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

[ACG_Bussard]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

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

 

That could be probably an option! Thx, very helpful.

[Guest deleted@83466]

1 hour ago, Bussard* said:

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

 

Are you asking me what collector plane choices I would have made to fill the time gap between Normandy and Project X?  That’s tough to answer, but it wouldn’t have been more WW 1 planes, it wouldn’t have been more Gooney birds, and it wouldn’t have been another minor Spit or La-5 variant.  Only the developers and managers know what their balance sheet say, and these are the choices they made.   Knowing only what I know as a consumer, and keeping up with what is going on in the forum, I would have made different plane choices, and looked into a more incremental upgrade path into the next engine.  And if it’s true that they are going to the Pacific “next”, I would have been inclined to go there “now”.  They don’t need carrier tech to do the Solomon Islands.  You think Pappy Boyington wouldn’t sell around here?

 

Regarding FC:  You have 3 modules, and a 4th already committed to.  That’s basically the whole of RoF.  That’s all the popular planes, as well as all unpopular planes which I rarely saw people fly on RoF.  What else do want?  Should they make a Muromets and an S-16?  Maybe they should make that plane that has bird wings, and looks like something Wile E. Coyote would have bought from the Acme Corporation.

[sevenless]

52 minutes ago, Bussard* said:

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

 

They told us they recently increased staff, didn't they? To fund them they either used generated revenue or someone invested in them. Take your pick.

[Guest deleted@83466]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

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

Really no offense, but I think your love of ultra-niche, sometimes very unremarkable aircraft, is causing you to miss the forest for the trees.  

[Enceladus828]

23 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.

Personally, FC won't be truly successful until the Channel Map and or Tarnopol or Italian Front (Isonzo, Trieste, Venice) map are added. I did a search of statements and plans for FC made back in 2017-18 and while nothing was stated that they planned to bring all of RoF into GBs, Channel and Tarnopol map included, it doesn't make sense for FC to only have the Western Front map when RoF had two other maps.

For FC5 or FC4 even, 2.5 new planes would be added along with the Channel Map and the remaining RoF land-planes assuming it's added in FC4. It would be easier for Ugra to do the Channel and Tarnopol map (but not in one go) as they were in RoF opposed to an Italian Front map which wasn't.

[BraveSirRobin]

11 minutes ago, Enceladus828 said:

Personally, FC won't be truly successful until the Channel Map and or Tarnopol or Italian Front (Isonzo, Trieste, Venice) map are added. I did a search of statements and plans for FC made back in 2017-18 and while nothing was stated that they planned to bring all of RoF into GBs, Channel and Tarnopol map included, it doesn't make sense for FC to only have the Western Front map when RoF had two other maps.

For FC5 or FC4 even, 2.5 new planes would be added along with the Channel Map and the remaining RoF land-planes assuming it's added in FC4. It would be easier for Ugra to do the Channel and Tarnopol map (but not in one go) as they were in RoF opposed to an Italian Front map which wasn't.

Judging by what I saw when the RoF Channel map showed up in the MP server (empty) it was probably not a financial success.  So they probably won’t add it to FC.  As for Italy or East front?  Lol

[ACG_Bussard]

48 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Are you asking me what collector plane choices I would have made to fill the time gap between Normandy and Project X?  That’s tough to answer, but it wouldn’t have been more WW 1 planes, it wouldn’t have been more Gooney birds, and it wouldn’t have been another minor Spit or La-5 variant.  Only the developers and managers know what their balance sheet say, and these are the choices they made.   Knowing only what I know as a consumer, and keeping up with what is going on in the forum, I would have made different plane choices, and looked into a more incremental upgrade path into the next engine.  And if it’s true that they are going to the Pacific “next”, I would have been inclined to go there “now”.  They don’t need carrier tech to do the Solomon Islands.  You think Pappy Boyington wouldn’t sell around here?

