaire with an interest in that era perhaps?

I may well have kicked the bucket by then, but you never know!   ⚰️

[Avimimus]

16 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

Sooner or later, someone will make an all singing and dancing, brand new up to date WWI flight sim... some billionaire with an interest in that era perhaps?

I may well have kicked the bucket by then, but you never know!   ⚰️

 

That's the thing... there was a decade between Red Baron II/3D and Rise of Flight, it is a decade later and Flying Circus is still porting over the Rise of Flight content... if there is a successor to Flying Circus will it be in 2035? Or will it take longer? Will it be less complete (e.g. purely multiplayer focussed, like Rise of Flight was at the very beginning)?

 

What does 'up to date' even look like if one is waiting until 2035? For WWII, there are active developers taking an interest in it (three of them), and it is a larger market - for WWI... well, there is no guarantee that a developer will take an interest (even if it is commercially viable, it may be more attractive to do something else)... so we wait for the perfect alignment of stars.

 

"That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die."

 

...but I'd rather they partner with a 3rd party to release a couple of collector planes per year (and maybe patch in some of the AI improvements at some point). It wouldn't take much to give the impression of living product line, and if they aren't planning on returning to WWI soon, it'd just make sense to help maintain interest.

[Jaegermeister]

44 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

There is the slow response time of the engine (and poor accelleration at low speeds compared to a prop), but the impact of swept wings on stall characteristics, and higher landing speeds. Less significantly, the forward cockpit position and lack of a straight wing made it harder for some pilots (trained on earlier aircraft) to judge their attitude during landing. Add in some unreliability...

 

Well, 1422 aircraft written off and 573 deaths outside of combat (if I'm not reading the data incorrectly anyway)... as was usual for aircraft of this era, the non-combat losses exceed combat losses significantly.

 

If you are referring to Korea, when reading that data keep in mind that combat damaged aircraft which made it back to base and crashed on landing were regularly written off as accidents to make the Commanding Officers appear to have less combat losses than they did. I don't have the numbers at hand, but something like half the jets that were heavily damaged by the enemy were attributed to non-combat losses. Kill to loss ratio of the group and how many pilots under your command were Aces was what got people promoted back then.

[Trooper117]

18 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

it is a decade later and Flying Circus is still porting over the Rise of Flight content...

 

FC is not a new all singing and dancing WWI built from the ground up... it's just a port of RoF with new pants on, and it's not even going to be all of RoF is it.

You yourself keep going on about the need for proper early two seaters, but I very much doubt they will turn up when the new project really kicks in.

We need going forward is the thing done properly right from the start, with the right mix of the much needed types for that period of the war being portrayed at any given time.

As I said, I may never see this, but it's what the WWI air war fans need for the future...

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

WOFF seems to have a lot going for it.

Perhaps if it could upgrade itself a bit, that could be a long term answer.

New engine, MP, VR (for the deaf dumb and blind kids) etc etc.

Does it do VR already.. ?

[Gunfreak]

20 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

WOFF seems to have a lot going for it.

Perhaps if it could upgrade itself a bit, that could be a long term answer.

New engine, MP, VR (for the deaf dumb and blind kids) etc etc.

Does it do VR already.. ?

Sadly no VR, that's the only thing stopping me from playing.

[Trooper117]

19 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

WOFF seems to have a lot going for it.

 

Yes, I've played it for years and it is a great package, but it is an old game by any standard, and believe me, the 2 guys that run it (yes, only 2 people) have done miracles with it, and they continue to improve it... but I'm still of the opinion that we will need a new WWI air warfare sim for the future.

As it stands though, you can't go wrong with WoFF (BH&H2).

[US103_Baer]

Why couldn't FC be ported into the new engine eventually, along with BoX modules? That was my assumption.  

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

WOFF seems to have a lot going for it.

Perhaps if it could upgrade itself a bit, that could be a long term answer.

New engine, MP, VR (for the deaf dumb and blind kids) etc etc.

Does it do VR already.. ?

 

The last official release of the game engine was in 2002? Even if they have all of the source code well documented - it'd make a lot more sense to start from scratch.

 

2 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

We need going forward is the thing done properly right from the start, with the right mix of the much needed types for that period of the war being portrayed at any given time.

As I said, I may never see this, but it's what the WWI air war fans need for the future...

 

 

Are you also a survivor of the drought between Red Baron II and Rise of Flight? There were some decent mods (FS-WWI comes to mind), but they had significant limitations and nothing really existed in that gap. Honestly, as someone who has lived through a couple eras of no WWI content, I'd be quite happy to see just minor expansions to what we have - rather than dream big about the ideal sim, built over from scratch, with millions of investment.

 

I'm content with less: I'd like to see two 1916 two-seaters (Caudron G.IV, Albatros C.I/LVG C.II), maybe the next year a Rumpler C.IV and a Roiand D.VIb (both of which were once under development for Rise of Flight), maybe an Airco D.H.5 and Hannover Cl.II in 2026, a Fokker D.II and a Nieuport N.12 in 2027... I'd rather have a bit of novelty, a slightly more complete mid-war campaign - some kind-of life in the gap (especially if we don't know how long it will be - 2035 could be optimistic).

 

[Trooper117]

But you know we are never going to get that from the dev's... without RoF they would never have thought of ''let's do WWI, it'll be great''

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Let's not forget,  at the moment,  FC is one of thier primary sources of revenue.    It would be short sighted to ignore the cash cow for future endeavors.    Additionally,  I would expect,  that FC content is likely a little easier to produce that the more complicated WW2 birds.

[Jade_Monkey]

Ugh just close this thread pls 

[Jaegermeister]

9 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Ugh just close this thread pls 

 

Before that I have an observation...

 

If all of you had known what the "New Project" was a year ago, and had a fair idea of what the plane set was going to be it would not change anything now. You would still be flying the same simulators and buying or not buying the same things. I like the way a few screenshots has gotten everyone all stirred up and it implies their marketing strategy may be working after all.

 

Whether they tell us now, or a year from now, it will not change the end results one bit. I don't blame them for not detailing what is coming until it is final, because whether it is what some of us want or not, knowing ahead of time will not change anything.