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

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

9 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

That's beside the point really.

 

 

I think part of the problem is that you lack history here, what is done and not done etc etc.

Didn't we at one point see images of drop tanks?   Memory foggy on that, but it seems like we did.

[Gambit21]

2 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Didn't we at one point see images of drop tanks?   Memory foggy on that, but it seems like we did.

 

No idea

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

4 hours ago, Blitzen said:

It could be ,rightly or wrongly that the developers Saw developments for the next additions at Cliffs of Dover, Desert Wings Tobruk ( i.e. the 1942 scenario featuring a B-17E,B-24, Typhoon, Mustang, Bf-109G , Lancaster ,etc. and the Pacific scenario of Combat Pilot, both due next year ( we'll just see about that shall we...)) as too much competition for the amount of development and money to rune after the same gamers OR as I mentioned earlier to try to capture more of the Asian market?

 If so it's too bad .I think the sales Korea will be underwhelming esp. with jets left out initially. Even with jets, I believe the Korean Air War was very limited. Maybe this makes no difference, after all as good as Great Battles is it never has made any attempt to actually stage realistic, actual air campaign on any of its maps ( say a two week depiction of the air battles over Kursk in an admittedly limited way in various Scripted Mission format.).

 Remember Masters of the Air 8th Air Force series debuts later this month raising interest in the 1943-1945 air battles and their aircraft of which we already have a large selection.

 If I had me way I'd like them to finish all the campaigns we now have by filling out the aircraft involved ( esp. flyable medium bombers, Russian, British and American but others as well mentioned here, and yes of course , at least AI heavy bombers , all in larger formations than we have now.)Great Battles is one of the best Flight sims around now...why not finish it?

CLoD is not actual competition for anything these days sadly. 

48 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Well FYI it's not CAD, but 3D art software such as 3Ds Max, etc. I use Modo, which is then imported into Max.

That said, it's not in character for this team (or most teams that I know of) to just post models that are not actually part of their product. Thus I'd take their posted models at their word. These aircraft are from the upcoming release, which I have plenty of reasons to believe aside from this posting is Korea.

 

I'm with you Mitchell...waiting for Zero's, Oscars, P-40's, Wildcats, etc.  I think we're going to happy in a few years in that regard, but not quite yet.

As long as the existing content is updated and improved I am all aboard.

[Gambit21]

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

CLoD is not actual competition for anything these days sadly. 

As long as the existing content is updated and improved I am all aboard.

 

I really hope to see this happen as well. I keep using the MiG as an example, but I would hate say in 5 years for users only have bygone quality standard version of the aircraft to fly. So I hope to see it, and other aircraft re-visited and brought up to more current standards in all regards, then sell those improved versions as separate modules.

So fly the old one if you want, but a newer version available. 

[Enceladus828]

1 hour ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Didn't we at one point see images of drop tanks?   Memory foggy on that, but it seems like we did.

Yes: Developer Diary - Page 8 - Announcements - IL-2 Sturmovik Forum (il2sturmovik.com)

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

22 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I really hope to see this happen as well. I keep using the MiG as an example, but I would hate say in 5 years for users only have bygone quality standard version of the aircraft to fly. So I hope to see it, and other aircraft re-visited and brought up to more current standards in all regards, then sell those improved versions as separate modules.

So fly the old one if you want, but a newer version available. 

It just seems so dumb to kill a whole game engine/product line that still has modules, maps, and collector planes coming to it. Really wouldn't take that much to update it. They should do what ED did with the Normandy 2 map: aka make it available for repurchase at a nominal price.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

21 minutes ago, Enceladus828 said:

Yes: Developer Diary - Page 8 - Announcements - IL-2 Sturmovik Forum (il2sturmovik.com)

 

 

I thought so.  Thank you for posting that.   

 

So Gambit, about this "history " that I am lacking?

 

Certainly this demonstrates,  that pictures provided by the team, don't necessarily mean that what is pictured,  is a certainty.

Edited January 12, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Gambit21]

40 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

I thought so.  Thank you for posting that.   

 

So Gambit, about this "history " that I am lacking?

 

Certainly this demonstrates,  that pictures provided by the team, don't necessarily mean that what is pictured,  is a certainty.