 

Regarding FC:  You have 3 modules, and a 4th already committed to.  That’s basically the whole of RoF.  That’s all the popular planes, as well as all unpopular planes which I rarely saw people fly on RoF.  What else do want?  Should they make a Muromets and an S-16?  Maybe they should make that plane that has bird wings, and looks like something Wile E. Coyote would have bought from the Acme Corporation.

 

I don't know how you can get so upset about it. All the decisions have already been made by the developers. There´s nothing to change. It is what it is, like it or not.

 

The Pazfik thing would have been a great thing! I'd be all over that....

[354thFG_Leifr]

Imagine thinking Flying Circus collector aircraft would be enough to prop up 1CGS financials, or even better... the Horsa. ?

[PatrickAWlson]

49 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Regarding FC:  You have 3 modules, and a 4th already committed to.  That’s basically the whole of RoF.  That’s all the popular planes, as well as all unpopular planes which I rarely saw people fly on RoF.  What else do want?  Should they make a Muromets and an S-16?  Maybe they should make that plane that has bird wings, and looks like something Wile E. Coyote would have bought from the Acme Corporation.

 

Two seaters.  An early German.  A late German.  An early French.  The two seaters should be corps recon aircraft and not two seta fighters, bombers, or any other variety.

 

Both RoF and FC were seemingly created with Air Quake in mind, not an SP campaign.  The fighter selection is excellent and allows missions from the start of 1916.  They never made the two seaters to go along with it.  To some extent the same is true in Great Battles.  No Stuka B even though we have a Moscow module?

[Guest deleted@83466]

I don’t even know what the “Stuka B” is.  It must be a very special Stuka variant which will revolutionize the way you use the Stuka, and provide a novel gaming experience.

[Gambit21]

13 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Both RoF and FC were seemingly created with Air Quake in mind, not an SP campaign.  

This is exactly their mentality - and it’s too bad.

It’s not “wrong” so to speak, but it doesn’t match the mentality of much of the user base.

[LukeFF]

10 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

I don’t even know what the “Stuka B” is.  It must be a very special Stuka variant which will revolutionize the way you use the Stuka, and provide a novel gaming experience.

 

Ju 87 B-2, very common in 1941. ?

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

Really no offense, but I think your love of ultra-niche, sometimes very unremarkable aircraft, is causing you to miss the forest for the trees.

 

Dude. I'm quoting you! ? I was like what Hanriot? The HD.2 floatplane? The 300 or so HD.3 two-seaters? Maybe an early HD.1 or an Italian HD.1 (both of which had their guns offset from the centre, although in different positions)...

 

I'm actually pretty pragmatic, and I know when some of my ideas are bad ideas. I do get the ultra-niche (I mean, this is a niche hobby to begin with)... but the 'unremarkable'? Which of my planes, sir, is unremarkable?! Be careful what you say, for I may be forced to challenge you to a duel!

 

P.S. Admittedly the 1916 German two-seaters are kind-of unremarkable because production was split between a number of different, but relatively similar, types. So, while we need one (to give people a reason to fly a Nieuport N.11 or Airco D.H.2), it is quite hard to pick which one. But other than those (which I'm not that much of a fan of), I can't think of another plane which isn't remarkable in multiple ways.

 

1 hour ago, 86th_Leifr said:

Imagine thinking Flying Circus collector aircraft would be enough to prop up 1CGS financials, or even better... the Horsa. ?

 

Well, there is a calculus:

 

1) How many are sold at what price vs. the cost to develop?

 

So, for example, an SG.38 training glider (no weapons, no engine, simple damage model, no cockpit) might turn a significant profit even if there were few sales, because it could be developed quickly and cheaply. The same goes for cargo variants of the anti-aircraft vehicles... they only require deleting the turret and replacing it with a few barrels or covered loads... even if the they sold 5% the number that the original anti-aircraft variant sold, the additional development cost is so low it'd still be profitable.

These are extreme examples, but the general principle applies.

