Brief Room Episode 3: Questions and Answers Session

[danielprates]

 

Devs this could be us, but you playin'

 

[IckyATLAS]

There were a lot of positive things and Pacific coming is clearly very positive, but Korea was not my cup of tea, so wait and see.

What is not clear for me at this point will there be jets or is it Korea (1950-52) but before jets came into play around 1952.

[CountZero]

38 minutes ago, IckyATLAS said:

There were a lot of positive things and Pacific coming is clearly very positive, but Korea was not my cup of tea, so wait and see.

What is not clear for me at this point will there be jets or is it Korea (1950-52) but before jets came into play around 1952.

there is no before jets come in play in Korea, day one F-80 is used, july 1950 F84 and F9F is used in war, nov 1950 Mig15 start doig stuff, dec 1950 sabers do their things, so yes there will be jets no mather what part they do in korea

[creamersdream]

Lets skip Korea and start pacific instead. ?if anyone agrees.

Edited January 21, 2024 by creamersdream

[Enceladus828]

21 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

As to southern Italy and Malta; I can’t see there being any technical reason for not being able to make it.

Personally, I think the invasion of southern Italy would be a great subject for a WW2 CFS.

Agree, their statement that "It's too urban" imo is a pulled out of thin air explanation; a Malta and Sicily alone map would be a mainly open sea map, Rome and Naples wouldn't need to be done and if a considerable amount of Tunisia was included to reflect the last months of Tunisian campaign the map would still be mostly open sea. For the Sicilian terrain, well if they can do Kuban then they can do Sicily.

 

22 hours ago, Blitzen said:

At least someone is listening to players desiring some heavies like the Fortress & Lancaster and developing them. I just don't understand the reluctance to at least give us AI Heavies- CloD has had a perfectly good pair ,the Kondor, and Sunderland years ago , and  managed a very nice flyable Wellington with working , man-able front and rear turrets .If they can do it on a shoestring what's the decision not to do so here at Great Battles ? With the debut of Masters of the Air TV series there will certainly be more demand for heavies like the B-17 and B-24 and British counterparts, than ever before...

The devs need to be willing to take up the challenge to make an AI heavy like the B-17 or B-24, or a flyable B-25. They've taken on many challenges before that are probably on the same level of complexity as making an AI heavy or flyable B-25 so why should either of these two be any different? Yes it will be more work than making a single engine fighter or fighter variant of a plane already in the game but there will be more return on investment if they do it than something like the La-5F, Teardrop Spitfire Mk. XIV, and Bf-109G-6A/S... especially for the B-25. If anyone cares I haven't gotten any of those 3 planes. But anyway, if the B-25 cockpit and Top gunner position were added with the rest being AI... at the very least initially... it still would sell quite well. And if an AI heavy was added and just the cockpit was added with the Top, Rear and Ball gunner positions added later it still would sell quite well. I'll probably do a Poll on this.

Edited January 21, 2024 by Enceladus828

[MajorMagee]

2 hours ago, danielprates said:

 

Devs this could be us, but you playin'

 

Quote

The only significant complaint about the B-25 was its extremely noisy engines; as a result, many pilots eventually suffered from some degree of hearing loss.

Let's hope that this aspect of piloting the B-25 never get's modeled in the sim.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I concur on the high decibel levels in the B25.  I have flown in one.  The loudest thing I've ever experienced.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Seems they are betting the future on Korea to me.  Either very brave or foolish imo.   Perhaps thier marketing research indicates a large, untapped Chinese market for this theater?   It would seem their current customer base, for the most part, is lukewarm at best for Korea imo. Hope they succeed either way.

Edited January 21, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[MisterSmith]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I concur on the high decibel levels in the B25.  I have flown in one.  The loudest thing I've ever experienced.

 

Same, I'd almost say it's twice as loud as a Fortress.

[ACG_Bussard]

2 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Seems they are betting the future on Korea to me...Perhaps thier marketing research indicates a large, untapped Chinese market for this theater?...

Interesting comment. Are you thinking of Chinese stakeholders (e.g. licensors, lenders, business partners, etc.) who gave them instructions on how to serve a potential Chinese customership?

 

It is remarkable that they probably no longer have any reservations about tackling such a project of +3 years with an increased staff. If you think back to the days of the old management, who mentioned the BoN module development as being jeopardized if it takes longer as 3 month as planned...