 

Don't get so defensive, touchy. You're not being attacked. 

A drop tank isn't an aircraft model...not even close to analogous. 

You're conflating one thing with another.

 

 

Drop tanks were intended, and were not able to follow through. 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

14 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Don't get so defensive, touchy. You're not being attacked. 

A drop tank isn't an aircraft model...not even close to analogous. 

You're conflating one thing with another.

 

 

Drop tanks were intended, and were not able to follow through. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No offense intended.   Just brushing up on my history..?

[Jaegermeister]

23 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Drop tanks were intended, and were not able to follow through. 

 

They were tested in the Beta, hence the screenshot. That story has been explained elsewhere. 

[Gambit21]

4 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

No offense intended.   Just brushing up on my history..?

 

You didn't offend at all. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

I await my kerosene powered overlords.

 

[Gambit21]

46 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I await my kerosene powered overlords.

 

 

 

Next...sorry Mitchell.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

54 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

 

Next...sorry Mitchell.

Lol...I'll believe when it's officially announced..

[Gunfreak]

16 hours ago, =DW=_drewm3i-VR said:

It just seems so dumb to kill a whole game engine/product line that still has modules, maps, and collector planes coming to it. Really wouldn't take that much to update it. They should do what ED did with the Normandy 2 map: aka make it available for repurchase at a nominal price.

Ugra media made the original Normandy map and they upgraded it to Normandy 2.

The problem here is the engine used in DCS seems far more adaptable and upgradable then what the GB engine is.

There also appears to be a huge difference in resources between DCS and IL2, making core upgrades both physics and graphical is a big long project. And DCS has many long running plans. They've been working many years on their dynamic campaign thing and it's still far from being released. They've spent years doing the whole multithreading/DLSS/Vulkan thing and they've admitted it has come at a cost of other things(like various AI assets and upgrades) 

I don't think you can upgrade the GB engine to be truly competitive. It just doesn't seem that good. Maybe if they had 20 million dollars to spend on it. But I doubt they have that.

[cardboard_killer]

8 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I await my kerosene powered overlords.

 

Obviously from that picture the .50cal mgs will be underpowered.

[Art-J]

Apart from that Superfort, we've been shown development of 3 other new types of aircraft, 1 new type of tank, 1 new type of steam engine and 1 new type of engineering asset. A bit too much effort for just a 3D modelling training/practice (which they don't really need anyway) if you ask me.

 

If we assume that their next simulator project is going to be a combat rather than civilian one, and that's a safe assumption I believe, then there was only one "hot" conflict in cold war history where these very specific versions were used in anger in the same geographic locationat and in the same timeframe.

 

True, nothing's officially announced, but I think that's enough for more than simply "minimally informed opinion". Ockham's razor and all.

[354thFG_Leifr]

It would just be nice to know and have official confirmation, rather than this weird game of smoke and mirrors 1CGS like to play...

Rapidly losing interest in what they have to say any more.

[Rjel]

9 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I await my kerosene powered overlords.

 

I was going to post something to the effect that some of we older pilots might better served by something castor oil powered but I won’t do that. Or will I???

[JG27_Steini]

55 minutes ago, 86th_Leifr said:

It would just be nice to know and have official confirmation, rather than this weird game of smoke and mirrors 1CGS like to play...

Rapidly losing interest in what they have to say any more.

 

It is just marketing. Some people will loose interest when ever there is a new product annouced. It keeps them from buying the current stuff. They throw us some breadcrumps once a month to keep us interessted. Last one was 2 weeks ago, so you will have to wait a little bit further.

Edited January 12, 2024 by JG27_Steini

[Trooper117]

8 minutes ago, JG27_Steini said:

Last one was 2 weeks ago, so you will have to wait a little bit further.

 

We keep hearing ''you will find out in the Spring'' and then they drop a little preview, which confirms to anyone who isn't living in some sort of fairyland, Korea is next!

Now when we get the next video, it's all about Q&A (but no questions on what the next project is) and so the farce continues, 

[MajorMagee]

2 hours ago, Art-J said:

Apart from that Superfort, we've been shown development of 3 other new types of aircraft, 1 new type of tank, 1 new type of steam engine and 1 new type of engineering asset. A bit too much effort for just a 3D modelling training/practice (which they don't really need anyway) if you ask me.

