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

January 7, 2024

Rumors has it that Korea isn’t very popular in the Russian forum. Can someone say something about that

January 7, 2024

31 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Ugh just close this thread pls

Why? I find it entertaining, what people are romp around here and emit their noises. Furthermore part 2 of their stream is around the corner, in which thread should they all migrate?

4 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

Rumors has it that Korea isn’t very popular in the Russian forum. Can someone say something about that

I read that in the Russian forum too. Just go there and let the forum page translated with the google translator.

January 7, 2024

2 minutes ago, Bussard* said:

I read that in the Russian forum too.

Well it's too late now mate, bit late to shut the stable door, the horse has bolted...

January 7, 2024

Just now, Trooper117 said:

Well it's too late now mate, bit late to shut the stable door, the horse has bolted...

It never hurts to think outside the box. I can easily bridge the gap with the old content and there are alternatives on the horizon. Others may be running out of time.

January 7, 2024

8 minutes ago, Bussard* said:

It never hurts to think outside the box.

Nice pun!

January 7, 2024

34 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

Nice pun!

I'm so glad you enjoyed it.

January 7, 2024

3 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

Rumors has it that Korea isn’t very popular in the Russian forum. Can someone say something about that

Here's the best quote from there so far.

"...Obviously, it should be called "B-29 Bombovik"

I'm surprised that I don't see any of them stoked to fly the MiG 15...it's a bit strange.

January 7, 2024

Given soviet pilots flew the MiG15s for the first part of the war, you'd think the Russians would be relatively happy

January 7, 2024

3 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Given soviet pilots flew the MiG15s for the first part of the war, you'd think the Russians would be relatively happy

My thoughts exactly.

January 7, 2024

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

Given soviet pilots flew the MiG15s for the first part of the war, you'd think the Russians would be relatively happy

probably ppl who are into soviet jets dont play this game, so no suprise theres no big buzz about them. So probably aim of Korea is to get some new players and count on existing ones to try it.

January 7, 2024

3 minutes ago, CountZero said:

probably ppl who are into soviet jets dont play this game, so no suprise theres no big buzz about them. So probably aim of Korea is to get some new players and count on existing ones to try it.

Most Russian-speaking players don't post in this part of the forum or in the English Discord.

January 7, 2024

4 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

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.

Thanks ? A thought that has cheered me up!

January 7, 2024

5 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Here's the best quote from there so far.

"...Obviously, it should be called "B-29 Bombovik"

I'm surprised that I don't see any of them stoked to fly the MiG 15...it's a bit strange.

I feel some responsibility for what words:) It was pure, nasty sarcasm for those, who shouted in russian forum "Devs has leave us and go for west, it`s obvious!". Sure, i can`t speak on behalf of the entire russian community, but i have strong feeling what GB unfinished - early\late war planes and maps, some old bugs and bang! - Korea...it was...surprisingly. That's why you don`t see hype about it in russian forum. Korean war not so popular in Russia as you might think, but as every true lover of history and aviation i say - let it be. It`s not about of Mig15 vs F86 and who`s best , it`s about history, about memory. And yes - we read english forum sometimes:).

January 7, 2024

Is FC really a “cash cow”? Maybe it was, when it first came out, but will it continue as such? Half the posts in the FC forum are complaints about how unchallenging the AI is, so it doesn’t seem like it could be very challenging gameplay offline. And online, if you look at server stats, it seems that the population is pretty sparse except for one or two days. The “Sunday Fly Ins” were a desperate measure back in the dying days of RoF to organize at least one or two maps that had enough players to make a game of it. It doesn’t look like much has changed in FC.

On the servers back in RoF, when you had the early planes, like the Eindecker come up, the population would empty out. The planes that most people wanted to fly were the later ones, as in the ones that were ported over in FC 1.

I understand that there is a small, but very passionate WW 1 crowd present here, and I’m not trying to rag on them. But I can’t see how it makes good sense to keep spending money on RoF ports, or increasingly obscure originals, when those same resources could be spent on more popular content. IL-2 is a sim in which the developers freely admitted they couldn’t even do something like drop tanks in the current code base. They have a lot of work to do.

