Brief Room Episode 3: Questions and Answers Session

[Enceladus828]

1 hour ago, RoteDreizehn said:

Some of the answers were really clumsy

One question I asked was what would the future be of FC after FC4? The closest they got to that was talking about the RoF seaplanes and how they want to make the Catalina over adding them to FC. But are we going to get the Channel map or the Tarnopol map? I mean we don't need the seaplanes for the Channel map, we can fly the FC planes on it and use the Gotha and Handley Page for cross-channel bombing; heck we could get the HD.2, a simple conversion from the HD.1.

 

50 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

That is for next dlc and PTO needs it

I wonder what it will be; Philippines, New Guinea?

 

[Lusekofte]

1 minute ago, Enceladus828 said:

wonder what it will be; Philippines, New Guinea?

I like that. But they mentioned carriers witch open up for anything. 

[FuriousMeow]

1 hour ago, Koziolek said:

And the way they skirted around VR improvements it looks like we should not expect MT anytime soon

 

You know what the alternative to Multi-Thread is? Single Thread, which is what DCS was and why it needed Muli-Thread. GB is not Single-Thread.

[Regingrave-]

1 час назад, JG1_Vonrd сказал:

I still think that DCS has a much better control mapping GUI especially that all you have to do is press the button on your HOTAS to see where you have mapped that button.

No need to wait for the next project, search via command name or assigned button/axis is to be tested among other things in today's alpha update.

[Zooropa_Fly]

1 hour ago, Enceladus828 said:

2 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

 

I wonder what it will be; Philippines, New Guinea?

 

Korea not spoken yet... and it starts all over again ! 

[Lusekofte]

I started to wonder. In q&a my impression was that IL 10 yak and LA just as well can be collectors in Gb. But IL 10 do not fit timeframe on maps we currently have. 
I do not think they really cleared up anything else than confirming PTO witch happen to be most important for me. 
I just can’t understand why they not just say 

Edited January 19, 2024 by Lusekofte

[JG1_Vonrd]

27 minutes ago, Regingrave said:

No need to wait for the next project, search via command name or assigned button/axis is to be tested among other things in today's alpha update.

That's great! Thanks.

[migmadmarine]

3 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

I started to wonder. In q&a my impression was that IL 10 yak and LA just as well can be collectors in Gb. But IL 10 do not fit timeframe on maps we currently have

Neither do LA-7 or Yak-3 (aside for perhaps the 1944 version of the Odessa map), but we are likely getting those. Sounds like they are largely dropping the "must fit an official battle) requirement for the existing title. 

[Gambit21]

So...sticking with a single 4K map? Or going with 3...4? DCS is up to 8 and even 9 just for external texture space. 

PBR is all good and well, but you also need real estate to keep up with the competition. 

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

So...sticking with a single 4K map? Or going with 3...4? DCS is up to 8 and even 9 just for external texture space. 

PBR is all good and well, but you also need real estate to keep up with the competition. 

I think even that was unclear. I got it to be they felt it was not worth it. 

[kendo]

3 hours ago, JG1_Vonrd said:

They want to build the Catalina... doesn't sound like Korea to me.

 

Good to hear that PBR will be implemented but will it be just the new models or will it be applied to all existing aircraft? Skinning would be much improved IMO if so.

 

Disappointed on the minimal response to increasing control button limitations and improving the process of binding buttons. I still think that DCS has a much better control mapping GUI especially that all you have to do is press the button on your HOTAS to see where you have mapped that button.

 

Just new models - watch from 6:45 min.

Edited January 20, 2024 by kendo

[MajorMagee]

It's sad that they didn't understand the question (@46:05). The current Tank Crew mission building would benefit enormously from having German and Russian AI Infantry Squads implemented exactly as they did for the British and American ones. It's not just about Prillar having something on the beaches of Normandy to shoot at. The Tank players can use them on any map, in every sort of engagement, but we need all sides of the conflict represented.

 

They recently gave us a limited ability to use the SP Guns as Artillery. Historically, what better targets are there for them to shoot at than Infantry Squads?

 

Service To The Line,

On The Line,

On Time!

 

 

p.s. I've also refreshed this request in the Suggestion Section. Perhaps Luke can help plead our case again?

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2024 by MajorMagee

[Avimimus]

5 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

Good to know the IL-4 and Pe-3bis are coming. I'd rather see the Bf-110F than the Fw-190A-9.