 

2) What else could the staff be employed to do?

 

We got the new Spit XIV bubble canopy because a new 3d modeller needed a project to be trained on... However, if they needed that 3d modeller to finish the next module on time, then any Collector Plane (no matter how profitable) would be a bad idea.

 

Clearly these Collector Planes are considered profitable enough to be worth making, but they are also competing against other priorities. As for propping up financials, I'm sure the revenue helps, but I suspect that the next module requires funding beyond what the Collector Planes can generate. However, it doesn't mean that partnering with a 3rd party couldn't be profitable enough to justify the effort.

[Enceladus828]

45 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Judging by what I saw when the RoF Channel map showed up in the MP server (empty) it was probably not a financial success.  So they probably won’t add it to FC.  As for Italy or East front?  Lol

[Avimimus]

42 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Ju 87 B-2, very common in 1941. ?

 

...and the almost identical longer-ranged Ju-87R survived in use until 1943 I believe, due to its additional fuel tanks?

 

52 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

I don’t even know what the “Stuka B” is.  It must be a very special Stuka variant which will revolutionize the way you use the Stuka, and provide a novel gaming experience.

 

I think the argument would be to have the aircraft that were actually present... you know, so you don't have Fw-190s fighting in the Battle of Britain, you probably shouldn't be using Ju-87D to fight in the Battle of Moscow! ? But, then you end up with no Stukas... and they were there, they had impacts... they were shot down.

 

In terms of gameplay experience, well, weaker engine, weaker defensive gun, weaker bomb-load (compared to the D)... but if you care about history... actually want to see it well represented... then, yeah, you want it in the planeset (at least as AI).

  

58 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Two seaters.  An early German.  A late German.  An early French.  The two seaters should be corps recon aircraft and not two seta fighters, bombers, or any other variety.

 

So a Rumpler C.IV? That is the biggest gap in later war two-seat recon (i.e. higher altitude performance). Otherwise, well, the DFW C.V seems pretty representative of the later war types. Personally, I'd also see some appeal in a Hannover Cl.II two-seat fighter... it would be quite different aerodynamically from the Roland Cl.II we have... but it is a fighter, so excluded from your list, although they could still do spotting/recon ? 

 

@SeaSerpent I actually have a list... I'll share it sometime - but slower (i.e. <135 km/h) 1916 French and German two seaters are also top priority in my list - and for the same reason PartickAWilson has - to produce a historical campaign.

[Guest deleted@83466]

Well, for example I know that you have been a champion of Seaplane operations in the Adriatic or somewhere.  You and Enceladus.  Sure they are sort of cool, in a world where financing is unlimited. Resources are needed to make that plane.  Somebody, whether in-house or 3rd party, needs to get paid for their work.  Probably many people.  So you and Enchiladas will buy that because it excites you.  If I were the project manager, however, I’d put those software engineers to work on something else.   Some of the suggestions and requests around here frankly belong in Jack’s Battle of Bessarabia thread, and I just can’t possibly see how it would be a good idea to devote resources to, even just as interim releases.

 

As far as something like the Stuka B-2, the time for that was back when Battle of Moscow was new and lots more people were excited by Stukas,imo.

Edited January 8, 2024 by SeaSerpent

[Gambit21]

22 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Well, for example I know that you have been a champion of Seaplane operations in the Adriatic or somewhere.  You and Enceladus.  Sure they are sort of cool, in a world where financing is unlimited. Resources are needed to make that plane.  Somebody, whether in-house or 3rd party, needs to get paid for their work.  Probably many people.  So you and Enchiladas will buy that because it excites you.  If I were the project manager, however, I’d put those software engineers to work on something else.   Some of the suggestions and requests around here frankly belong in Jack’s Battle of Bessarabia thread, and I just can’t possibly see how it would be a good idea to devote resources to, even just as interim releases.

 

As far as something like the Stuka B-2, the time for that was back when Battle of Moscow was new and lots more people were excited by Stukas,imo.