January 7, 2024

The biggest mistake they made with FC, in my opinion, was starting it arse-about-face. I hope they don't do that with Korea.

Edited January 7, 2024 by Hetzer-JG52

January 7, 2024

2 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

IL-2 is a sim in which the developers freely admitted they couldn’t even do something like drop tanks in the current code base. They have a lot of work to do.

This is very inaccurate. The developers tried to develop a new general solution for mathematically simulating fuel systems that could handle pressure, temperature, and the relationship between fluid and gas states (i.e. aerosols in the tanks). Their goal was to find an efficient way to simulate all possible fuel management systems... furthermore, the programmer who was working on it believed he had reached a solution.

The existing engine wasn't the issue, the issue was in relatively complex mathematics (and ones where there weren't published solutions). If they were content to module fuel tanks the way they've been modelled in past sims it would have been done quickly and easily.

IMHO, if one reads between the lines, one can suspect another motive - simulating the likelihood of a fuel tank exploding requires accurately assessing the fluid/gas ratios, pressure and temperature within the fuel tanks... so such a solution could easily improve the damage model (beyond what has been done before) and make realistic API rounds possible...

But it definitely wasn't a problem with the game engine nor the competence of the developers. I'd suggest going back and reading those development diary posts a second time.

27 minutes ago, Vilir said:

I feel some responsibility for what words:) It was pure, nasty sarcasm for those, who shouted in russian forum "Devs has leave us and go for west, it`s obvious!". Sure, i can`t speak on behalf of the entire russian community, but i have strong feeling what GB unfinished - early\late war planes and maps, some old bugs and bang! - Korea...it was...surprisingly. That's why you don`t see hype about it in russian forum. Korean war not so popular in Russia as you might think, but as every true lover of history and aviation i say - let it be. It`s not about of Mig15 vs F86 and who`s best , it`s about history, about memory. And yes - we read english forum sometimes:).

Very well said. Very well said.

January 7, 2024

2 hours ago, Vilir said:

I feel some responsibility for what words:) It was pure, nasty sarcasm for those, who shouted in russian forum "Devs has leave us and go for west, it`s obvious!". Sure, i can`t speak on behalf of the entire russian community, but i have strong feeling what GB unfinished - early\late war planes and maps, some old bugs and bang! - Korea.

I can completely understand this. From a Russian point of view "but wait, you're not done yet" I'd feel the same way if I was really interested in that front, or let's say as interested as I imagine the average Russian user is. Especially with no Yak-3 yet etc. Actually I want the MiG 3 to be brought up to standard even now. Better 3D mesh, better textures, improved cockpit, systems etc etc. There's a lot that can be done still with all of the aircraft to bring them into "2024 and beyond"

So I can relate a bit.

2 hours ago, Vilir said:

That's why you don`t see hype about it in russian forum. Korean war not so popular in Russia as you might think,

Which given the presence of the MiG 15, I do find a bit surprising. I think it's one of the most interesting jets ever. That's the aircraft I would most look forward to.

I do find it surprising that more Russian users don't find the "MiG vs Sabre" aspect more appealing.

2 hours ago, Vilir said:

but as every true lover of history and aviation i say - let it be. It`s not about of Mig15 vs F86 and who`s best , it`s about history, about memory. And yes - we read english forum sometimes:).

I visited a few years ago (I generally don't bother since it's essentially a copy of the sort of things that go on here_) but was surprised at the level of interest for PTO among Russian users.

2 hours ago, Hetzer-JG52 said:

The biggest mistake they made with FC, in my opinion, was starting it arse-about-face. I hope they don't do that with Korea.

Well if you mean later aircraft first, or along with early...that's exactly what is going to happen with Korea, and very necessary.

If that's not what you mean, then I don't know what you mean.

