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

[Zooropa_Fly]

That's marginally interesting that they'd select the least popular option out of eight.

Albeit the poll is 3 years old.

[Blitzen]

5 minutes ago, ww2fighter20 said:

So Korea it is then, I am actually surprised in the end considering:

 

Many planes can't really be used in other well known conflicts, many props if not all are different then their ww2 variants and with the La7/Yak3/Ta152/Ju87D5 planned as collectors there seems to be no plans to return for an late eastern front 1944-1945 module.

 

While there are lots of options for UN/USA, the plane options that people have listed here for the North are lacking for alternative options, only 1 jet (Mig15) and 1 attacker (IL10), aircraft like the Yak11/Yak18/An2 are unlikely to happen and are likely similar in gameplay to the Po2 in ww2, Tu2 is unlikely to happen considering it's an slow medium bomber and the devs have not shown much interest last years to make these type of planes flyable, only Li-2 and Ar234 were exceptions since 1 is famous (Li-2) and another is an jet bomber in a ww2 setting (Ar234), fighters like the Yak9P and La9/La11 to my knowledge can't carry bombs so if they don't provide an competitive edge over UN/USA fighter aircraft I don't see many people flying them for long.

 

Korea was an forgotten war so most people don't know about it, there was also an unofficial poll back when Normandy was announced with 828 votes in which Korea came last place (76 votes) and even Battle of France was more popular (131 votes), Jason also wanted to do Italy 1943 next which is second place in poll (243 votes) and afterwards Late eastern front which was voted 2x more compared to korea (185 votes), I also don't see much enthusiasm for korea on the russian forum.

 

This has definitely been announced somewhere I'm not aware of?

[ww2fighter20]

29 minutes ago, Blitzen said:

This has definitely been announced somewhere I'm not aware of?

No but the video from around 28 minute in the video shows pictures of what's looks like an USATC S160 loco, F4U with 4 blade propellor, B29, Yak9 U or P, IL10, IS2 1944 with DskH, 2 buildings which look east asian, and mountainous terrain.

Korea is the only conflict I can think of were all of these fit together.

[CountZero]

2 hours ago, ww2fighter20 said:

So Korea it is then, I am actually surprised in the end considering:

 

Many planes can't really be used in other well known conflicts, many props if not all are different then their ww2 variants and with the La7/Yak3/Ta152/Ju87D5 planned as collectors there seems to be no plans to return for an late eastern front 1944-1945 module.

 

While there are lots of options for UN/USA, the plane options that people have listed here for the North are lacking for alternative options, only 1 jet (Mig15) and 1 attacker (IL10), aircraft like the Yak11/Yak18/An2 are unlikely to happen and are likely similar in gameplay to the Po2 in ww2, Tu2 is unlikely to happen considering it's an slow medium bomber and the devs have not shown much interest last years to make these type of planes flyable, only Li-2 and Ar234 were exceptions since 1 is famous (Li-2) and another is an jet bomber in a ww2 setting (Ar234), fighters like the Yak9P and La9/La11 to my knowledge can't carry bombs so if they don't provide an competitive edge over UN/USA fighter aircraft I don't see many people flying them for long.

 

Korea was an forgotten war so most people don't know about it, there was also an unofficial poll back when Normandy was announced with 828 votes in which Korea came last place (76 votes) and even Battle of France was more popular (131 votes), Jason also wanted to do Italy 1943 next which is second place in poll (243 votes) and afterwards Late eastern front which was voted 2x more compared to korea (185 votes), I also don't see much enthusiasm for korea on the russian forum.

 

It s ment to atract wider player base that likes jets, from WT or DCS, its not ment to be popular with WW1 WW2 player, no wonder its last in poll on this forum.

Why they keep making collector airplanes for this game when they plan to do Korea, so this player base stay with them even if they mostly continue to play this game.

So then if Korea game is with in expectations, they gona either focus more on jets or do ww2 in this new game engine.

But they need to fined way to expand and jets are way to go it seams.

[Zooropa_Fly]

I tell you what, if it's not Korea now there'll be scenes in here.

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, CountZero said:

DCS,

DCS players is not like GB players. Not at least at the same time. 
In DCS your main interest is making a mission around one specific module. You are in servers for that specific module and you know exactly what you want to do. Expanding your experience. A lot of GB players fly DCS and vice versa. They change between the two for the change. Korea will not change that. 
They made Korea because it probably more popular than Berlin 45. 
To me it was a blunder. They could went to Burma or New Guinea. Because whether you like it or not. No matter how many planes they put in it’s gonna be a Mig vs sabre scenario And you can ask where to go next. Not likely early mid war PTO. 
they have in my opinion dug a hole 

24 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

I tell you what, if it's not Korea now there'll be scenes in here.

