Brief Room Episode 3: Questions and Answers Session

[Yogiflight]

5 hours ago, LukeFF said:

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

What about per-engine commands for water and oil radiator flaps commands?

water and oil for Bf 110

water for Me 410

oil for He 111

[blitze]

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

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

DLSS is proprietary tech but it  seems people  are able to Mod DLSS games to support alternatives be it Intel's or AMD's  open tech.

To be honest I have looked  at upscaling for VR purposes and find leaving it off and just using VR SS  is the better way to go.  Not sure why but when the headset if level on the horizontal  plane -  there is jagginess but tilting  on the horizontal axis a little  -  it goes  away.  Maybe it is an engine issue with  Antistrophic Filtering over distance.

MSAA  can clear it up  but you need to still run a decent SS res and it instills quite a penalty to run it.

 

Anyway - we'll see what the new tech brings to the table. 

[LukeFF]

43 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

What about per-engine commands for water and oil radiator flaps commands?

water and oil for Bf 110

water for Me 410

oil for He 111

 

I'll have to check. 

[Gunfreak]

On 1/20/2024 at 7:47 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

Glad clickpits are off the table.  I won't spend $50+ per aircraft just to increase my work load for something I do for fun.

Also I think CountZero's plane list is pretty much spot on.  I would add the Skyraider, Tu2, Sea Fury and or Firefly as collectables.

Clod aircraft don't cost 50 dollars per aircraft.

I can't tell you how much having clickable cockpits would help in IL2.

Since IL2 is such a old crappy engine. 3/4th of my buttons and switches doesn't work in IL2. Would help me a lot to being able to control flaps and landing gears would with the mouse would help me a lot.

In clod which also have some trouble with my flight gear(though works better than IL2) I just use the mouse to flip flaps and gears. 

[DD_Arthur]

33 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Clod aircraft don't cost 50 dollars per aircraft.

I can't tell you how much having clickable cockpits would help in IL2.

Since IL2 is such a old crappy engine. 3/4th of my buttons and switches doesn't work in IL2. Would help me a lot to being able to control flaps and landing gears would with the mouse would help me a lot.

In clod which also have some trouble with my flight gear(though works better than IL2) I just use the mouse to flip flaps and gears. 

 

Ludicrous.  

[BlitzPig_EL]

Your controller problems are yours, not the game's.

I'm still using a CH Pro Throttle and a CH Throttle Quadrant that I started using back in the original IL2, though I now have a VKB stick.

 

How old is your kit and what is it?

 

Edited January 21, 2024 by BlitzPig_EL

[Gunfreak]

8 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Your controller problems are yours, not the game's.

I'm still using a CH Pro Throttle and a CH Throttle Quadrant that I started using back in the original IL2, though I now have a VKB stick.

 

How old is your kit and what is it?

 

Winwing, virpil and Brunner. To new and too much for IL2 to handle. Only axis and a few buttons work. Not even trim hat works in IL2 i have to bind it to an axis. DCS works perfect and Clod mostly works. At least trim hats works in clod.

[Dagwoodyt]

3 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Winwing, virpil and Brunner. To new and too much for IL2 to handle. Only axis and a few buttons work. Not even trim hat works in IL2 i have to bind it to an axis. DCS works perfect and Clod mostly works. At least trim hats works in clod.

Why present your problems as defects inherent in any of these sims?

[Rjel]

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

Winwing, virpil and Brunner. To new and too much for IL2 to handle. Only axis and a few buttons work. Not even trim hat works in IL2 i have to bind it to an axis. DCS works perfect and Clod mostly works. At least trim hats works in clod.

I've used my hat for trim control for years without an issue. But then, I only have a crappy Thrustmaster T16000. Still it works.

[DD_Arthur]

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

Winwing, virpil and Brunner. To new and too much for IL2 to handle. Only axis and a few buttons work. Not even trim hat works in IL2 i have to bind it to an axis. DCS works perfect and Clod mostly works. At least trim hats works in clod.

This is operator error. 