 

If we assume that their next simulator project is going to be a combat rather than civilian one, and that's a safe assumption I believe, then there was only one "hot" conflict in cold war history where these very specific versions were used in anger in the same geographic location at and in the same timeframe.

 

True, nothing's officially announced, but I think that's enough for more than simply "minimally informed opinion". Ockham's razor and all.

Sadly for those of us hoping for more playable tanks, the IS-2 was barely (only one Chinese Regiment of 20 vehicles) deployed in Korea, and never came close to seeing any combat there. Unless we're getting something in 1944/45, what we saw is most likely just an AI shell to be deployed as a ground target in Korea. If they showed us the T34/85 that was actually used in combat by the North Koreans, it might have better supported the Korea argument.

 

 

Edited January 12, 2024 by MajorMagee

[ITAF_Artiglio]

34 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

 

We keep hearing ''you will find out in the Spring'' and then they drop a little preview, which confirms to anyone who isn't living in some sort of fairyland, Korea is next!

Now when we get the next video, it's all about Q&A (but no questions on what the next project is) and so the farce continues, 

It's a shame that the Fiat CR42 didn't take part in the fighting in Korea... otherwise I would have invested all my savings in the project of a new air combat scenario...

Il2 BK "Fiat Cr42 Falco, the exterminator of IL10"

that would have been a fantastic DCL.... ?

[R7-S276]

Not understand why begin a new war conflict theater while there is so much World War I and World War II air battles which are not developed (battle of Spain, Battle of France, Narvik Operation, Dunkirk Operation, Battle of Britain, Channel Front, Operation Torch, Operation Husky, Operation from Corsica, Balkans, Crete, Malta, all the aerial battles in North Africa and Middle East from Algeria to Syria, Tobruk and El Alamein, Madagascar, war between Russia and Finland, Germany and Finland, Channel front between the north of UK and the north of European countries, and all the conflict in pacific, Asia, Burma, Indochina, China against Japan, Russia against Japan… there is a lot to do before starting a Korea, Indochina and Vietnam war… and if developers begin to work on a fourth propellers plane, I personally prefer a B-17 to a B-29…

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

5 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

We keep hearing ''you will find out in the Spring'' and then they drop a little preview, which confirms to anyone who isn't living in some sort of fairyland, Korea is next!

Now when we get the next video, it's all about Q&A (but no questions on what the next project is) and so the farce continues, 

 

Here in fairyland, we are wondering if all the belief that Korea is guaranteed,  is based on a screen shot of a skeletal B29, or if there is perhaps some more convincing evidence that we somehow missed.  If so, please share what that evidence is.  Thank you. 

 

Ps.. anyone care to explain the devs  "romantic" comment?  Totally do not get what that's about.   From my admittedly uninformed grasp of Russian history,  too me that translates to thier victory over Germany in WW2.  An event they romanticize and celebrate to this day.

[Lusekofte]

35 minutes ago, R7-S276 said:

Not understand why begin a new war conflict theater while there is so much World War I and World War II air battles which are not developed (battle of Spain, Battle of France, Narvik Operation, Dunkirk Operation, Battle of Britain, Channel Front

Your idea is right in my alley. But it is something about this community not tolerating going back. Only forward. 

 

22 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Here in fairyland, we are wondering if all the belief that Korea is guaranteed,  is based on a screen shot of a skeletal B29, or if there is perhaps some more convincing evidence that we somehow missed.  If so, please share what that evidence is

First of all it is developers choice. Me and you will not change that. 
They decided to keep this a secret. And show us hints , which all points to Korea. I think they run a suicide game with their secrecy, if they hint for Korea and it turns out not to be it is no longer a game they have committed the act. Unless it is not a fully functional carrier based PTO scenario and they like to have fun. 
I am really fed up with this tedious secrecy and I lost all interest on the subject. Korea I will not follow up on. Later scenario not in a lifetime. I got that part well enough covered in DCS. Clod will get VR before this year is over. So my itch for any ww2 is covered in acceptable timeframe. They left no doubt that any hope for early ww2 is gone. This is where I went out the door. 
They are actually following hot rod lovers in this community advices. 