The die-hard Eastern Front fans aside, I think many others have had Eastern Front fatigue for quite some time.

The franchise desperately needs an infusion of “new” and thus Korea as an interim revenue producer so that they can ramp up for PTO. So yeah I doubt any Stuka, to be used on an old cartoony map is the best move at this juncture.

Onward.

 

 

Caveat being 3rd party stuff I guess.

Not where I’d put my resources  though even as a 3rd party.

Edited January 8, 2024 by Gambit21

[Trooper117]

I'd say as well, that we, and the Russian forums have grasped that Korea is next, which at some point will have a carrier DLC, which is needed for Korea of course, and also as a proof of concept, will certainly be needed if they go to the Pacific... exciting times if it all pans out!

[Guest deleted@83466]

BTW, I’m not convinced that all the old stuff will necessarily be incompatible with next-Gen content.  Maybe someone else knows differently, or they’ve already stated that.  Flaming Cliffs exists with DCS hifi modules to this day.  (Some guy is flying easy-F-15c, and kicking my butt because I’m having a helmet fire in the Hornet, lol) , lolIt depends on how they upgrade their engine.  I think existing content will have a far better future if it is part of the new thing, rather than obsoleted by it.  Maybe they can’t do that, but we’ll see.  

[Gambit21]

14 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

BTW, I’m not convinced that all the old stuff will necessarily be incompatible with next-Gen content.  Maybe someone else knows differently, or they’ve already stated that.  Flaming Cliffs exists with DCS hifi modules to this day.  (Some guy is flying easy-F-15c, and kicking my butt because I’m having a helmet fire in the Hornet, lol) , lolIt depends on how they upgrade their engine.  I think existing content will have a far better future if it is part of the new thing, rather than obsoleted by it.  Maybe they can’t do that, but we’ll see.  

The problem is that the old stuff was already looking old (comparatively speaking) even 5 years ago, nevermind now. Not to mention PBR/Non-PBR assets not being able to co-exist currently. So this is a double whammy. 

[Enceladus828]

29 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Well, for example I know that you have been a champion of Seaplane operations in the Adriatic or somewhere.  You and Enceladus.  Sure they are sort of cool, in a world where financing is unlimited. Resources are needed to make that plane.  Somebody, whether in-house or 3rd party, needs to get paid for their work.  Probably many people.  So you and Enchiladas will buy that because it excites you.

This is what I was getting at with my previous post. 

For FC4:

a): The Sopwith Pup, Airco DH.2, Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter and Strutter B, Albatros D.III, Eindecker, Roland C.IIa along with the Felixstowe, Brandenburg, Hanriot HD.2 and Channel Map for $80 US; or

b): The only planes for FC4 are the 6.5 planes previously announced with the latter 2.5 and the Channel Map arriving for FC5. For $50 FC5 would sell very well.

 

As for Tarnopol, someone suggested a plane set here:

 

Russia:

Ilya Muromets 

S-16 

Lebed 2-seater

Nieuport 17 RUS.

Morane Parasol, Caudron G4 or Farman

You could also have the Nieuport 11 and 17, SPAD 7, Sopwith Triplane, and Sopwith Strutter

 

Central Powers:

Hansa-Brandenburg C.I (early/late) 

Hansa-Brandenburg D.I Starstrutter 

Oeffag D.II/D.III 

Fokker A.III

Albatros C.III/C.I - LVG C.II or Aviatik C.I

 

For the Italian Front you could have the Caproni Ca.3, Ansaldo SVA, Nieuport 10, and a lot of FC planes like Hanriot, Nieuport 11 and 17, SPAD 7 and SPAD 13 for Italy with the Hansa C.1, Aviatik D.1, Hansa-Brandenburg D.I and Oeffag Albatros D.III series 253. A lot of Entente and AH planes can be used in both Tarnopol and the Italian Front and hey with those planes out of the way more time can be spent on the map and remaining planes.