Your ‘trim hat’ doesn’t work in GBS because trim in just about all WW2 era aircraft was set by turning a wheel driving a spindle, hence it must be either bound to or treated as an axis.

Examine your assignments again with this in mind.

 

 

 

Edited January 22, 2024 by DD_Arthur

[Enceladus828]

2 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Clod aircraft don't cost 50 dollars per aircraft.

Even in MSFS not everything is clickable so this price model of $50+ per aircraft is based on DCS' in which everything is clickable. When CloD first came out in 2011 it costed $50 which is worth $70 today and had 14 flyable planes excluding modifications so you do have merit with your statement. But please see the below.

 

2 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

I can't tell you how much having clickable cockpits would help in IL2.

Since IL2 is such a old crappy engine. 3/4th of my buttons and switches doesn't work in IL2. Would help me a lot to being able to control flaps and landing gears would with the mouse would help me a lot.

Jason stated here: " I'm sorry, but we are not going to make clickable cockpits for the Great Battles series. To even attempt that at this point, is a fools errand. Way way too much work the engine is not designed for it. This is something that has to be included from the very start to work as you would like it to."

 

If there is going to be major revisions to the game engine or aircraft systems, I would want that time to be spent on much needed things like improved engine DMs, hydraulic failures causing gear to come down, Drop Tanks, radio comms and commands, large amounts of aircraft and ships, and a host of other things than seeing clickable cockpits. Yes I agree that there are things which clickable cockpits would benefit from like magnetos, fuel selectors and trim, the devs are better off implementing the above.

[=621=Samikatz]

7 hours ago, Gavrick said:

What do you mean?

 

Re: The Fw-190A3, the low speed handling with flaps dropped is extremely stable and easy to control up to very high angles of attack. Even deep into a stall you can swing the nose up and aim the guns at people. The rest of the Fw-190 series feels much more believable in comparison

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

9 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

 

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.

I agree with your sentiments.

9 hours ago, Gavrick said:

What do you mean?

From a real life Spitfire pilot (ZachariasX):

 

Edited January 22, 2024 by drewm3i-VR

[Lusekofte]

10 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

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.

Well they did list ambitions about improvement that goes beyond Dx 12 , but as you said, everything they said was to be improved was in a tone , like they did not believe it themselves 

[Gambit21]

11 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

 

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.

 

Aye - at least.

 

[US103_Baer]

On 1/20/2024 at 9:34 PM, RedeyeStorm said:

Not what was said. They said that they do not have proper sources to make changes. That is not the same as will not. And that book (no idea which one is being reffered to) lacks a proper mention of the sources used and therefore cannot be used by them. They even called on the author to add them.

 

You're correct on the point that they said they're open to data, and @LukeFFhas responded that they know there are issues with the FMs. 

 

Do have a look at this more detailed response from the author himself.  

The idea that the book (which I do own), lacks source data and references is very hard to understand and comes across as an excuse.

 

Edited January 22, 2024 by US103_Baer

[357th_KW]

In the video there was a mention of the devs being open to making new triggers and such for the mission editor.  Where is the appropriate place to make such a request?  @LukeFF

Edited January 22, 2024 by 357th_KW

[Gambit21]

On 1/20/2024 at 4:39 PM, 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.

No, bad example. They couldn’t do Kuban - not really.

Open it in the mission editor and you’ll see that what should be Russian steppe is instead rubber-stamped, repeated generic farm textures. That’s ,3/4 of the damn map.

 

It’s by and large a horrible map - mountains notwithstanding.

 

This approach isn’t going to cut it anymore.

 

 

 

[US103_Baer]

On 1/20/2024 at 10:04 AM, LukeFF said:

That wasn't Han's conclusion - what he is saying is this new book cannot be the sole reason to change the flight models. Our engineers have their own methodology for creating and revising these flight models and if/when there is time they will be looked at. They are well aware of what WWI planes need another look, including those that could do with an engine variant modification. Hang in there. ?

Understand, and thanks for the additional info. It's something. 

Unfortunately gotta mention, that adding more horsepower to a dodgy FM isn't really a solution. 