[Gambit21]

6 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

Agree, their statement that "It's too urban" imo is a pulled out of thin air explanation; a Malta and Sicily alone map would be a mainly open sea map, Rome and Naples wouldn't need to be done and if a considerable amount of Tunisia was included to reflect the last months of Tunisian campaign the map would still be mostly open sea. For the Sicilian terrain, well if they can do Kuban then they can do Sicily.

 

The devs need to be willing to take up the challenge to make an AI heavy like the B-17 or B-24, or a flyable B-25. They've taken on many challenges before that are probably on the same level as complexity as making an AI heavy or flyable B-25 so why should either of these two be any different? Yes it will be more work than making a single engine fighter or fighter variant of a plane already in the game but there will be more return on investment if they do it than something like the La-5F, Teardrop Spitfire Mk. XIV, and Bf-109A/S... especially for the B-25. If anyone cares I haven't gotten any of those 3 planes. But anyway, if the B-25 cockpit and Top gunner position were added with the rest being AI... at the very least initially... it still would sell quite well. And if an AI heavy was added and just the cockpit was added with the Top, Rear and Ball gunner positions added later it still would sell quite well. I'll probably do a Poll on this.

AI B-29 is coming.

[Lusekofte]

8 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

AI B-29 is coming.

I wonder why these target drones over a far away exotic peninsula should please the crowd. The only result I am interested in is its ability to defend itself and how many you can see at one time. 

[CountZero]

4 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Seems they are betting the future on Korea to me.  Either very brave or foolish imo.   Perhaps thier marketing research indicates a large, untapped Chinese market for this theater?   It would seem their current customer base, for the most part, is lukewarm at best for Korea imo. Hope they succeed either way.

I doubt they are aimin on atracting chinese players, they have wery strick time to play games and problems to conect to servers outside china, my teorie is they need to fined way to expand existing player base and for that you need to atract WT players that now go mostly directly to DCS after they get bored with WT. WT is mostly jets now, so provide jet enviroment but differ it from DCS by making it complite air combat of that area with SP campaings, correct time period airplanes maps and so on...not just mess DCS is when you look at anything els then airplanes.

ANd for ww2 type players they can keep buying collector airplanes in this game, and hope for Korea to be succesfule as you dangle that PTO carrot that was succesfule last 5-6 years in keeping them buying DLCs they dont wont in hope PTO is next.

 

 

[357th_KW]

36 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

I wonder why these target drones over a far away exotic peninsula should please the crowd. The only result I am interested in is its ability to defend itself and how many you can see at one time. 

 

They provide a reason for the MiGs and Sabres to be flying around and engaging each other at 40k ft.

 

The simplified AI for larger formations should help a lot.  The big question will then be "How many aircraft can the game render at once?" 

[nachinus]

16 hours ago, Badger1_1 said:

am i the only one disappointed by the lack of clickable cockpits?

Not exactly disappointed because I didn't expect it in the first place. I know this game isn't about studio level aircraft simulation fidelity as MSFS2020 or DCS and I have learnt to enjoy it for what it is. But it's true that it feels somewhat off when I start a mission with one of the latest planes, with marvelous 3d model and textures, with thousands of hours of work reportedly dedicated to develop its model, performance, instruments etc and then... 'press E to start engine'. ?

Edited January 21, 2024 by nachinus

[IckyATLAS]

5 hours ago, MisterSmith said:

 

Same, I'd almost say it's twice as loud as a Fortress.

What a nice surprise. I thought that Mr. Smith had disappeared. It seems that the thread locking light saber is now with Luke.

 

[RedeyeStorm]

Well this post is full of negativism regarding the choice for Korea but I am very pleased by this choice. I have very font memory’s of playing MiG Alley and this theatre saw use of, for me the most beautiful planes. Thinking about F9F, Sea Fury and the Skyraider (brutishly beautifull). Mix this with the career changes of a regimental commander sounds like great fun.

 

Can’t wait.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

I'm honestly pretty disappointed after listening to that stream. Most of it came off pretty smug and arrogant--maybe it's just cultural differences, not sure. Tired of hearing the devs run Jason's name through the mud any chance they get and I'm no huge fan of Jason. Korea is fine, but not if it means abandoning and not fixing the many things wrong with GB. I feel bamboozled in hoping certain things would be fixed but I guess shame on me/us. I really wish they would've polished up GB and done one more Malta/Sicily expansion. Oh well. My short list:

 

-P-40 (They plan to fix so that's good)

-P-47 (Also plan to fix)

-Tempest CL max and turn performance (documents show it should be on par with the P-47)

-Spit XIV input lag in pitch axis

-FW-190 A3 turn rate/handling

-time dilation/general stuttering

-multithreading

-AI command system 

-FSR/DLSS

-foveated rendering

-netcode optimization (online stuttering has become unbelievably bad)

-terrain updates, especially inland waterways, grass, and trees

-sun size fix

-drop tanks (simple would suffice)

-Populate/update textures and missing roads, buildings, etc. on the Rheinland Map

 

If they polished GB up and moved to the new project, I'd be happy and probably pre-order. If they do minimal fixes and pump out more content, I'll buy the new game in the future when there is more than one theater and it is on sale for $10.

