Brief Room Episode 3: Questions and Answers Session

[YoYo]

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

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.

 

They should think about it, even if it would be with a small fee from existing users (full price for new).

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

5 hours 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.

Got pay those developers some how.  Projects in a 3-4 year development cycle will empty the corporate wallet.  Personally,  I hope they produce a ton on FC collector planes during this period.   Would love a N24, an Alb D3, an eindecker, morane bullet, Hanriot float plane,  and some early 2 seaters.

[sniperton]

For me it's rather simple. If Korea can add something in gameplay value to what we have now, I'll buy it the first time it's sold discounted. Be it the scenery, be it the naval acpect, be it better communication with my allies. Otherwise I'll skip. As simple as that.

[Art-J]

Lack of relevant / correct maps and campaigns didn't prevent myriad of obscure aircraft models, versions and variants being implemented in old '46 so they'll sell alright in GB as well.

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 hour ago, Art-J said:

Lack of relevant / correct maps and campaigns didn't prevent myriad of obscure aircraft models, versions and variants being implemented in old '46 so they'll sell alright in GB as well.

Simpler time. I doubt that the cost of early 2000s development is relevant in current years.

[Art-J]

^ True that. I just understand what's been mentioned in the video, about customers who just fancy "uberplanes" or other favourites. Especially airquake crowd. They don't need correct maps to purchase and enjoy flying these aircraft. 

 

Damn, even I don't mind mismatched plane/map combo, flying PTO kites over Kuban map, which pretends to be New Guinea .

Edited January 23, 2024 by Art-J

[CountZero]

2 hours ago, Art-J said:

^ True that. I just understand what's been mentioned in the video, about customers who just fancy "uberplanes" or other favourites. Especially airquake crowd. They don't need correct maps to purchase and enjoy flying these aircraft. 

 

Damn, even I don't mind mismatched plane/map combo, flying PTO kites over Kuban map, which pretends to be New Guinea .

hey theres realy not big differance betwen Ta-152 and Yak-3 as collector and Ki-84b and F6F as collector for GB, nither have map to play on but all 4 would sell big time

[PatrickAWlson]

On 1/20/2024 at 8:27 AM, Avimimus said:

 

So this is my unbiased opinion: WWI flight models are hard and fluid dynamics is just as hard. I'm also, honestly, more concerned about the AI.

 

Agree 100%.  We will never get the FMs just right, but the AI should have a clue as to the relative strengths and weaknesses and use their plane accordingly at higher AI levels.  But hey, it's been 15 years.  Maybe in another decade or so.  

 

[Gambit21]

47 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Agree 100%.  We will never get the FMs just right, but the AI should have a clue as to the relative strengths and weaknesses and use their plane accordingly at higher AI levels.  

I’ve brought this up many times. That’s why Zero vs Wildcat was never going to work in this engine/current AI.

 

If they can’t work this out - might as well not bother. AI Wildcat need to make slashing passes, run, stay fast etc.

 

 

[Lusekofte]

23 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

I’ve brought this up many times. That’s why Zero vs Wildcat was never going to work in this engine/current AI.

 

If they can’t work this out - might as well not bother. AI Wildcat need to make slashing passes, run, stay fast etc.

 

 

Dive like the devil is after it etc. the new tech should be a different beast than what we have. Considering the fact of the day best ai to date is mscfs today shown by flandern fields. Next up is old IL2 but it took 10 + years to get there. Much more simplified but yet better in any way. And they do not have a ai guy. Clod , DCs and Gb got nothing really to brag about but latter can’t have more than a few planes. 
The list of improvements needed is long and tedious and a partly modernised game engine sound to me will not cut it. Honestly I believe starting from scratch like the new contender might just be simpler

[Blitzen]

8 hours ago, Art-J said:

Lack of relevant / correct maps and campaigns didn't prevent myriad of obscure aircraft models, versions and variants being implemented in old '46 so they'll sell alright in GB as well.