January 7, 2024

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

This is very inaccurate. The developers tried to develop a new general solution for mathematically simulating fuel systems that could handle pressure, temperature, and the relationship between fluid and gas states (i.e. aerosols in the tanks). Their goal was to find an efficient way to simulate all possible fuel management systems... furthermore, the programmer who was working on it believed he had reached a solution.

The existing engine wasn't the issue, the issue was in relatively complex mathematics (and ones where there weren't published solutions). If they were content to module fuel tanks the way they've been modelled in past sims it would have been done quickly and easily.

IMHO, if one reads between the lines, one can suspect another motive - simulating the likelihood of a fuel tank exploding requires accurately assessing the fluid/gas ratios, pressure and temperature within the fuel tanks... so such a solution could easily improve the damage model (beyond what has been done before) and make realistic API rounds possible...

But it definitely wasn't a problem with the game engine nor the competence of the developers. I'd suggest going back and reading those development diary posts a second time.

And yet, here we are….open your eyes, Avimimus. The future of the game can’t possibly lie in Porco Rosso flying boats. Really.

January 7, 2024

1 minute ago, SeaSerpent said:

And yet, here we are….

Well, we demand perfectionism don't we? If the developers insist on modelling fuel tanks in a way that is better than any previous sim and is publishable in an academic journal ...I do think we deserve half the blame. I'd personally be happy with largely cosmetic tanks (even if just for the AI)... but people wanted depth in systems modelling, API rounds, etc...

January 8, 2024

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

Well, we demand perfectionism don't we?

I don't know. I think this community has been very forgiving of the cartoonish cockpit texturing, low res 3D meshes, cartoonish maps, unfinished maps etc for a long time now.

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

If the developers insist on modelling fuel tanks in a way that is better than any previous sim and is publishable in an academic journal

I think the users are looking for fuel tanks/fuel systems beyond circa 2006, and let the the accuracy come as it will and judge when the time comes.

Hard to get even that far when they don't exist.

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

...I do think we deserve half the blame. I'd personally be happy with largely cosmetic tanks (even if just for the AI)... but people wanted depth in systems modelling, API rounds, etc...

I think GB can split the difference between what is currently modeled, and "in depth"

Lack of things like API rounds severely affect the experience under certain circumstances and might essentially neuter certain aircraft. So wanting API is reasonable I think.

January 8, 2024

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

This is very inaccurate. The developers tried to develop a new general solution for mathematically simulating fuel systems that could handle pressure, temperature, and the relationship between fluid and gas states (i.e. aerosols in the tanks). Their goal was to find an efficient way to simulate all possible fuel management systems...

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

January 8, 2024

There's really no good justification for not having incendiary type ammunition at this point. You don't need to model fuel and vapor down to the molecular level - it's not as if the rest of the DM has anywhere near that level of detail. There is really good period test data available, complete with data on chance of defeating self sealing tanks for different calibers, and chance of ignition for different types of rounds, that has been shared with the devs.

Fuel tank fires already occur based on some level of RNG that is different for different types guns - you can see this by shooting them from a static position with a gunner - you know you're hitting the right spot when its generating a fuel leak on the first shot. As an example, back when I tested this in 4.006, shooting an FW190A-8 fuel tank through the side of the fuselage until it caught fire 10 times, I got results from 11 hits up to 99 with an average of 49.9 using the M2 .50. Using an MG-FF/M I got results between 3 and 17 with an average of 10.9. Obviously these are small data sets, but it's clear that there is some random chance of fire for the different rounds - what you would need to do would be take the historical test data and implement various types of incendiary ammo. It's certainly within the capability of the engine to incorporate a few additional ammo types, as it already does this.

Just like with the drop tanks, going with a simple 90% solution would have resulted in us having some decent features to use in game, instead of wishing and hoping for them to appear one day in perfect form.

January 8, 2024

17 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Well if you mean later aircraft first, or along with early...that's exactly what is going to happen with Korea, and very necessary.

If that's not what you mean, then I don't know what you mean.

That is what I mean and if they do that again I won't be buying it until it's completed. But if it goes anything like FC I'll most likely be dead before it gets there. Lol.