 

Tarnopol and the Italian Front would sell for $80 US each.

[Guest deleted@83466]

?

 

[BraveSirRobin]

55 minutes ago, Enceladus828 said:

This is what I was getting at with my previous post. 

For FC4:

a): The Sopwith Pup, Airco DH.2, Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter and Strutter B, Albatros D.III, Eindecker, Roland C.IIa along with the Felixstowe, Brandenburg, Hanriot HD.2 and Channel Map for $80 US; or

b): The only planes for FC4 are the 6.5 planes previously announced with the latter 2.5 and the Channel Map arriving for FC5. For $50 FC5 would sell very well.

 

As for Tarnopol, someone suggested a plane set here:

 

Russia:

Ilya Muromets 

S-16 

Lebed 2-seater

Nieuport 17 RUS.

Morane Parasol, Caudron G4 or Farman

You could also have the Nieuport 11 and 17, SPAD 7, Sopwith Triplane, and Sopwith Strutter

 

Central Powers:

Hansa-Brandenburg C.I (early/late) 

Hansa-Brandenburg D.I Starstrutter 

Oeffag D.II/D.III 

Fokker A.III

Albatros C.III/C.I - LVG C.II or Aviatik C.I

 

For the Italian Front you could have the Caproni Ca.3, Ansaldo SVA, Nieuport 10, and a lot of FC planes like Hanriot, Nieuport 11 and 17, SPAD 7 and SPAD 13 for Italy with the Hansa C.1, Aviatik D.1, Hansa-Brandenburg D.I and Oeffag Albatros D.III series 253. A lot of Entente and AH planes can be used in both Tarnopol and the Italian Front and hey with those planes out of the way more time can be spent on the map and remaining planes.

 

Tarnopol and the Italian Front would sell for $80 US each.

It’s tough to imagine a faster path to financial ruin. 

[PatrickAWlson]

4 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

I don’t even know what the “Stuka B” is.  It must be a very special Stuka variant which will revolutionize the way you use the Stuka, and provide a novel gaming experience.

 

It is very special.  Look it up.

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

It’s tough to imagine a faster path to financial ruin. 

 

Says the guy  with no interest in WWI who cannot fathom the idea that others might actually like slow, highly flammable planes with lots of wings and strings. 

 

Seriously, my understanding is that FC is making money.  I have no idea how much, but it is apparently not a loser.  There is a reason why FC2 and FC3 eventually followed FC1. 

 

I get that Americans and many Europeans might not be fascinated with an eastern front WWI flight sim, but who's to say that a Russian company making this can't sell it to a Russian audience? 

 

My own request is for a few more two seaters.  If you could add three or four more planes to enhance the campaign (it is also  that the majority of GB players are SP), then that might also not be a losing proposition.  Just as there are plenty of WWII enthusiasts who want to fly a Hurricane, there are WWI enthusiasts who would love to take up a DH2 and actually catch something.

[BraveSirRobin]

5 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Says the guy  with no interest in WWI who cannot fathom the idea that others might actually like slow, highly flammable planes with lots of wings and strings. 

I probably spent more time just in MP flying RoF aircraft than you spent flying them total.  Literally every night of the week for years.  Thousands of hours.

Edited January 9, 2024 by LukeFF
watch the tone

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

The problem is that the old stuff was already looking old (comparatively speaking) even 5 years ago, nevermind now. Not to mention PBR/Non-PBR assets not being able to co-exist currently. So this is a double whammy. 

You keep saying this but I really don't agree at all. I have the DCS Spitfire and Mustang and those cockpits don't compare to the ones in IL-2 in VR for me at all. Maybe the newer ones are better but as I've seen nothing I like really from DCS WWII, I'm not buying more mismatched, overpriced, unfinished modules (no 150 octane P-51 vs K-4, really???