Found memories of hardly ever using: 

[BladeMeister]

1 hour ago, Lusekofte said:

flandern fields

Oh, oh, I remember fladern fields!

 

S!Blade<><

[T24_Martin]

Although Han said, that they are pretty good in VR compared to DCS, and IL-2 runs great in VR, there are some points which could improve it for IL-2.

 

DCS hast to advantages in VR...

 

I would love to see native OpenXR support. I avoid Steam VR wherever I can. 

 

The other thing is foveated rendering. Especially Quad Views. 

 

Both boost performance a lot. 

[MiGCap]

8 hours ago, Blitzen said:

Found memories of hardly ever using: 

 

 

I want the Focke-Wulf Triebflügler! 

[Lusekofte]

Looked at this video again. Basically they admit much of the criticism from the community, hard to see due to the smug attitude. 
They also admitted that P 40 an 47 is not fixed due to priorities. Somehow very camouflaged summed up all the shortcomings community has pointed out. 
Leaving me to believe there actually is going to be a substantial positive development of this game. 
What they lack is a presenter of news more in line with the western consumers. 
I think their public relation would benefit a great deal by stopping this secrecy 

[ST_Catchov]

It's not so much smug. They speak English very well but they really need to sort out the lip-sync and continuity. First thing you learn in film school.

[EAF19_Marsh]

On that note, and it only just now struck me, should this thread not be titled “BriefING Room”?

[LLv44_Damixu]

How about finally stepping up the game (literally) and provide with the soon coming Karelian front these few pivotal planes (like Brewster, Morane, Fokker) and introduce Finns as a faction. Create multitude of single player campaign for finns, germans and russians.
Probably the best long standing multiplayer experience will be in the Finnish server, I hope.

This should not be that hard to implement, I suppose.

Edited January 24, 2024 by LLv44_Damixu

[Youtch]

20 hours ago, T24_Martin said:

Although Han said, that they are pretty good in VR compared to DCS, and IL-2 runs great in VR, there are some points which could improve it for IL-2.

 

DCS hast to advantages in VR...

 

I would love to see native OpenXR support. I avoid Steam VR wherever I can. 

 

The other thing is foveated rendering. Especially Quad Views. 

 

Both boost performance a lot. 

Fully agree. It was very disappointing hearing that they are satisfied with VR performance "as-is" and do not consider that anything has to be done in that field.

 

If the only driver is that DCS had it worst and hence were required to do something about it, but nothing needs to be done for IL2, I am quite concerned for GB.

 

As of today no machine regardless of how beefy it might be can run new gen headset at full resolution and all settings max out-

- This alone shall be something screaming for optimizations to be done in VR field.

 

Beside most of the consumer just cannot afford a 4090 and hence are doomed to face poor VR performance or poor visual (including owner of 3080 GTX which is not a bad nor cheap graphic card).

 

Saying that DCS used to be worst is no consolation to people playing IL2 GB.

 

VR being the future for simulations, I don t understand why closing that door.

 

Some modders have already proposed some optimizations that can make a real difference, but unfortunately cannot be run in MP servers.

Incorporating it as part of the standard code, capitalizing on what the community can bring shall not require any massive investment and could be a quick win.

 

To be clear if we had to chose between paying 30 bucks just for a VR optimization at code level or 30 bucks for any type of additonal content in IL2, I am 100% convinced that the whole IL2 VR community will all be willing to pay for it and very glad about it. This is how much of the gap there is still in this field. 

After investing 2000+$ in VR for graphic card + headset, paying 30$ to gain 10-20% improvements in FPS or being able to increase the resolution or settings is an absolute no brainer.

 

[BubiHUN]

On 1/22/2024 at 7:12 PM, BubiHUN said:

What about custom weapon convergence? 

Fly-by sounds rework, German Gliders?

[Lusekofte]

4 hours ago, Youtch said:

VR being the future for simulations, I don t understand why closing that door.