January 8, 2024

18 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

Is FC really a “cash cow”? Maybe it was, when it first came out, but will it continue as such? Half the posts in the FC forum are complaints about how unchallenging the AI is, so it doesn’t seem like it could be very challenging gameplay offline. And online, if you look at server stats, it seems that the population is pretty sparse except for one or two days. The “Sunday Fly Ins” were a desperate measure back in the dying days of RoF to organize at least one or two maps that had enough players to make a game of it. It doesn’t look like much has changed in FC.

On the servers back in RoF, when you had the early planes, like the Eindecker come up, the population would empty out. The planes that most people wanted to fly were the later ones, as in the ones that were ported over in FC 1.

I understand that there is a small, but very passionate WW 1 crowd present here, and I’m not trying to rag on them. But I can’t see how it makes good sense to keep spending money on RoF ports, or increasingly obscure originals, when those same resources could be spent on more popular content. IL-2 is a sim in which the developers freely admitted they couldn’t even do something like drop tanks in the current code base. They have a lot of work to do.

I'm sure @RNAS10_Mitchell meant that the revenue from the FC Vol. II and Vol. III releases significantly funds the development of the new project. Probably the sales are not as high as the previous WW2 releases, but the development costs should be lower as a lot of RoF stuff can be migrated. Furthermore, by outsourcing to third parties, 1CGS has more time for the new development. A win win situation.

Regariding the popularity of Flying Circus, I can say: there has definitely been an increase in the number of online players over time. On the last Saturday evening CET there were about 50 players on the Knights of the Sky server and on yesterday´s Sunday evening the Flugpark server was almost full (~ 60 players).

In comparison, you should take a look at the current player numbers on the Finnish Virtual Pilot server, which are scaring low. Quite a pity.

January 8, 2024

14 hours ago, CountZero said:

probably ppl who are into soviet jets dont play this game, so no suprise theres no big buzz about them. So probably aim of Korea is to get some new players and count on existing ones to try it.

If that was the aim, then Korea without carriers is like that horse bolting without the cart.

January 8, 2024

IMHO there's no way that carriers will be in this surmised Korea sim from the beginning. They will be the single most difficult and time consuming object to model in the whole scenario. Therefore I am expecting the initial release to be early war along with MiG-15 and Sabre very soon after. Once sales have proven that the idea is selling then you'll see your carriers. Perhaps.

You might see carriers in Combat Pilot first, although I reckon that they still have a long way to go too.

Edited January 8, 2024 by Chief_Mouser

January 8, 2024

5 hours ago, Pict said:

If that was the aim, then Korea without carriers is like that horse bolting without the cart.

While Reading MiG ALLEY by Thomas McKelvey Cleaver, I have only seen carriers even mentioned two or three times. Early in the war when there were not many other planes for strike missions, transporting Sabres across the Pacific, and late war when every aircraft in the theatre participated in a couple of big missions to destroy the electrical generators on the Yalu River. There is of course a whole other book about Navy operations, maybe that will be next and my perceptions will change.

January 8, 2024

11 minutes ago, Jaegermeister said:

There is of course a whole other book about Navy operations, maybe that will be next and my perceptions will change.

I was about to tell you that you need to read ''Holding the Line'' by the same author, you will get the Navy side of things then, and like Mig Alley, it's a great read...

January 8, 2024

7 hours ago, Bussard* said:

I'm sure @RNAS10_Mitchell meant that the revenue from the FC Vol. II and Vol. III releases significantly funds the development of the new project. Probably the sales are not as high as the previous WW2 releases, but the development costs should be lower as a lot of RoF stuff can be migrated. Furthermore, by outsourcing to third parties, 1CGS has more time for the new development. A win win situation.

Regariding the popularity of Flying Circus, I can say: there has definitely been an increase in the number of online players over time. On the last Saturday evening CET there were about 50 players on the Knights of the Sky server and on yesterday´s Sunday evening the Flugpark server was almost full (~ 60 players).