 

I'm pretty sure they said that the Il-4 and Pe-3Bis were desired by the Russian part of the community, but the Il-4 would cost a lot to do (with the implication that it is unlikely). They mentioned the aircraft, and didn't seem to rule out the Pe-3 entirely. At least that is what I understood, none of these aircraft are planned but Fw-190A9, Bf-110F, Pe-3 could be possible...

 

What I think is more promising is the fact that they implied that 3rd party 3d modellers are welcome to propose projects, and they will try to implement them (both for Great Battles as well as the new project)... so they seem open to including new maps and aircraft from third party devs in the existing series.

  

2 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

One question I asked was what would the future be of FC after FC4? The closest they got to that was talking about the RoF seaplanes and how they want to make the Catalina over adding them to FC. But are we going to get the Channel map or the Tarnopol map?

 

I really want this too. The fact that their answer was that, in two and a half years, they might add an aircraft developed twenty years later into the new sim.... well, my take away is that no expansions to FC or TC are planned.

 

However, they do seem open to working with third parties... so maybe there is a possibility there?

 

It is nice to hear that we'll be getting AQMB for WWI though - although I hope that the airstarts are closer to the target area (so it is a 'quick mission' builder)! WWI aircraft are slow... so they need to modify the templates!

[Jade_Monkey]

Good to hear about an improved mission editor and large formations.

 

Bizarrely I feel like we learned more about their plans for the Pacific than the "new project".

 

It's also weird that they still have not explicitly said the new project is a separate game, even though the clues are abundant and there is little doubt. 

 

When are we going to hear an official announcement regarding the new project? Can we expect it the first half of this year (2024)?

[Noisemaker]

So in other words:
 

 

[Avimimus]

5 minutes ago, MajorMagee said:

It's sad that they don't understand that the current Tank Crew mission building would benefit enormously from having German and Russian AI Infantry Squads implemented exactly as they did for the British and American ones. It's not just about Prillar having something on the beaches of Normandy to shoot at. The Tank players can use them on any map, in every sort of engagement, but we need all sides of the conflict represented.

 

Yes, even adding a static PTRD would've been a nice addition.

 

Similarly, having some infantry for Flying Circus would be great - especially behind the lines. WWI aircraft don't have much firepower, but horses or soldiers behind the trench lines were quite vulnerable - and they could also shoot back at aircraft... it'd add a lot, especially for aircraft like the Halberstadt Cl.II!

 

Btw. They mentioned hand grenades from the Cl.II as purely psychological weapons, but I think they were actually a threat to relatively exposed targets (e.g. marching troops, tents), and this reminds me of a story:

 

I once made a mod for Il-2 1946 which allowed the U-2VS to drop small bombs (PTAB, AO-10, and a 'molotov'). The first two were the generic ones from the game (I did not tweak them to make them more powerful... they had the original values - so a direct hit was required)! Furthermore, Team Daidalos released a patch around that time which added arming delays for bomb fuses - this meant that the AO-10 and PTAB had to be dropped from about 30 metres up to arm (Team Daidalos eventually fixed this)! A direct hit with a single grenade from thirty metres up on a truck sized target seemed impossible.

 

So, what happened? Well, I got good enough that I could hit a truck about half the time under those conditions... so with three grenades often meant I could often destroy two trucks. So my question @Han - when do I get my trophy? ?

[BlitzPig_EL]

I'm just happy to hear that the P40 will be getting some much needed love.

[Gambit21]

@Han "Special" higher fidelity MiG 3 please.

I like that option. Users can use the upgraded version, or keep the old one.

 

 

[CountZero]

12 hours ago, deathmisser said:

How many standalone games do they want to make ? /j 

 

It will just be apart of the GB series they are using Korea as a spring bored to do the pacific. They said while talking about the B-25 they mention it could be apart of that area too. so looks like it's all going to be under one roof still. 

So its obvious now from TC abswer around 40min in video that new project is new game separated from this GB game.
After this next project,  PTO is priority, so why would they then make PTO in 3 years time in older game that will be GB, it willl be made in new game they are making now.

New game gona be getting full dlcs and be main focus, and this GB game only collector airplanes (fighters only) and user made maps.

 

7 hours ago, migmadmarine said:

Neither do LA-7 or Yak-3 (aside for perhaps the 1944 version of the Odessa map), but we are likely getting those. Sounds like they are largely dropping the "must fit an official battle) requirement for the existing title. 