 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2024 by drewm3i-VR

[IckyATLAS]

16 hours ago, CountZero said:

there is no before jets come in play in Korea, day one F-80 is used, july 1950 F84 and F9F is used in war, nov 1950 Mig15 start doig stuff, dec 1950 sabers do their things, so yes there will be jets no mather what part they do in korea

 

Okay I thought they came a little later. 

I suppose that Hans team wants absolutely to model and make fly the Mig 15 which is a very Iconic and nice Soviet little fighter.

But jets will not be reused for the Pacific Theater coming later on. 

 

However the new technologies developed for Korea may benefit the Pacific Theater.

Jason is doing Midway, I hope that Han will do Guadalcanal which is really my dream scenario.

 

Some plane and ships can be reused from Korea (US side) would be:

 

1) Carrier landing and takeoff of propeller planes

2) Enough Ships and Carriers to model a Carrier Task Force

3) Having a flyable Corsair F4U that was also used in ground support operations

4) B29 as AI plane (we can always dream)

 

Not reusable

1) The F51 D/H mustang 

2) Flyable A26 Invader 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

22 hours ago, blitze said:

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.

Il2 GB is OpenVR game , you need to use third party application to force OpenXR throw OpenComposite, recently author abandoned support for it. Someone picked it up and patched it to work again after it was broken in last game update.

DLSS also benefit 2D gameplay, frame generation and Nvidia reflex is not that important like DLSS.

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, IckyATLAS said:

 

Okay I thought they came a little later. 

I suppose that Hans team wants absolutely to model and make fly the Mig 15 which is a very Iconic and nice Soviet little fighter.

But jets will not be reused for the Pacific Theater coming later on. 

 

However the new technologies developed for Korea may benefit the Pacific Theater.

Jason is doing Midway, I hope that Han will do Guadalcanal which is really my dream scenario.

 

Some plane and ships can be reused from Korea (US side) would be:

 

1) Carrier landing and takeoff of propeller planes

2) Enough Ships and Carriers to model a Carrier Task Force

3) Having a flyable Corsair F4U that was also used in ground support operations

4) B29 as AI plane (we can always dream)

 

Not reusable

1) The F51 D/H mustang 

2) Flyable A26 Invader 

 

    

 

 

 

 

H model didnt show up in korea so no problem and F-51D is same one used in PTO so they can reuse it, just putt 12,99 price on changing F to P ?

 

If they do PTO i expect them doing later period 44-45

 

The thing is if next game becomes hit, i could see them wondering is it hit becouse of jets, do ppl wont more jets, lets try Vietnam, and posponed PTO for 3 more years, same ppl wonting PTO will be there supporting us , its shown they are lets say easy going in support.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

On 1/20/2024 at 10:31 AM, US103_Baer said:

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.

I think Javier Arango did record telemetry data for Newport 28 , not sure that at 5k but he sadly died in accident and what happened with that data is unknown to me. Anyway using aerodynamic model  from that data to predict plane behavior in other flight condition is better than anecdotal evidence or contradict information found in other publication. I think devs do not want to spend resources in FC FM  because they need it elsewhere (new project).

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, drewm3i-VR said:

I'm honestly pretty disappointed after listening to that stream. Most of it came off pretty smug and arrogant--maybe it's just cultural differences, not sure. Tired of hearing the devs run Jason's name through the mud any chance they get and I'm no huge fan of Jason. Korea is fine, but not if it means abandoning and not fixing the many things wrong with GB. I feel bamboozled in hoping certain things would be fixed but I guess shame on me/us. I really wish they would've polished up GB and done one more Malta/Sicily expansion. Oh well. My short list:

 

-P-40 (They plan to fix so that's good)

-P-47 (Also plan to fix)

-Tempest CL max and turn performance (documents show it should be on par with the P-47)

-Spit XIV input lag in pitch axis

-FW-190 A3 turn rate/handling

-time dilation/general stuttering

-multithreading

-AI command system 

-FSR/DLSS

-foveated rendering

-netcode optimization (online stuttering has become unbelievably bad)

-terrain updates, especially inland waterways, grass, and trees

-sun size fix

-drop tanks (simple would suffice)

-Populate/update textures and missing roads, buildings, etc. on the Rheinland Map

 

If they polished GB up and moved to the new project, I'd be happy and probably pre-order. If they do minimal fixes and pump out more content, I'll buy the new game in the future when there is more than one theater and it is on sale for $10.