In comparison, you should take a look at the current player numbers on the Finnish Virtual Pilot server, which are scaring low. Quite a pity.

Actually, there were 100+ players on the Flugpark yesterday at one point.

January 8, 2024

14 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Actually, there were 100+ players on the Flugpark yesterday at one point.

100+ players at the same time? How is that possible? I think multiplayer had max 84 player server limit or has this been upgraded at some point?

January 8, 2024

4 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

While Reading MiG ALLEY by Thomas McKelvey Cleaver, I have only seen carriers even mentioned two or three times. Early in the war when there were not many other planes for strike missions, transporting Sabres across the Pacific, and late war when every aircraft in the theatre participated in a couple of big missions to destroy the electrical generators on the Yalu River. There is of course a whole other book about Navy operations, maybe that will be next and my perceptions will change.

Indeed it depends on the perspective anyone veiws the conflict from. They said they wouldn't do them, so they probably won't be there. I just reckon that without carrier ops there is a market they are going to miss out on and I imagine that it's not small.

Carriers may not have played a massive role, but they were certainly there. I probably got that idea put in my head from watching movies like Briges at Toko-Ri (1954)

And a family connections with the Fleet Air Arm, both British & Australian, who were both there along with the US Navy at Korea. This makes me think about how they will frame the nations involved?...

Soviet Union, while involved was not there officially, So North Korea & China vs South Korea and what?...the UN, or the USA, UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and so on....? If you look at the list of participating nations on Wikithing, it's long and even includes Germany

Anyhow, here's a couple of shots I took a while back at the Australaian Navy's Fleet Air Arm museum in Nowra NSW for anyone who likes Sea Fury's and Fitefly's that took part in Korea.

January 8, 2024

3 hours ago, Robli said:

100+ players at the same time? How is that possible? I think multiplayer had max 84 player server limit or has this been upgraded at some point?

To clarify, 103 players during a 4 hour mission.

January 8, 2024

Please don’t make a flyable B-25, it’s 3 times the work. Make us more Hanriots, Eindeckers, and Farman pushers.. 100 people popped their head into Flugpark for the weekly scheduled Sunday Fly In, so clearly that’s the future of the sim. Where is my Felixtowe? And on the World War Two side, let me tell you how badly I want more late war Focke-Wulf variants and British assault gliders.

Sorry for the rant, but the sim needs to move into the future. It needs to get its code up to date so it can remain current to the 2020s. And fortunately, it appears that’s what the developers are doing…

January 8, 2024

9 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Please don’t make a flyable B-25, it’s 3 times the work. Make us more Hanriots, Eindeckers, and Farman pushers.. 100 people popped their head into Flugpark for the weekly scheduled Sunday Fly In, so clearly that’s the future of the sim. Where is my Felixtowe? And on the World War Two side, let me tell you how badly I want more late war Focke-Wulf variants and British assault gliders.

Sorry for the rant, but the sim needs to move into the future. It needs to get its code up to date so it can remain current to the 2020s. And fortunately, it appears that’s what the developers are doing…

I come to the same conclusion. One more flyable target drone will not help anyone.
Amount of airplane obviously has been the focus all this time. And in a way just made the shortcomings more obvious.
The lack of playability on all soft flyable objects is just making them redundant. I was not negative to the Waco. But I am now. They made it a sailplane. And it would have been better as ai

January 8, 2024

Did the Bearcat ever serve in Korea? Would love to get my hands on flying that little beast of a plane. Or was the Navy all about jets already at that point, and the Corsair was more of a fighter bomber.

January 8, 2024

4 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

While Reading MiG ALLEY by Thomas McKelvey Cleaver, I have only seen carriers even mentioned two or three times. Early in the war when there were not many other planes for strike missions, transporting Sabres across the Pacific, and late war when every aircraft in the theatre participated in a couple of big missions to destroy the electrical generators on the Yalu River. There is of course a whole other book about Navy operations, maybe that will be next and my perceptions will change.