Yes its just make what player most like will buy for GB, and its obvious bombers aint that as how they say interest needs to be 3 times more then its for fighter airplane, so no IL-4 or Pe-3 and so on... even for 110F they say priority is 190A9

5 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Good to hear about an improved mission editor and large formations.

 

Bizarrely I feel like we learned more about their plans for the Pacific than the "new project".

 

It's also weird that they still have not explicitly said the new project is a separate game, even though the clues are abundant and there is little doubt. 

 

When are we going to hear an official announcement regarding the new project? Can we expect it the first half of this year (2024)?

 summer 24 probably

 

7 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

Korea not spoken yet... and it starts all over again ! 

i dont know i heard korea atleast 50+ times in video ?

 

Edited January 20, 2024 by CountZero

[YoYo]

Still I do t know about current titles. They will do free update of engine for current „BoX” series or what? Did they mention something about it? a Summary of this video would be useful too.

[CountZero]

good thing they said no to clicable cokpits, and yes to simple stuff for ai bombers in favor of big formations, b29 will be then for sure ai 

[vadupleix7]

14 минут назад, YoYo сказал:

Still I do t know about current titles. They will do free update of engine for current „BoX” series or what? Did they mention something about it? a Summary of this video would be useful too.

When talking about new TC, they mentioned that there'd unlikely be another TC in GB series but possible in the new project. That pretty much states that the two game would not be compatible.

[Gambit21]

7 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

I started to wonder. In q&a my impression was that IL 10 yak and LA just as well can be collectors in Gb. But IL 10 do not fit timeframe on maps we currently have. 
I do not think they really cleared up anything else than confirming PTO witch happen to be most important for me. 
I just can’t understand why they not just say 

IL-10 will be for Korea.

 

 

 

 

[Juri_JS]

7 hours ago, migmadmarine said:

Neither do LA-7 or Yak-3 (aside for perhaps the 1944 version of the Odessa map), but we are likely getting those. Sounds like they are largely dropping the "must fit an official battle) requirement for the existing title. 

I was rather surprised when the Ta-153, La-7 and Yak-3 were announced. For me historically accurate missions are very important, so I never buy a collector plane when I don't have the appropriate map for it. But maybe I am a minority in this regard.

 

By the way, for the Odessa and Karelia maps late Yak-9 and P-39 versions would be correct for 1944 and not La-7 and Yak-3.

[Customizer171]

1 hour ago, CountZero said:

good thing they said no to clicable cokpits, and yes to simple stuff for ai bombers in favor of big formations, b29 will be then for sure ai 

 

I don't understand anything about coding, but can someone explain to me why it takes so much more effort to make a cockpit clickable instead of having the clicks bound to the hotas or keyboard?

I mean, when you click on your hotas, the button or switch in the cockpit moves anyway.

I don't get it why it's so much more complex and expensive?

[YoYo]

Why is there nothing about multi-threading? It was milestone for DCS for example (particular huge plus in campaigns).

Will the new title support it?

 

Edited January 20, 2024 by YoYo

[US103_Baer]

Pretty disappointed by the response to the Flying Circus FM questions.

The answer completely ignores the well-known disparity in the flight models and makes out that, after 15 years for some of these FMs, everything is fine.

 

Hopefully the aeronautical engineer who published the book on WW1 flight performance referred to in the video, will not take the comments too negatively, and see it as an opportunity. Especially given he has a similar WW2 book in the works.

 

There are no real WW1 aircraft available to fly at 5000m and measure sustained turn times and radius. Data like this from the time doesn't exist.

What we DO have are the airfoils, physical dimensions, weights, engine power curves, prop dimensions and some, often conflicting, test data like level speeds and climb rates. So correlated aeronautical software modeling is an ideal solution.

 

Come on Daniel. FC needs to be sustainable for the next few years while the new sim is being developed. We hope you'll engage with Anders around what you'd like from him, and plan the work.

Edited January 20, 2024 by US103_Baer

[kendo]

3 hours ago, YoYo said:

Still I do t know about current titles. They will do free update of engine for current „BoX” series or what? Did they mention something about it? a Summary of this video would be useful too.

 

There are various comments now spread over the two videos that make it clear Korea will be first instalment of a completely new project. Existing il2-BOS titles are not going to be updated to the new engine. But will get new planes, maps, reworked FMs and new mods for certain aircraft. I took it also that we can expect AI improvments for il2-BOS.