That is not true. I know just as many leaving vr for head tracking. And I suspect that will continue until many of the problems you mentioned are sorted. It is quite a lot of things that constantly need fixed and every other year you buy a new one that most likely require new gpu and sim you fly need more ram. 
of course it is a lot of hallelujah in the start but that quickly cool down. As for now if you follow this trend your in for 4 k $ every second year. If simulators depend on VR in order to survive I believe simulators will have no future. 

[Gambit21]

32 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

That is not true. I know just as many leaving vr for head tracking. And I suspect that will continue until many of the problems you mentioned are sorted. It is quite a lot of things that constantly need fixed and every other year you buy a new one that most likely require new gpu and sim you fly need more ram. 
of course it is a lot of hallelujah in the start but that quickly cool down. As for now if you follow this trend your in for 4 k $ every second year. If simulators depend on VR in order to survive I believe simulators will have no future. 

Exactly.

You insist on VR, then you take the good with the bad - the end.

 

 

[RoteDreizehn]

2 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

That is not true. I know just as many leaving vr for head tracking. And I suspect that will continue until many of the problems you mentioned are sorted. It is quite a lot of things that constantly need fixed and every other year you buy a new one that most likely require new gpu and sim you fly need more ram. 
of course it is a lot of hallelujah in the start but that quickly cool down. As for now if you follow this trend your in for 4 k $ every second year. If simulators depend on VR in order to survive I believe simulators will have no future. 

 

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

Exactly.

You insist on VR, then you take the good with the bad - the end.

 

 

 

Using VR is absolutely mandatory for me in Flight Simulators. We play these Simulators totaly wrong as we mixed Monitor Users with VR Users on the same Servers.
For me an absolute total failure. Real pilot cant turn his neck 180 degree (Track-IR) - Did you ever tried it in a ASK13 or ASK21? 

Monitoring User who using their TrackIR are in advantage. So VR-User  can only use the Fkeys to avoid this. 
If we have on the servers (Combat-Box) only VR-User you dont get any neck problems...

>> Lusekofte:  If simulators depend on VR in order to survive I believe simulators will have no future. 
totally disagree. I cant play IL2/DCS without VR anymore. this is definitely future technology and must 
be provided in each Flight Sim. No one said that Flight Simulator Equiment is cheap on a PC. And 4000 Bucks
each 2 Years isnt expensive in my opinion..

Edited January 24, 2024 by RoteDreizehn

[Dagwoodyt]

Seems that VR HMD manufacturers are unable to sell to simulation gamers at a profit. The vast majority of existing VR HMD's are becoming "legacy" hardware. No wonder that the GB team seems to ignore questions about DFR/Quad View support when Varjo has ended Aero production. I will continue to use my Aero until it no longer functions, then fall back on my Index (if still functional at that time ?). Ancient TiR setup with various monitors I used only because there was no better option. The sim community loses should VR support go away even if one cheers the loss.

[Lusekofte]

Truth is HP will discontinue their vr and not as the first to do so. Crystal and vario is totally dependant on 4090 cards. 
the prices is not sustainable. If you are totally dependent on vr in order to fly simulator you better have a look on how different motivations people who simming have and hope your way is best. 
I know people flying with vario using a 10$ joystick 

I want a real feel of control and pay that price having 4 high end custom builds controls. That is where I have my immersion. 

I am not saying you do it wrong. But do not turn it into a religious thing. I fly with screen and with vr. My next cockpit project will be multiple screens with no vr. 

8 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

Seems that VR HMD manufacturers are unable to sell to simulation gamers at a profit

That is my point. As long as we are so few in need of this . Prices simply will not allow for being a games future. And Us vr users cannot expect a developer to only follow that path

Edited January 24, 2024 by Lusekofte

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

3 hours ago, RoteDreizehn said:

Using VR is absolutely mandatory for me in Flight Simulators. We play these Simulators totaly wrong as we mixed Monitor Users with VR Users on the same Servers.
For me an absolute total failure. Real pilot cant turn his neck 180 degree (Track-IR) - Did you ever tried it in a ASK13 or ASK21? 