Yeah I think there is no way back from that 

[R33GZ]

2 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

they have in my opinion dug a hole 

Yep, there could very well be an "uh oh" moment somewhere down the track. There may be a saving grace if they can manage to implement carriers in the future though. I  for one, would definitely jump on that wagon ?

Edited January 16, 2024 by R33GZ

[Robli]

15 hours ago, ww2fighter20 said:

The poll : https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/65215-what-kind-of-module-would-you-like-to-see-after-bon/

 

Yes, kind of weird to see that they picked by far the least popular option and one that is stepping away from the WWII context that has been always been the main attraction of their player base. If they could not do carriers yet and could not do Italy (too many towns?), why not do something in Pacific that gives them time to prepare for carriers, like they do with Korea now.  For example Guadalcanal is famous enough and long enough to warrant it's own module and does not necessarily need carriers. Sounds a bit like Korea was something that interested Han (he has said that in the past), so they went for that, instead of a more popular module. Only other reason I could think of is the lack of information and resources of Japanese aircraft, so they wanted to do something else (and could not do Italy or Africa), while getting resources for that. Still it mostly feels that Korea was something that interested Han and possibly some other decision-makers personally and that's why they picked that.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

19 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

I tell you what, if it's not Korea now there'll be scenes in here.

I think there will grumbling either way tbh.

[sevenless]

22 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

That's marginally interesting that they'd select the least popular option out of eight.

Albeit the poll is 3 years old.

 

I guess they have a way more reliable basis for making such a far-reaching corporate decision.

[=SqSq=SignorMagnifico]

Has there been an ETA on the Q&A video? Two weeks, be sure?

[ICDP]

My experience is with combat FS being a niche of a niche of a niche, the developers simply look at what isn't being done before deciding.

 

The last thing they need is limited sales potential impacted because another developer is doing the exact same theatre.  I'm not saying they are co-ordinating with each other, just mindful IMHO.

[LukeFF]

29 minutes ago, =SqSq=SignorMagnifico said:

Has there been an ETA on the Q&A video? Two weeks, be sure?

 

There is no set date for it right now, no.

[Janus_Interalia]

I hope we see some naval aviation no matter the setting of the next title. The merits of the game will speak for itself once revealed, but what I have seen so far is exciting. 

 

 

[CountZero]

any A for the Q ? 

[Jade_Monkey]

The most meticulous translation since the Rosetta Stone

[parkerc341]

1 hour ago, Jade_Monkey said:

The most meticulous translation since the Rosetta Stone

Maybe they are playing telephone with the translation before putting it out just to spite us /s

[tattywelshie]

12 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

The most meticulous translation since the Rosetta Stone

I've said it before, they are struggling to translate HE162 Salamander, Bristol Beaugfighter, B17 and B24...that's why there's a delay...?

[Jade_Monkey]

Bravooo, watching now

[IckyATLAS]

[OrLoK]

Id be happy with the Pacific, or as we seem to expect, Korea. Hopefully it can be integrated with Great Battles and updates the engine so we can all have the benefit.

 

If its all standalone then im not sure if ill buy in, it would have to be very impressive indeed to make me part with my pennies.

 

Whichever way they go though, i wish them all the best with the project.

[BlitzPig_EL]

 

?

[EAF19_Marsh]

On 1/18/2024 at 9:21 PM, CountZero said:

any A for the Q ? 

Rule 34.

 

Be sure.

[MajorMagee]

I had to look that one up. I guess I live a sheltered life...

 

[CountZero]

On 2/10/2024 at 8:18 AM, EAF19_Marsh said:

Rule 34.

 

Be sure.

rule 34 , never heard of it ?

il go get educated on it tonight

[deathmisser]

So at 25 pages this topic seems to have died with the last post over a week old. 

 

@LukeFF I'm surprised you've not locked it yet m8. 

[Blitzen]

So...um...."No news " isn't necessarily "good news "is it?

[Gambit21]

What news is there? There's going to be a anticlimactic "Announcing Battle of Korea" or similar title, at some point with a plane set that's already been posted.

 

 

[BraveSirRobin]

3 hours ago, Blitzen said:

So...um...."No news " isn't necessarily "good news "is it?

Most likely they’ll announce the new Korea game when they have enough of it completed to make a “cool” video package to go with the announcement.  Think DCS announcement for a cool new aircraft that hardly anyone knew was being worked on, but we know, and the video production probably won’t be as good as what DCS does, but the aircraft will be flying over an appropriate map.

[JFM]

On 2/21/2024 at 7:32 PM, deathmisser said:

So at 25 pages this topic seems to have died with the last post over a week old. 

 

@LukeFF I'm surprised you've not locked it yet m8. 