 

[Blooddawn1942]

11 hours ago, Regingrave said:

No need to wait for the next project, search via command name or assigned button/axis is to be tested among other things in today's alpha update.

Incredible good news! 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Nothing about new technologies like DLSS , OpenXR .

I hope that in the new mission editor , user will be able to paint the terrain texture and  undo the grass , now custom objects placement look odd and artificial in tall grass or fields. 

1 minute ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Nothing about new technologies like DLSS , OpenXR .

I hope that in the new mission editor , user will be able to paint the terrain texture and  undo the grass , now custom objects placement look odd and artificial in tall grass or fields. 

The ground expansion do not need work? They use sprite tech and do not react to wind or light  condition plus despierce to quickly.

[Avimimus]

12 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

I started to wonder. In q&a my impression was that IL 10 yak and LA just as well can be collectors in Gb. But IL 10 do not fit timeframe on maps we currently have. 

 

Yes, upon reflection I increasingly believe that the reference to trying to get the Il-10 and Tu-2 was with reference to Korea... which would make sense, as both served there.

 

Bf-110F and Fw-190A9 are 'possible', and the Pe-3 might be possible, but the Il-4 is unlikely.

 

The Yak-3, La-7, and Ju-87D-5 will probably be released for Great Battles. Additional gliders are dependent on sales.

 

They are open to working with third parties and will publish a 3d modelling guide.

 

That is my interpretation anyway. It is all rather unclear, so I'd encourage everyone to not treat anything as confirmed.

[blitze]

For me as a VR flyer my take aways:

 

- New Engine DirectX 12 optimised (would  have liked Vulcan for cross  platform capabilities, cough Linux,  cough but it is as it is).

- New Mapping system - easier to build  maps with easier to build urban environments with much improved performance of those environments on  the new game engine.

 

- Simplified multi-engine AI plane modelling which will enable large formations.  (This is a trade off but when combined with DX12 - will most likely achieve some great large scale ai air environments - a target rich environment for Mig 15 pilots ?).

 

- noted from earlier info, reworked lighting system and skybox so things should realaly be on the up for VR users as well as everyone else.

 

As commented by the devs - VR in Il2 GB is quite well implemented within the confines of the game engine it is built on.  The future will only get better.  Now, I await  Korea and Pacific titles on the new engine but in the meantime  - looking forward to Odessa (been there and it is a lovely city with a rich history) and Karelia (of which it was  Il2 Forgotten Battles that got me to learn about Finland's history  and I loved flying over the Lakes).  Then there are the additional aircraft both early and late war which will be a hoot and add  nicely to  the series.

 

Onward and upward Pilots.?

[Avimimus]

 

3 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

The answer completely ignores the well-known disparity in the flight models and makes out that, after 15 years for some of these FMs, everything is fine.

 

I disagree with this. I'll explain why:

- WWI aircraft are aerodynamically complex (e.g. external bracing and struts produce very complex airflows).

- WWI airfoils are often quite unusual and most were not used after the war or extensively studied.

- Actual data from WWI is often unreliable and contradictory (if not missing entirely). The idea of systematic flight testing was missing throughout most of the war, the instruments were unreliable... (it is common to have official sources claiming 15% differences in performance for the same aircraft)!

 

The only way to get really accurate data would be to build a perfect replica of a plane, and then find a way to put it through systematic flight testing (without loading it down with sensors!)

 

In a few cases it might be possible to use research to improve the flight-models significantly - but I don't think it will ever be clear cut. There will never be an unambiguous 'clear discrepancy' when talking about WWI.

 

I think the better improvement, in most cases, would be something the community has asked about for years: Adding engine variants to planes.

 

  

3 hours ago, YoYo said:

Why is there nothing about multi-threading? It was milestone for DCS for example (particular huge plus in campaigns).

Will the new title support it?

 

I think this was answered in the first 'briefing-room' video from last year.
 

[Lusekofte]

I never really payed fm much attention as long as the planes compete in a relative historical way. And I do agree one have to back up a claim with facts. Except one thing. The tendency of balloon effect planes in this sim have. Latest is the glider we got. 
it fly like a stunt sailplane. Even with full load. 
I was glad to hear we got it. But boy how disappointed I was trying it out. 
I got my answer in q and a   We will get PTO 

[blitze]

1 hour ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Nothing about new technologies like DLSS , OpenXR .