[parkerc341]

36 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Ps.. anyone care to explain the devs  "romantic" comment?  Totally do not get what that's about.   From my admittedly uninformed grasp of Russian history,  too me that translates to thier victory over Germany in WW2.

Thats sorta the same idea I had. Romantic doesn't really scream Korea to me.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

2 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

Your idea is right in my alley. But it is something about this community not tolerating going back. Only forward. 

 

First of all it is developers choice. Me and you will not change that. 
They decided to keep this a secret. And show us hints , which all points to Korea. I think they run a suicide game with their secrecy, if they hint for Korea and it turns out not to be it is no longer a game they have committed the act. Unless it is not a fully functional carrier based PTO scenario and they like to have fun. 
I am really fed up with this tedious secrecy and I lost all interest on the subject. Korea I will not follow up on. Later scenario not in a lifetime. I got that part well enough covered in DCS. Clod will get VR before this year is over. So my itch for any ww2 is covered in acceptable timeframe. They left no doubt that any hope for early ww2 is gone. This is where I went out the door. 
They are actually following hot rod lovers in this community advices. 

The thing is, that video and its screen shots were intended to show the new features of the new engine.  Lighting,  landscape,  weather, etc..  They previously said they would not address any "what's next" questions or release anything about "what's next".  I think they learned their lesson on that with  the drop tanks, and I understand that.  So we are to believe that despite thier comments,  and things they learned the hard way, they would either intentionally release images pointing to "what's next", or they are just really careless?   Doesn't seem likely to me.

[Avimimus]

56 minutes ago, R7-S276 said:

Not understand why begin a new war conflict theater while there is so much World War I and World War II air battles which are not developed (battle of Spain, Battle of France, Narvik Operation, Dunkirk Operation, Battle of Britain, Channel Front, Operation Torch, Operation Husky, Operation from Corsica, Balkans, Crete, Malta, all the aerial battles in North Africa and Middle East from Algeria to Syria, Tobruk and El Alamein, Madagascar, war between Russia and Finland, Germany and Finland, Channel front between the north of UK and the north of European countries, and all the conflict in pacific, Asia, Burma, Indochina, China against Japan, Russia against Japan… there is a lot to do before starting a Korea, Indochina and Vietnam war… and if developers begin to work on a fourth propellers plane, I personally prefer a B-17 to a B-29…

 

Congrats on having an even longer list than mine ? P.S. Didn't the Brits operate Ju-86 in Madagascar?

[Robli]

40 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Here in fairyland, we are wondering if all the belief that Korea is guaranteed,  is based on a screen shot of a skeletal B29

 

It is not just about the B29, which could have easily indicated Pacific also, but the combination of late war / post war russian and American aircraft,  American army locomotive, reference to railroad tunnels etc. All these pieces fit together in only one historical conflict and that is the Korean War.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

 

33 minutes ago, Robli said:

 

It is not just about the B29, which could have easily indicated Pacific also, but the combination of late war / post war russian and American aircraft,  American army locomotive, reference to railroad tunnels etc. All these pieces fit together in only one historical conflict and that is the Korean War.

Railroad tunnels are found everywhere there are mountains. 

 

Please expand on your comments regarding planes.  Images shared, words spoken, etc..

Edited January 12, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Avimimus]

3 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Ps.. anyone care to explain the devs  "romantic" comment?  Totally do not get what that's about.   From my admittedly uninformed grasp of Russian history,  too me that translates to thier victory over Germany in WW2.  An event they romanticize and celebrate to this day.

 

My interpretation was that these guys are working in a dark Moscow winter and desperately need a vacation (although I might be projecting - but anyone in the relative north could definitely sympathise). I'd interpret it as an area of the world that would be 'exotic' to Europeans... i.e. Mediterranean or Asia.

 

3 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Here in fairyland, we are wondering if all the belief that Korea is guaranteed,  is based on a screen shot of a skeletal B29, or if there is perhaps some more convincing evidence that we somehow missed.  If so, please share what that evidence is.  Thank you. 