For me, this is my first trip through here in a while because I stopped giving a crap weeks ago. They're going to announce what they announce when they announce it and I'll decide then if I'm in or not. Meanwhile, I have anything else to do. ?

[Bajzon20]

Simply question, flyable allied bombers, when?
Why it`s easier to making Glider or Arado?

[CountZero]

59 minutes ago, Bajzon20 said:

Simply question, flyable allied bombers, when?
Why it`s easier to making Glider or Arado?

no need for complex gunner positions

[ShamrockOneFive]

4 hours ago, Bajzon20 said:

Why it`s easier to making Glider or Arado?

Single stations. As complex as any other single station aircraft (i.e. most fighters).

 

With the bombers they up the complexity with all of the turrets. That's the reason for it... I don't love the situation of course as I would like to see a flyable B-25, B-26, A-20G, etc.

[Enceladus828]

22 hours ago, Bajzon20 said:

Simply question, flyable allied bombers, when?
Why it`s easier to making Glider

They probably could have made a flyable A-20G over the WACO and Bf-109G-6A/S or Teardrop Canopy Spitfire and you know what, I would have preferred that. Flyable Twin engine ground attack planes and bombers have sadly dropped off sharply.
 

The next standalone IL-2 GBs WW2 collector plane I’m buying after the I-153 is a twin engine plane.

Edited March 20, 2024 by Enceladus828

[Art-J]

10 hours ago, Bajzon20 said:

The same reason that it's complicated it's been around here for 6 years, 10, 15 years will pass and you'll still be saying that it's complicated and can not be done. 

Not "complicated / can't be done" in a meaning of difficulty to create by their 3D model and texture artists, but in the meaning of few times higher time requirement (and thus workforce cost) to build, while number of customers interested in buying bombers is small compared to single seat or less complex aircraft. It's been explained by the devs in the latest Q&A session (not the first time either).

 

They're not lazy, they just know what of their projects sold best and how to make money. A valid approach if you've got company to sustain and aren't volunteer modder only.

 

It's all moot anyway - most of their budget and development effort goes into the new game now, so unless some external 3rd party wants to upgrade B-25 or 26 to flyable versions (as a non-profit venture most likely), we're not going to see them in Il-2GB and that's that.

[sevenless]

9 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

With the bombers they up the complexity with all of the turrets. That's the reason for it... I don't love the situation of course as I would like to see a flyable B-25, B-26, A-20G, etc.

 

Exactly. At the end of the day it comes down to a business decision and I cant blame them for that. We cant have it all. One 2-engined bombers or 3 single-engined fighter planes. At least they deliver an evironment to create believable scenarios in and the necessary context for careers. Other devs out there only deliver the pure plane and nothing else.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

14 hours ago, Bajzon20 said:

Simply question, flyable allied bombers, when?
Why it`s easier to making Glider or Arado?

Your second question has already been answered above: because making bombers is a poor financial decision for a for-profit company.

 

To answer you first question: Han said in one of the earlier interviews that there is probably going to be a flyable B-25 "at some time". He probably means the next project after Korea, which takes place in the PTO.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Heatblur release multiple videos about the F-4, including a detailed apology and explanation for the delay, and finish by keeping EA prices open by way of saying ‘sorry’.

 

26 pages, 3 vids (one only in Russian) and still no details on exactly what ‘the new project’ will be.

 

I really struggle to understand this team.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

49 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Heatblur release multiple videos about the F-4, including a detailed apology and explanation for the delay, and finish by keeping EA prices open by way of saying ‘sorry’.

 

26 pages, 3 vids (one only in Russian) and still no details on exactly what ‘the new project’ will be.

 

I really struggle to understand this team.

No *official* details, no. But given what info they did release, I can't see how it can be anything else than Korea.

 

The "new project" is still far away; it wouldn't surprise me if it still takes more than 2 years from now on. In terms of game development, it isn't too odd to not release any info at this stage.

 

Probably because they aren't sure about where they want to go with their content and engine improvements, and what will be possible. If they promise, let's say, big streams of B-29s only to find out 1 year from now that their AI is too slow for amounts like that, there'd be trouble.

[Lusekofte]

I have not been pleased with communication , choices and development of this game. 
I have been pretty verbal about it for a long time. 
But it is a time one must accept choices owners of this product have done. 
All this has made this game to me a third choice reserve. Because it still contain things I really like. I in special did not like this Korea thing. But I will take a look at it when people start flying it. I will then have an idea if I will find use for it. 
We need to accept facts. Developers are firmly keeping up its policy of little to no communication and no moaning here will change that. If you like what they offer use it. If not ignore it. 
They done so many good things, IAR 81 is a gem, lately the upgrade of P 40 and P 47 and hopefully soon P 39. One can in my eyes not ignore and forget them. Despite my remarks it is a good quality on their product