 

The future IMO is VR and IL-2 looks far better than any other sim in VR overall. CLoD looks like IL-2 1946 in VR and DCS isn't much better. There are some issues to be resolved (aliased horizons, weird artifacts, dancing trees, grass that doesn't look right or render properly, the sun size, etc.), but the cockpits, 3d models, landscape textures, buildings, water/wave action, is far better in IL-2 than DCS in VR. It's not even close honestly. I just tried DCS again with 2.9 multithreading and Vulcan and it still looks and plays like garbage in VR. The "new" Normandy map doesn't compare in terms of cohesion or visual appeal (awful textures and coastlines) to the IL-2 Normandy map, despite having better cities, being more populated, and having hedgerows. It's crazy that despite all that, the render distance and visual appearance is still awful and looks like a washed out pea-soup color. On top of that, IL-2 has mastered the art of blending airfields into the surrounding terrain. Other games paste them on top and they look awful and unrealistic. I would like to see birds, civilian traffic, chimney smoke, power lines, fences, etc. in the next iteration of IL-2 to increase atmospheric authenticity, but honestly it's pretty good as is and is cohesive and complete in most ways.

 

The only map in DCS that I've tried for WW2 that looks nice is the Channel Map, but even there the textures are worse than the IL-2 ones and it ruins the map for me quite honestly.

Edited January 8, 2024 by =DW=_drewm3i-VR

[Gambit21]

3 minutes ago, =DW=_drewm3i-VR said:

You keep saying this but I really don't agree at all. I have the DCS Spitfire and Mustang and those cockpits don't compare to the ones in IL-2 in VR for me at all. Maybe the newer ones are better but as I've seen nothing I like really from DCS WWII, I'm not buying more overpriced, unfinished modules.

 

The future IMO is VR and IL-2 looks far better than any other sim in VR overall. CLoD looks like IL-2 1946 in VR and DCS isn't much better. There are some issues to be resolved (aliased horizons, weird artifacts, dancing trees, grass that doesn't look right or render properly, the sun size, etc.), but the cockpits, 3d models, landscape textures, buildings, water/wave action, is far better in IL-2 than DCS in VR. It's not even close honestly. I just tried DCS again with 2.9 multithreading and Vulcan and it still looks and plays like garbage in VR. The "new" Normandy map doesn't compare in terms of cohesion or visual appeal (awful textures and coastlines) to the IL-2 Normandy map, despite having better cities, being more populated, and having hedgerows. It's crazy that despite all that, the render distance and visual appearance is still awful and looks like a washed out pea-soup color.

 

The only map in DCS that I've tried for WW2 that looks nice is the Channel Map, but even there the textures are worse than the IL-2 ones and it ruins the map for me quite honestly.

I’m talking about the current standard, not the Spit and Mustang, nor was I referencing VR. No PBR, you’re off the back going forward. The End.

 

 

Not to mention 7,8,9 4K maps.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

4 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I’m talking about the current standard, not the Spit and Mustang, nor was I referencing VR. No PBR, you’re off the back going forward. The End.

 

Re-read it. I made some edits. I also don't disagree that going forward things should get better and PBR should be implemented (as should multithreading, FSR, and Foveated Rendering), but for me as it stands now, IL-2 with the new clouds and sky is simply breathtaking in VR at times. Other times (on the ground) it does look cartoonish, where as DCS is the opposite (map textures looks cartoonish from the air). I personally just don't think IL-2 is behind DCS at all. I wish IL-2 had competition but TBH nothing on the market or being developed compares.

[Gambit21]

38 minutes ago, =DW=_drewm3i-VR said:

 I personally just don't think IL-2 is behind DCS at all. I wish IL-2 had competition but TBH nothing on the market or being developed compares.

 

Go sit in the F-14 and come back and say that.  Or look at the F-4U, or La-7, or the F-4 which is again a level up. 

No comparison my friend, I can't even look at a GB cockpit anymore.

 

However, I fully expect that to change with this upcoming module, and going forward. 

Looking forward to seeing what shakes out. 