[Gambit21]

14 minutes ago, US103_Baer said:

Unfortunately gotta mention, that adding more horsepower to a dodgy FM isn't really a solution. 

He wasn’t saying anything of the sort,

[Robli]

7 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Winwing, virpil and Brunner. To new and too much for IL2 to handle. Only axis and a few buttons work.

 

Btw, you can download SimApp Pro from Winwing website and get it compatible with IL-2 with one simple selection. Other than that, clickable cockpits are not really needed, unless systems are really deeply modeled. Even in DCS when I fly warbirds then the clickable part is only the start-up for me, as all the fuses and stuff are easier to just click than remember, but other than that all flight and combat related are mapped on HOTAS anyway. Especially for you, if you have lots of high-end controllers with loads and loads of buttons and switches, I wonder why would you want to play around with a mouse.

[US103_Baer]

10 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

He wasn’t saying anything of the sort,

 

A RoF/FC user will know what's meant. I didn't explain further because its not an FM discussion thread but essentially a couple of the prime candidates for engine variants also have the most magical FMs.

[IckyATLAS]

On 1/21/2024 at 3:35 AM, CountZero said:

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.

 

Right not much difference to justify the price. So let's double down and have them propose the Twin Mustang, you will get two P51-D for one ? .

They can also propose the Skyraider that started in Korea. So we could expect at least four propeller planes or five with the B29.

 

Now regarding your comment in case people like Jets and PTO would fade out of view and move to Viet-Nam. You are perfectly right. This is a big danger, because then we will have gone into DCS direction and in the end only Combat Pilot if they pull it off will stay on my drives.

 

I am not at all interested into jets with over the horizon missiles to shoot down planes you don't see, where flying and combat is just looking down at screens and playing with buttons. Maybe it is more in line with the new gen players used to have all day long their head staring to their mobile screen and typing instead of looking around the real world.

 

It's like tanks and horses. I prefer a cavalry charge with lances and sabers with horses, than a tank battalion charging. 

 

But It seems strange because I do fly FPV drone with a helmet in the real world. So the drone is real but the image of the world is digital.

My way of making a difference is to say that in the WWII scenarios the sim is with a "simulated plane" in a "simulated world". A jet scenario would be a "simulated plane" in a "digital world" which I do not like.

 

What is the difference between "simulated world" and "digital world" you may ask.

The first one is seeing the world around you to fly and fight. That world will try to be simulated as realistically as possible, because it is important to have it.

The second one is a bunch of MFD screens, or cathode ray radar screens (older models), sensors, missile, radars, many electronic sounds and alarms all this through screens and buttons that represent the environment around you. In the "Digital World of Jets" you do have some "Simulated World" but it does not bring much, as the instruments are paramount.

[YoYo]

On 1/20/2024 at 11:19 AM, kendo said:

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.

 

Honestly, I wonder why they want to release another few collectors models if "BoX" won't be developed further anyway. Since we won't get any new maps here (apart from 2 developed by fans) and a new the whole theater, I don't see any point in buying anything for my collection for "BoX". I still have a lot of planes that I may have only flown for 3-6 hours and many scripted campaigns never touched by me. 

 

I think it's a mistake, they should go the way DCS did - they changed the game engine (few times) but the content remained (always with the user). I understand that it would probably require some work on the part of 1CGS, but it would make sense for customers. If Korea comes out (probably as Early Access this year, I think so), I will switch to Korea and probably not go back to BoX, on the old engine so why should I buy anything if the life cycle of a product titled "Battle of..." is just ending?

 

 

Btw. Of course, I know that some people still use, for example, FSX or even IL-2 1946, but that is a thing of the past.

[Avimimus]

6 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

Understand, and thanks for the additional info. It's something. 

Unfortunately gotta mention, that adding more horsepower to a dodgy FM isn't really a solution. 

 

What about less horsepower? Would that work? ?

[kestrel79]

I don't really get the argument for clickable cockpits. Unless you all like sitting on the runway for 30 minutes starting up the airplane before takeoff. I like how it currently works, everything is modeled, and it takes way less time. I think most users prefer this way.