 

I think it is:

1) Late war Soviet equipment (IS-2) or even almost post-war equipment (Il-10)

2) American equipment (e.g. USATC locomotive that probably wouldn't fit Manchuria), including American equipment that wasn't used in Europe (e.g. B-29, F-4U).

3) Mentions of an Asian pilot model.

4) Mentions that the PTO will come later

 

The centre of all of those Venn diagrams is Korea. We can also throw in:

- The fact that a senior developer wanted to do Korea for several years.

- The unlikeliness of them developing multiple modules simultaneously (i.e. splitting sales, and even with the new hires, it also seems unlikely given the amount of additional work they are taking on to further improve the fidelity of the sim).

[Jade_Monkey]

I actually had a dream last night that the new module was just tanks, comically cartoonish looking ones, and I got to see it ahead of time by an accidental leak in the beta tester channel. Something like this:

 

 

I was thinking "yikes, that's gonna take everyone by surprise".

 

Thankfully I'm awake now and I know there will be planes.

[FuriousMeow]

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

1) Late war Soviet equipment (IS-2) or even almost post-war equipment (Il-10)

 

This plane is definitely post-war:

 

Spoiler

 

The Yak-9P didn't come out until 1946, so its definitely post-war. The wing root intakes, glass over the radio in the rear fuselage, twin MGs with over-the-nose intake all together are a Yak-9P, especially the rear fuselage glass between the vertical stabilizer and rear of the canopy.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

9 minutes ago, FuriousMeow said:

 

This plane is definitely post-war:

  Hide contents

 

The Yak-9P didn't come out until 1946, so its definitely post-war. The wing root intakes, glass over the radio in the rear fuselage, twin MGs with over-the-nose intake all together are a Yak-9P, especially the rear fuselage glass between the vertical stabilizer and rear of the canopy.

So it's IL2 1946 (2.0) ....?

Edited January 12, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[CountZero]

3 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Here in fairyland, we are wondering if all the belief that Korea is guaranteed,  is based on a screen shot of a skeletal B29, or if there is perhaps some more convincing evidence that we somehow missed.  If so, please share what that evidence is.  Thank you. 

 

Ps.. anyone care to explain the devs  "romantic" comment?  Totally do not get what that's about.   From my admittedly uninformed grasp of Russian history,  too me that translates to thier victory over Germany in WW2.  An event they romanticize and celebrate to this day.

 

from video there was shown B-29, F4U, Il-10 and Yak-9P, where could they all be flown together, Spain 1930s, Egypt 55, Norway 1942 ? ?

 

5 hours ago, MajorMagee said:

Sadly for those of us hoping for more playable tanks, the IS-2 was barely (only one Chinese Regiment of 20 vehicles) deployed in Korea, and never came close to seeing any combat there. Unless we're getting something in 1944/45, what we saw is most likely just an AI shell to be deployed as a ground target in Korea. If they showed us the T34/85 that was actually used in combat by the North Koreans, it might have better supported the Korea argument.

 

And how many Ferdinands were in Kursk ?

IS-2 is most wonted tank, reason to show it. Maybe make ppl think its next collector one, or its Burma or France 40s, no one could know from info we get

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

2 hours ago, CountZero said:

from video there was shown B-29, F4U, Il-10 and Yak-9P, where could they all be flown together, Spain 1930s, Egypt 55, Norway 1942 ? ?

 

For the record, not saying it's NOT Korea.  Just saying I don't think we can say with any certainty what it is..

[Blitzen]

Um….is there ever going to be an Episode 3?

Edited January 12, 2024 by Blitzen
Screenshots

[Trooper117]

49 minutes ago, parkerc341 said:

Romantic doesn't really scream Korea to me.

 

They are going to portray a region in a war, and no war is 'romantic'... you can bet it's just a translation error, so you budding Jane Austin's can relax...

[R7-S276]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

 

Congrats on having an even longer list than mine ? P.S. Didn't the Brits operate Ju-86 in Madagascar?

British with Fairey Albacore, Fairey Swordfish, Grumman Martlet vs. Vichy MS406 and Potez63… 

could be the Soviet-Japan war (august 7 to September 2 1945) with the fall of Japan in background…