"By the end of the war, naval air crews had flown 275,000 sorties over Korea, which represented 53 percent of the close-air support strikes and 40 percent of the interdiction missions flown by U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps planes. Naval aircraft dropped more than 178,000 tons of bombs, triggered over 274,000 air-to-ground rockets, and fired more than 71 million cannon rounds"

The above stats give a pretty good indication of how heavily involved the USN was in the Korean war and by proxy how important carriers were - even the marines operated from escort carriers

January 8, 2024

5 minutes ago, kestrel79 said:

Did the Bearcat ever serve in Korea? Would love to get my hands on flying that little beast of a plane. Or was the Navy all about jets already at that point, and the Corsair was more of a fighter bomber.

F9F replaced Bearcat by the time of Korean War.

January 8, 2024

3 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

Please don’t make a flyable B-25, it’s 3 times the work. Make us more Hanriots, Eindeckers, and Farman pushers.. 100 people popped their head into Flugpark for the weekly scheduled Sunday Fly In, so clearly that’s the future of the sim. Where is my Felixtowe? And on the World War Two side, let me tell you how badly I want more late war Focke-Wulf variants and British assault gliders.

Sorry for the rant, but the sim needs to move into the future. It needs to get its code up to date so it can remain current to the 2020s. And fortunately, it appears that’s what the developers are doing…

And how do you do that without revenue and funding during the development period? A plausible answer is appreciated. ?

January 8, 2024

13 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

There's really no good justification for not having incendiary type ammunition at this point. You don't need to model fuel and vapor down to the molecular level - it's not as if the rest of the DM has anywhere near that level of detail. There is really good period test data available, complete with data on chance of defeating self sealing tanks for different calibers, and chance of ignition for different types of rounds, that has been shared with the devs.

Fuel tank fires already occur based on some level of RNG that is different for different types guns - you can see this by shooting them from a static position with a gunner - you know you're hitting the right spot when its generating a fuel leak on the first shot. As an example, back when I tested this in 4.006, shooting an FW190A-8 fuel tank through the side of the fuselage until it caught fire 10 times, I got results from 11 hits up to 99 with an average of 49.9 using the M2 .50. Using an MG-FF/M I got results between 3 and 17 with an average of 10.9. Obviously these are small data sets, but it's clear that there is some random chance of fire for the different rounds - what you would need to do would be take the historical test data and implement various types of incendiary ammo. It's certainly within the capability of the engine to incorporate a few additional ammo types, as it already does this.

Just like with the drop tanks, going with a simple 90% solution would have resulted in us having some decent features to use in game, instead of wishing and hoping for them to appear one day in perfect form.

That would be better than nothing, and would work as a good short term gift to BoX players, but faking damage models with RNG is where a lot of the wackiness and complaints come from, and we'd likely hear all the usual complaints about RNG api that we do with RNG he or ap.

In the long term would you want to be using this same RNG system for the next 10 years? Its unfortunate were likely leaving the old planes/maps behind, but if thats the price of progress, then I think it's worth it to gain the upgrades to the DM and elsewhere.

January 8, 2024

19 minutes ago, Bussard* said:

And how do you do that without revenue and funding during the development period? A plausible answer is appreciated. ?

Hmm... maybe by selling the Hanriots, Fokkers, and Eindeckers, the Fw-190A9, and the British Assault glider?

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

Recommended Posts

Lusekofte

ACG_Bussard

Trooper117

ACG_Bussard

Trooper117

ACG_Bussard

Gambit21

Gunfreak

Gambit21

CountZero

LukeFF

Avimimus

Vilir

Guest deleted@83466

Panzerlang

Avimimus

Gambit21

Guest deleted@83466

Avimimus

Gambit21

Canvas25

357th_KW

Panzerlang

ACG_Bussard

Pict

Chief_Mouser

Jaegermeister

Trooper117

RNAS10_Mitchell

Robli

Pict

RNAS10_Mitchell

Guest deleted@83466

Lusekofte

kestrel79

R33GZ

Guest deleted@83466

ACG_Bussard

=MERCS=JenkemJunkie

Avimimus

Browse All

Activity