Monitoring User who using their TrackIR are in advantage. So VR-User  can only use the Fkeys to avoid this. 
If we have on the servers (Combat-Box) having only VR-User you dont get any neck problems...

>> Lusekofte:  If simulators depend on VR in order to survive I believe simulators will have no future. 
totally disagree. I cant play IL2/DCS without VR anymore. this is definitely future technology and must 
be provided in each Flight Sim. No one said that Flight Simulator Equiment is cheap on a PC. And 4000 Bucks
each 2 Years isnt expensive in my opinion..

 

I don't think you are in disadvantage vs TIR, most VR use the instant app to  check 6. I don't like flying in VR ,I prefer 2D monitor, more fps,  less latency and uber clear graphics.

[Koziolek]

19 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

My next cockpit project will be multiple screens with no vr. 

 

Multiple good 4K monitors, GPU to run them. I am not so sure it will be cheaper than VR ? But I agree, the visuals will be better

[Youtch]

I have a reverb G2 and i am not pleased with the quality of the image, i strongly dislike how small the sweet spot is, the resolution is far away from what i can get in my 2K monitor, and quality settings is average, making me lose all the eye-candy, and it on the top of that it gets laggy from times to times, BUT...

 

I am incapable of switching back to 2D after flying in VR.

 

Nothing replace being in the cockpit.

 

Even taxiing or flying long distance formation is pure joy in VR, while monitor makes it the dullest thing ever.

 

My aiming in dogfight got to the sniper level also thanks to the stereo vision.

 

A good friend of mine is a jet pilot and i never managed to get him to have any interest in flying a flight sim with a monitor, he tried VR just recently and I could not get him out of the headset.

 

[Lusekofte]

4 minutes ago, Koziolek said:

Multiple good 4K monitors, GPU to run them. I am not so sure it will be cheaper than VR ? But I agree, the visuals will be better

I already have a 49” curved and monitors for systems are not that expencive. I am on my second set of vr both bought used. Just to show my enthusiasm 

I enjoy my flights in vr but they are too uncomfortable for me in long term. I done many years wreck diving with scuba. And I find it very similar.  But diving allows for only 30 minutes max at deep water. But flying take longer

Edited January 24, 2024 by Lusekofte

[Dagwoodyt]

I bought GB six years ago solely because it supported VR. It provided a rationale for buying a Rift CV-1. I've been through multiple HMD's. In 2021 I downloaded DCS for the first time and bought the I-16 module. Even if I were only doing takeoffs and landings in the DCS I-16 I would be satisfied with time and money spent on VR hardware. The community gains from VR. There is NO monitor replacement for VR.

[DD_Arthur]

57 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

I done many years wreck diving with scuba. And I find it very similar. 

I’ll come back to VR when 

 

a) I have to spend hundreds rather than thousands 

 

b) I can look like Roy Orbison rather than Jacques Cousteau 

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, RoteDreizehn said:

Using VR is absolutely mandatory for me in Flight Simulators. We play these Simulators totaly wrong as we mixed Monitor Users with VR Users on the same Servers.
For me an absolute total failure. Real pilot cant turn his neck 180 degree (Track-IR) - Did you ever tried it in a ASK13 or ASK21? 

Monitoring User who using their TrackIR are in advantage. So VR-User  can only use the Fkeys to avoid this. 
If we have on the servers (Combat-Box) only VR-User you dont get any neck problems...

>> Lusekofte:  If simulators depend on VR in order to survive I believe simulators will have no future. 
totally disagree. I cant play IL2/DCS without VR anymore. this is definitely future technology and must 
be provided in each Flight Sim. No one said that Flight Simulator Equiment is cheap on a PC. And 4000 Bucks
each 2 Years isnt expensive in my opinion..

‘shrug’
Sounds like me using my hat switch and flying against guys with head tracking back in the day. I did fine. I also knew that they had an advantage. I also knew that it was my choice to not use head tracking. 