I hope that in the new mission editor , user will be able to paint the terrain texture and  undo the grass , now custom objects placement look odd and artificial in tall grass or fields. 

The ground expansion do not need work? They use sprite tech and do not react to wind or light  condition plus despierce to quickly.

Not sure about openXR but aren't people running that now in  the current engine  as an alternative to SteamVR?  I have noticed with SteamVR that set to 100% for clarity and then adjust SS via one's headset drivers.

 

DLSS - well we have OpenVR FSR that works well on that front.  I don't like frame generation myself and have  tested it in Il2 via the  PiTool version of it.  Anyway - to be seen what comes of this tech and the likes but the AMD variant seems easier to throw into the mix and use than Nvidia's version which requires active dev implementation.  Upscaling via OpenVR FSR works relatively well but my testing is ongoing.

[Avimimus]

5 hours ago, Juri_JS said:

I was rather surprised when the Ta-153, La-7 and Yak-3 were announced. For me historically accurate missions are very important, so I never buy a collector plane when I don't have the appropriate map for it. But maybe I am a minority in this regard.

 

By the way, for the Odessa and Karelia maps late Yak-9 and P-39 versions would be correct for 1944 and not La-7 and Yak-3.

 

We could definitely do with another P-39 variant.

 

As for you being the minority, I don't know... we probably all are in some ways and I likely am. As for me, I'd buy an inappropriate aircraft (or even a paper/drawing-board design in some cases) because it is a chance to flight test something different. One of my most memorable moments was the Mig I-250 in Il-2 1946... I flew it for the first time from a runway start... I then took it through its paces, and finally ignited the burner to see how fast it could go... the experience of being a test pilot for such an exotic aircraft... well... I may not be a "Winkle" Brown, but virtually... it was an experience I'm glad I had.

 

So, if you are interested in engineering trade-offs, hypotheticals, and seeing how things would work through experimentation it makes sense... maybe that is understandable at least?

 

That said - I'd still prefer a Fw-189 or Fi-156 to a He-162 (or Blohm und Voss P.212)!
 

[YoYo]

22 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

I think this was answered in the first 'briefing-room' video from last year.
 

… and the answer was …

[stiboo]

Korea plane set?

at 22 minutes a question on clickable cockpits is answered, and seems to say there will be 10 aircraft in the new project.

 

I'm, assuming they must include the Sabre and Mig15 and we do not know if the B29 will be player flyable, so they will be?..

 

Il10

Yak9

Mig15

 

Sabre

Mustang

Corsair

B29

 

So that leaves 3 more when the game launches.. thoughts on what they will be?!    

 

and I'm sure more will be added after as collectors planes.

 

[US103_Baer]

5 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I disagree with this. I'll explain why:

- WWI aircraft are aerodynamically complex (e.g. external bracing and struts produce very complex airflows).

- WWI airfoils are often quite unusual and most were not used after the war or extensively studied.

- Actual data from WWI is often unreliable and contradictory (if not missing entirely). The idea of systematic flight testing was missing throughout most of the war, the instruments were unreliable... (it is common to have official sources claiming 15% differences in performance for the same aircraft)!

 

The only way to get really accurate data would be to build a perfect replica of a plane, and then find a way to put it through systematic flight testing (without loading it down with sensors!)

 

In a few cases it might be possible to use research to improve the flight-models significantly - but I don't think it will ever be clear cut. There will never be an unambiguous 'clear discrepancy' when talking about WWI.

 

I think the better improvement, in most cases, would be something the community has asked about for years: Adding engine variants to planes.

 

Have you read the book and seen the results and conclusions? Entirely plausible, and a credible method to assess the performance metrics that matter.

 

Yes, real life data is problematic. I alluded to that.

 

But we do have all the physical dimensions and details and they CAN be modeled in an aeronatical sw model. That model can be correlated against the most trusted real-life data. As the author went to great pains to do. 

 

To be honest, i find it quite shocking they believe there's nothing wrong with current models.

[Lusekofte]

Well to me, the more I think of this. I am all in based on selection of planes. Not even that was clear. 
In one hand they said people pay for shiny fast überplanes and bombers was waste of time and effort. 
And next they say they going or like to make the Catalina. 
And this is what confuses me. Suddenly they do make planes like JU 52 , P 47, wako and po2