Edited January 8, 2024 by Gambit21

[DD_Arthur]

I think the GBS game engine has run it’s course. 

The team know that, plenty of us know that too. Time for something shiny and new, time for something that can exploit new technologies. Time to bring the ‘wow’ factor back.

[LukeFF]

Guys, please get back on topic, or more posts will be removed. 

[Lusekofte]

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

the almost identical longer-ranged Ju-87R survived in use until 1943 I believe, due to its additional fuel tanks?

In Norway I believe they served longer. Until they where not operational 

JU 87 B would be much better than the D 5 they say coming

2 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

I think the GBS game engine has run it’s course. 

The team know that, plenty of us know that too. Time for something shiny and new, time for something that can exploit new technologies. Time to bring the ‘wow’ factor back.

Totally agree, and Korea might be an ideal scenario to test this out. Albeit me not favouring it much, I come to realise that it is much better than later than bodenplatte ww2.  And probably more popular. 

[Trooper117]

4 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

JU 87 B would be much better than the D 5 they say coming

 

I'd agree with that...

[Ribbon]

On 1/7/2024 at 3:48 PM, Gambit21 said:

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. 

Maybe cos gamers in general preffer gameplay, its variety and content over pure historical aspect and patriotism in games.

We had Moscow than Kuban and Normandy (Channel map) with its variety of planes (fighters)....now whats left to desire?.....a medium and heavey bombers, PTO (naval ops, torpedo bombers, carrier takeoff/landings, tropical islands).

Its simple, so im not suprised at all!

 

Im from Croatian coast and yet last on my wishlist is Adriatic sea and Yugoslavian campaign in ww2 to be modeled, i simply dont care about it and never heard it as a wish from any of my countrymens who play il2.

[sevenless]

8 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

JU 87 B would be much better than the D 5 they say coming

 

Yeah, but for D-5/G-2 they only need minor adjustments of the existing D-3/G-1. Han said that, if at all, new collectors will only be variations of exiting planes. It is what it is...

[cardboard_killer]

For me, I will buy (almost) anything. Sure, there are periods and planes I would prefer over others, but all have their charm.  What I don't want to do is to say "if they don't do x (or if they give me y) I quit." The only thing that I will not abide is worse game play.

 

For me, it is a game, and will never be exactly what I want it to be. For the owners, it is a business. We all have our roles, and demanding more from the other party is vanity.

[MAJ_stug41]

3 hours ago, Ribbon said:

We had Moscow than Kuban and Normandy (Channel map) with its variety of planes (fighters)....now whats left to desire?.....a medium and heavey bombers, PTO (naval ops, torpedo bombers, carrier takeoff/landings, tropical islands).

A bagration era map, covering anything in late 44 in the east, would fill out the last significant gaps for the VVS, and could be done largely with variants of existing designs. Imagine a map of the area between warsaw and brest, where the germans counterattacked toward the end of bagration and both sides had plenty of interesting units committed to the fight in great numbers,  thatd be neat.

[ACG_Bussard]

1 hour ago, sevenless said:

 

Yeah, but for D-5/G-2 they only need minor adjustments of the existing D-3/G-1. Han said that, if at all, new collectors will only be variations of exiting planes. It is what it is...

Is it already known whether the announced Ju 87 D5 will also get the Dive bombing sight (Stuvi)? I believe such versions were used in Finland in 1944.

 

 

[parkerc341]

4 minutes ago, MAJ_stug41 said:

A bagration era map, covering anything in late 44 in the east, would fill out the last significant gaps for the VVS, and could be done largely with variants of existing designs. Imagine a map of the area between warsaw and brest, where the germans counterattacked toward the end of bagration and both sides had plenty of interesting units committed to the fight in great numbers,  thatd be neat.

They are doing a late eastern front in the maps of Odessa and Finland I believe.

[PatrickAWlson]

Never mind

Edited January 9, 2024 by PatrickAWlson