 

 

 

i fully expect you gona see updates to GB, perfect place to train new guys, how offten who knows, also most of things on your list i think they said they gona do

[RedeyeStorm]

32 minutes ago, CountZero said:

i fully expect you gona see updates to GB, perfect place to train new guys, how offten who knows, also most of things on your list i think they said they gona do

Agreed but I believe AI improvements (major one that is) and comms improvements are mostly for the new title and not GB. At least that’s what I understood. It is difficult to say because in the video it is not always clear whether they are talking about GB or the new title.

[MajorMagee]

I have a connection to the Children of the Doolittle Raiders organization and they'll all tell you that hearing loss was universal among the crew members.

 

https://www.childrenofthedoolittleraiders.com/

 

Edited January 21, 2024 by MajorMagee

[Avimimus]

5 minutes ago, RedeyeStorm said:

Agreed but I believe AI improvements (major one that is) and comms improvements are mostly for the new title and not GB. At least that’s what I understood. It is difficult to say because in the video it is not always clear whether they are talking about GB or the new title.

 

If the code is modular enough that they could somehow keep porting back AI improvements into the existing titles... I'd probably be 80% happier with them ending support in other areas. Flying Circus and Tank Crew in particular suffer from AI issues.

 

I think it would also increase sales if they can keep some support (e.g. maybe AI improvements and a couple of Collector Planes/Vehicles per year) going on these titles - which would be a good income boost until they are ready to revisit/rework these theatres (if they ever do).

 

I figure that Korea plus the PTO will be about seven years in development. Even if they could expand their team to allow simultaneous development of more than one module, I'm not sure whether it would impact sales (if one module was released per year, than people might only stick with their favourite theatres, whereas with a release every two or three years people are more likely to explore the new module). Then they might remake Normandy... and it could be ten years or more before we see Eastern Europe WWII, the Mediterranean etc. WWI might take even longer, as they'd want to rebuild everything from scratch by then...

 

...whereas a trickle of content for existing modules probably doesn't compete with the newest project to any real degree, helps boost revenues, and keeps us satisfied while we wait for them to possibly return to our other theatres.

[DD_Arthur]

3 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

DLSS also benefit 2D gameplay, frame generation and Nvidia reflex is not that important like DLSS.

I really hope they can get a handle around what Nvidia and AMD are doing with the latest graphics advances.

If they’re to compete with DCS and others they really need to take advantage of this tech.

I think true multithreading would be an enormous task but implementing DLSS and Frame Generation would make a huge difference.

Edited January 21, 2024 by DD_Arthur

[JG4_Deciman]

Hi there

 

Clickable cockpits is known by me from different games,

but also the problems when trying to use them...

With headtracking it's really hard to keep the head in a fixed position during flight while trying to click with the mouse.

So I'm not really sad that it will not be implemented.

 

But it would be nice if all usable switches and gauges are

- animated (like the still missing bombs armed/safe for some planes)

- have an option to define a direct button/axis for it (like feathering, cooler settings, ... for each engine)

 

They also told something about 128 buttons as a limit

My last try to use more than 60 buttons is quite a longer time ago.

But I mapped different 'real' buttons to 'virtual' buttons in vJoy (where I used 128 buttons)

The first 63 'virtual' buttons were recognized correctly in the settings (as joyXXX_b0 to joyXXX_b62)

But afterwards there were really strange settings written...

64 -> _b63_povn0

65 -> _pov0

65 -> _pov1

...

72 -> _pov8

 

73 -> _pov0_0

74 -> _pov0_45

...

and ended up with

128 -> _pov6_315

 

Have a look at that while testing...

 

Deci

 

PS: Anyway, I'm looking forward to the next improvements

 

Edit:

Just tested again.

Same strange setting entries from button 64 to 128

 

Edited January 21, 2024 by JG4_Deciman
Checked buttons and confirmed the strange results

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I agree about clickable cockpits it just a manpower resource hog, esecional stuff is enough to be operating by keys. It's also true that more modern planes (jets)needs more manual switches to operate realistically. 