 

I think most users just map everything to their HOTAS and button boxes anyways. I get it for more modern aircraft like in MSFS or DCS when their number pads and MFDs where having a mouse to click that stuff makes more sense. But for WW2, WW1, Korea. Current way is fine and a good balance.

[Lusekofte]

11 minutes ago, kestrel79 said:

don't really get the argument for clickable cockpits

They can argue all they want. Most of us fly DCS and knows exactly what click pits do. 
In this sim devs have said no from the very beginning and continued with a no. And in this I happen to agree with them. 
So it get a bit tiring. 

[Panzerlang]

I enjoyed click-pitting the Mig-15 in DCS, almost as much as shooting down Sabres during my brief foray into MP with it. I'd be just as happy however with everything mapped to my Virpil panels. Simply pressing "E" (or engine already running on the runway), yeah, it's not very immersive. But we'll get what we get, I seriously doubt that anything said in threads like these is going to make a jot of difference with the devs and, realistically, it shouldn't. Imagine standing behind a portrait painter and giving him suggestions over his shoulder.

[ACG_Bussard]

3 hours ago, YoYo said:

Honestly, I wonder why they want to release another few collectors models if "BoX" won't be developed further anyway. Since we won't get any new maps here (apart from 2 developed by fans) and a new the whole theater, I don't see any point in buying anything for my collection for "BoX". I still have a lot of planes that I may have only flown for 3-6 hours and many scripted campaigns never touched by me. 

 

I think it's a mistake, they should go the way DCS did - they changed the game engine (few times) but the content remained (always with the user). I understand that it would probably require some work on the part of 1CGS, but it would make sense for customers. If Korea comes out (probably as Early Access this year, I think so), I will switch to Korea and probably not go back to BoX, on the old engine so why should I buy anything if the life cycle of a product titled "Battle of..." is just ending?

 

Btw. Of course, I know that some people still use, for example, FSX or even IL-2 1946, but that is a thing of the past.

Why do they continue to offer collector's models for the old engine?

 

They simply hope they can sell as much as possible Uberplanes or modifications of existing planes during the next 2 - 3 years of development.  That´s all. Needless to say this is best possible soft landing for the loyal customers from the old, incompatible engine into the new, better realm.

[CountZero]

34 minutes ago, Bussard* said:

Why do they continue to offer collector's models for the old engine?

 

They simply hope they can sell as much as possible Uberplanes or modifications of existing planes during the next 2 - 3 years of development.  That´s all. Needless to say this is best possible soft landing for the loyal customers from the old, incompatible engine into the new, better realm.

 

MC205V, G.55, P-47M, Yak-9U, He-162, Bf-109G10... list goes on, planty to do for 2-3 years for GB collectors now that dont mather what map theyr on

[LukeFF]

10 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

In the video there was a mention of the devs being open to making new triggers and such for the mission editor.  Where is the appropriate place to make such a request?  @LukeFF

 

The Suggestions section would be best.

[SCG_motoadve]

Imagine getting new players, people who hardly know about WWII and the P51, I don't see Korea as a smart business idea, most people don't know or don't care about Korea.

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

When I first purchased IL2 back when it was a brand new thing, I knew next to nothing about the war in the east, even if I did build a Yak 9 1/72 Airfix kit back when I was a kid.  I think the argument against Korea being unknown is spurious, at best.

[BubiHUN]

What about custom weapon convergence? 

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, Bussard* said:

Why do they continue to offer collector's models for the old engine?

 

They simply hope they can sell as much as possible Uberplanes or modifications of existing planes during the next 2 - 3 years of development.  That´s all. Needless to say this is best possible soft landing for the loyal customers from the old, incompatible engine into the new, better realm.

 

Yep. Everything which fits into the existing modules or career modes on the "new" Odessa and Karelia maps is appreciated. There is still a few years before Korea is released after all.