[354thFG_Leifr]

VR will never be the future of video gaming, any more than 3D screens took off at the cinema or at home.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

If they don't support VR well enough and someone else does, I'm out and won't buy their next product. I know many who feel the same. The current VR performance and image quality could be much better. It is in no way "good enough." Just because DCS is garbage, doesn't mean GB has good VR performance. Winning some obscure, silly award doesn't change that either.

 

All of these changes should be implemented. @LukeFF Can you ask about making this apart of the base game so we can have it for multi-player?

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/86271-new-vr-performance-toolkit-rsf/

 

 

2 minutes ago, 86th_Leifr said:

VR will never be the future of video gaming, any more than 3D screens took off at the cinema or at home.

It is the present and future of flight simming though.

Edited January 24, 2024 by drewm3i-VR

[RoteDreizehn]

23 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

If they don't support VR well enough and someone else does, I'm out and won't buy their next product. I know many who feel the same. The current VR performance and image quality could be much better. It is in no way "good enough." Just because DCS is garbage, doesn't mean GB has good VR performance. Winning some obscure, silly award doesn't change that either.

 

All of these changes should be implemented. @LukeFF Can you ask about making this apart of the base game so we can have it for multi-player?

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/86271-new-vr-performance-toolkit-rsf/

 

 

It is the present and future of flight simming though.

>> Just because DCS is garbage, doesn't mean GB has good VR performance. Winning some obscure, silly award doesn't change that either.

Did you tried DCS 2.9? Kate and Devs did a lot with Multithreading. And I have only a 3950x CPU with a 4090 and FPS increases 10-15 FPS. Also 

Vulkan will be out which will increase Frames. My VR Frames with all Full is between 50 - 60 FPS. Sometimes when there is much traffic it goes down
to 40-45 FPS. But this is no suprise as I have a 5 Year old CPU. My System is in CPU Limit and I cant use 4090 to 100%.

 

IL2 does some Mistake in the history. They didnt improve their Engine from time to time as Eagle it does. 

Maybe they include Multithreading then we will gain more VR FPS...
 

Edited January 24, 2024 by RoteDreizehn

[Lusekofte]

54 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

they don't support VR well enough and someone else does

All newer sim will support VR. All I say is we are not that big group. We are not making anyone afraid 

[Gambit21]

33 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

All newer sim will support VR. All I say is we are not that big group. We are not making anyone afraid 

 

 

☝️

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

2 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

All newer sim will support VR. All I say is we are not that big group. We are not making anyone afraid 

When anyone can pick up a Quest 4 or 5 and run it well on a modern mid-range gaming laptop or desktop, which will be the case in 3-4 years, almost everyone will be in VR. The hardware is good to great now, it's the software that's lacking. Even when I upgraded from a gaming laptop with an ancient i7 14nm 2070/Rift S to a 5800X3D 3080/G2, the experience didn't get infinitely better because the bottleneck is the software. Han's comments show he doesn't play his own game in VR. The micro and macro stuttering is so bad these days.

Edited January 25, 2024 by drewm3i-VR

[MiGCap]

2D is drone piloting, VR is flying.

I will never go back to 2D. Without VR I would quit playing flight sims. And nearly all of the guys I flew with on MP (IL-2 GB and DCS) think the same way.

Except one who bought a used G2 which was broken ... bad experience. But we will get him also in the future.

[Lusekofte]

49 minutes ago, MiGCap said:

2D is drone piloting, VR is flying.

I will never go back to 2D. Without VR I would quit playing flight sims. And nearly all of the guys I flew with on MP (IL-2 GB and DCS) think the same way.

Except one who bought a used G2 which was broken ... bad experience. But we will get him also in the future.

Well I am not here to argue how you feel. To me it is too uncomfortable and too much hassle in order to fully enjoy. I fly a lot without vr. In fact I feel great about those flights too. I am in no way dependant in vr. In fact with more sophisticated modules it is more a setback than advantage. But each to his own. The development of bigger more clumsy headset is to me a setback and evolvement backwards. It has in no way proved itself to be a successful marked and I will not invest in any new set until prices and size decline.