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, JG4_Deciman said:

have an option to define a direct button/axis for it (like feathering, cooler settings, ... for each engine)

 

Per-engine feathering commands are in testing right now and so will likely be in the next update.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

10 hours ago, Bussard* said:

Interesting comment. Are you thinking of Chinese stakeholders (e.g. licensors, lenders, business partners, etc.) who gave them instructions on how to serve a potential Chinese customership?

 

It is remarkable that they probably no longer have any reservations about tackling such a project of +3 years with an increased staff. If you think back to the days of the old management, who mentioned the BoN module development as being jeopardized if it takes longer as 3 month as planned...

The thought crossed my mind.   It is puzzling why they would follow this path.   Would hope they based this decision on reliable market research.   But....  pretty big departure from the past/customer base/etc.   Others have mentioned maybe they wish to make inroads with the DCS and war thunder crowd?  Coud be.   I'll continue to support thier efforts with FC4/FC collector planes,  and WW2 content that interests me for certain.   Korea?  Not sure..

Edited January 21, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Mtnbiker1998]

18 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Per-engine feathering commands are in testing right now and so will likely be in the next update.

hearing a lot of good things coming in the next update. These would make great candidates for things to talk about in DDs! Would love to hear what other improvements are on deck to be added soon.

Edited January 21, 2024 by Mtnbiker1998

[JG4_Deciman]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

Per-engine feathering commands are in testing right now and so will likely be in the next update.

 

Nice to hear.

 

And what about the limitation to 128 buttons?

The Q&A session made me think, that should work with 128 buttons.

but it showed some strange results,

so it is working with 63 buttons

and struggels at button 64

 

Deci

[ACG_Bussard]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Per-engine feathering commands are in testing right now and so will likely be in the next update.

Nice! New features are always welcome.

Do have any news for us regarding the missing fuel gauge switch controls i.e. for the Fw 190?

[Gavrick]

9 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

-Spit XIV input lag in pitch axis

-FW-190 A3 turn rate/handling

What do you mean?

[Jade_Monkey]

9 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

I'm honestly pretty disappointed after listening to that stream. Most of it came off pretty smug and arrogant--maybe it's just cultural differences, not sure. Tired of hearing the devs run Jason's name through the mud any chance they get and I'm no huge fan of Jason. 

 

Agreed. The smug tone and the dry Russian sarcasm does not sell well. Also blaming Jason is pointless now. Han has been in charge for a year and we don't care about what was done in the past, just talk about the future and the roadmap, no need to drag anyone.

 

Still more details to find out about the new project but based on what it was said so far, I'm a bit underwhelmed. My biggest fear is that they grab the current engine and they slap DX12 and PBR on it, it's like putting lipstick on a pig.

 

For a product coming out in 2024 forward, I expect the map quality to be at least at the lvl of Syria map by Ugra media.

[FliegerAD]

On 1/20/2024 at 12:42 AM, 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. 

 

...which makes sense if no new modules covering appropriate maps are planned in the foreseeable future.

 

They clearly said super props sell, and there is probably an audience in Eastern Europe for the La-7 and Yak-3 who want to try them against K-4 and D-9. I for one would have preferred a late Cobra or even King Cobra, just like I prefer an A-9 over the 152. But I am happy about new toys anyway.

 

Would I rather see proper maps and missions of those planes? Yes, but at this point in the development cycle it seems the choice is getting them as a collector's plane without much integration, or not getting them at all.

[Avimimus]

48 minutes ago, Gavrick said:

What do you mean?

 

The original post is an example of making flight model complaints without providing evidence to support them.

 

My guesses:

 

- There are a lot of complaint threads about the Spitfire XIV having a slow response and tendency to oscillate in the pitch axis (making marksmanship/aiming hard). It does feel very different from other aircraft. It also might be the way the real thing handled? It is that type of detailed aspect of aerodynamics where it is hard to get solid historical data.

 

- I'm not sure about the Fw-190A3, except I can say that it is a bit too nice to fly. It flies like a dream. Much better harmonisation of controls than any other Fw-190... of course, that could be because it is an early short-nosed variant.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Bussard* said:

Nice! New features are always welcome.

Do have any news for us regarding the missing fuel gauge switch controls i.e. for the Fw 190?

 

Nothing yet, no. 

[DD_Arthur]

37 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

The original post is an example of making flight model complaints without providing evidence to support them.

 

My guesses:

 

- I'm not sure about the Fw-190A3, except I can say that it is a bit too nice to fly. It flies like a dream. Much better harmonisation of controls than any other Fw-190... of course, that could be because it is an early short-nosed variant.

Yeah. Let’s leave the A3 alone.

It’s the best representation of the FW190 in any flight sim ever made.