[Avimimus]

 

4 hours ago, YoYo said:

Honestly, I wonder why they want to release another few collectors models if "BoX" won't be developed further anyway. Since we won't get any new maps here (apart from 2 developed by fans) and a new the whole theater, I don't see any point in buying anything for my collection for "BoX". I still have a lot of planes that I may have only flown for 3-6 hours and many scripted campaigns never touched by me. 

 

It'll probably be ten years or more before they revisit some of these theatres, so there will still be good reason to fly existing modules.

 

Also some aircraft would benefit existing maps. Think about existing modules: Imagine being able to intercept a Fw-189 in the campaign in Moscow. Flying an A-20G-1 with four 20mm cannons in Kuban. Conducting a patrol with a Pe-3 over Stalingrad. Doing coastal patrols with an Avenger over Normandy to protect the landings from S-Boats. Conducting a high altitude intercept of a Rumpler C.IV... etc.

 

Adding one or two aircraft can bring a considerable refresh to a lot of the existing maps.

 

P.S. That said, I do think it'd be ideal if they could somehow maintain backwards compatibility (much as how we can fly Flaming Cliffs 3 aircraft in DCS)... if they could keep the game engine common somehow without it slowing down development too much... well, it'd be a dream.

[kestrel79]

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

When I first purchased IL2 back when it was a brand new thing, I knew next to nothing about the war in the east, even if I did build a Yak 9 1/72 Airfix kit back when I was a kid.  I think the argument against Korea being unknown is spurious, at best.

 

This is my take as well. If it's good, people will play it and word will spread in the community. I didn't know what an IL-2 was in the early 2000s, but I played it because it was a great flight sim.

[Lusekofte]

3 hours ago, Hetzer-JG52 said:

Simply pressing "E" (or engine already running on the runway), yeah, it's not very immersive

You are in the root of the question. If they went DCS complexity clickpits do have a purpose. But flipping one switch in cockpit for startup is not quite immersive either. 
I rather have a complex realistic damage model

[Lusekofte]

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

When I first purchased IL2 back when it was a brand new thing, I knew next to nothing about the war in the east, even if I did build a Yak 9 1/72 Airfix kit back when I was a kid.  I think the argument against Korea being unknown is spurious, at best.

Now when I know what to expect from a long life with Il2 from hyperlobby to GB servers. 
in the start of Gb a fighter did not have only one fear like now , will the debris hit my plane? It was yet to be 

Korea with two űberplanes Mig and sabre will be a Mig and sabre fiesta, based on what we see today. Today you see even aqmb deliver mission where your crate 99% blows up if you fly anything else than high performance ac

Personally, with the gameplay presented today if you not in a squad flying fighters your dead. 
This is my subjective opinion because that is why I do not fly it anymore. I wished so bad for early PTO , Burma Philippines or New Guinea 

But the devs goes for shiny fast hard hitting cannons with Hollywood effect. I am not sceptic about Korea but they flirt with hardcore fighter pilots , which might be wise but they do not flirt with me. So I will sell Virpil hardware and gather my hardware and most importantly my widescreen 49 “ curved screen and migrate totally to clod. 
Because I prefer that gameplay. No loss for anyone. But I hope that answer your question. It is not Korea it is the priorities

[CUJO_1970]

23 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 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.

The British RAE considered the FW190 to be more agile and more maneuverable than the Spitfire V in everything but turning. Harmonization of controls? You do realize RAF test pilot Eric Brown said they were superb, among the best of any WW2 aircraft he flew. 
 

It also had the highest instantaneous rolling velocity and over all roll rate of any WW2 piston engine fighter the RAE tested and documented. The FW190A does not reach its historic rolling velocity in this sim and it never has…and the RAE tests were not even done with their best rolling FW…Many other aircraft roll way too fast and so the typical historic advantages the FW190 had historically do not exist in this sim. The later A-series A5, 6 and 8 should fly more like the A3 in this sim, not the other way around.

A mythology has grown up around the FW190A is this title where people think the FW190 must be a dog that can’t maneuver. These people don’t read books or flight reports from the era. The FW190 was every inch an air superiority dog fighter in WW2.