Suggestions for Improvements

[SupremeLoser]

I wanted to start of by saying that I absolutely love this wonderful combat flying simulation and greatly appreciate the updates! I am addicted to flying in VR and can spend hours flying P-51s, Spitfires and pretty much anything else over the beautiful scenery and enjoying the sounds of the engines and feel of flight! Let alone the thrill of combat! That said, below are some things I would like to suggest to improve the simulation even further. The simpler items are at the top. The "issues" are things I hope can be corrected. The rest are dreams of mine :). I would certainly be willing to buy the expansion packs if they become available!

Issues:
- When loading the next screen, the VR view is still shown but it then freezes (understandably) which looks bad. Suggest the screen go completely blank and the "loading" pop up only display.
- On the home screen in the hanger the grass outside in the distance appears to be a vertical wall instead of the expected horizontal surface.
- The engine sound pitch changes with the amount of manifold pressure at constant engine rpm. The engine sound pitch should only change with engine rpm. Manifold pressure should only affect the engine volume and load sounds.
- For certain larger aircraft the force feedback starts to vibrate uncontrollably once a certain normal flight speed is reached. This appears to be a bug.
- The language used in communications should not be locked in by the aircraft, but by the current selected nation. For example, if one has a Spitfire with English badging, one should hear UK English.

Enhancements:
- Have a user manual for the plane available in the game and in the hanger. The manual should have all the details about the aircraft including a visual instrument panel description, engine/aircraft performance graphs and data, etc.
- Allow user to walk around and look at airplane in more detail in the hanger, remove engine cover to see engine, zoom in, etc. It would be wonderful to see the engines in detail on these magnificent aircraft.
- It would be neat to be able to work on the airplane when in the hanger. Do repairs, pull the engine, fill up with fuel and ammunition. This isn't absolutely necessary, but it sure would add to the fun.
- Could the maps be connected into a complete world of the region? For example, all of western Europe? This would allow longer missions, such as bombing missions from London to Berlin.

Requests for additions (each one of these would be an expansion pack to buy):
- Battle of Britain including the early aircraft models used, the greater London area mapped
- Maps with complete Paris, Berlin, Moscow
- Mediterranean theatre
- North Africa theatre
- Pacific theatre (this would be big, Japanese and American aircraft, Pearl Harbor, Tokyo, numerous islands, etc.)

Edited February 24, 2024 by Spitfire_Enthusiast1

[AEthelraedUnraed]

There's some nice suggestions there, but some of them are not feasible or downright impossible:

 

On 2/23/2024 at 9:03 PM, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

- On the home screen in the hanger the grass outside in the distance appears to be a vertical wall instead of the expected horizontal surface.

This is a common technique in games to improve performance by not needing to render outside terrain as well as keeping lighting simple.

 

On 2/23/2024 at 9:03 PM, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

- For certain larger aircraft the force feedback starts to vibrate uncontrollably once a certain normal flight speed is reached. This appears to be a bug.

The way you describe it, it does sound like a bug. If you post it in the Bug Reports forum, the Devs might be able to take a look at it. Note that they will need some more detailed info, at least which aircraft, which speed and which joystick you use. You can't expect the Devs to spend time and money to test every aircraft at every speed with every FFB joystick on the market, to eventually find out it's a configuration error on your side after all.

 

On 2/23/2024 at 9:03 PM, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

- The language used in communications should not be locked in by the aircraft, but by the current selected nation. For example, if one has a Spitfire with English badging, one should hear UK English.

It's already exactly the way you describe it. If I, for example, assign a P-51 the Russian nationality, the radio comms will be in Russian despite the aircraft never having flown in Russian front-line service.

 

However, for Quick Missions, the nationality is assigned according to the map+plane, I think.

 

On 2/23/2024 at 9:03 PM, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

- Have a user manual for the plane available in the game and in the hanger. The manual should have all the details about the aircraft including a visual instrument panel description, engine/aircraft performance graphs and data, etc.

Much data (speed, engine settings, notes, etc.) is already available from the map menu. I do very much agree however with your idea of a visual instrument panel description, annotated with which instrument is what, similar to what has already been done for the Tank Crew vehicles.?

 

On 2/23/2024 at 9:03 PM, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

- Allow user to walk around and look at airplane in more detail in the hanger, remove engine cover to see engine, zoom in, etc. It would be wonderful to see the engines in detail on these magnificent aircraft.
- It would be neat to be able to work on the airplane when in the hanger. Do repairs, pull the engine, fill up with fuel and ammunition. This isn't absolutely necessary, but it sure would add to the fun.

Someone would need to program this functionality, which is vastly different from anything done so far. Also, a higher level of detail would need to be created for parts of the aircraft (especially the engine), as well as more moving parts be introduced (engine covers etc.). Besides taking up a *lot* of time to design this all, this would put more strain on the user's hardware, possibly leading to framerate issues.

 

On 2/23/2024 at 9:03 PM, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

- Could the maps be connected into a complete world of the region? For example, all of western Europe? This would allow longer missions, such as bombing missions from London to Berlin.

No. Besides the fact that filling the map with cities and stuff takes ages (each of the large maps currently in game took about 2-3 years to complete), the current game engine isn't designed to support maps of the necessary size.

 

On 2/23/2024 at 9:03 PM, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

Requests for additions (each one of these would be an expansion pack to buy):
- Battle of Britain including the early aircraft models used, the greater London area mapped
- Maps with complete Paris, Berlin, Moscow
- Mediterranean theatre
- North Africa theatre
- Pacific theatre (this would be big, Japanese and American aircraft, Pearl Harbor, Tokyo, numerous islands, etc.)

In the current engine and with the current amount of money the Devs are willing/able to spend, maps cannot have big cities (this excludes London, Paris, Moscow and Berlin, and also is the reason why the former three don't appear on respectively the Normandy and Moscow maps) or be too large in size (this excludes your final three options, although smaller sub-sections are possible.

 

Note that the next map has already been semi-announced as Korea, and that this will come with an updated game engine that might very well be in a separate game.

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

However, for Quick Missions, the nationality is assigned according to the map+plane, I think.

 

It's based on the skin one chooses on the main setup screen, so for instance in the P-40 you can end up with US, British, or Soviet comms, plus the correct pilot model and tactical codes.

[Enceladus828]

On 2/23/2024 at 12:03 PM, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

- Mediterranean theatre
- North Africa theatre

To elaborate on these, the Invasion of Sicily can be done; large cities like Naples and Rome can be excluded and it would bring a great plane set with the Beaufighter Mk. X, flyable B-25, P-40F, P-38G, A-36, MC 205 and SM.79. I'm not convinced that the area would be too urban.

 

With North Africa, if you're referring to the Tobruk area then no. It's already covered in great detail in Desert Wings-Tobruk and trying to recreate in in IL-2 GBs just for the sake of people who want to fly over the Libyan-Egyptian desert in GBs wouldn't be worth it when there are many places that haven't been explored which would be more appealing to players. However, that doesn't mean there cannot be a TC El Alamein installment or a Battle of Tunisia. With the Tunisia map it can also be used if players want to do the Siege of Malta and Operation Husky scenarios -- a 3 in 1 map.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

It's based on the skin one chooses on the main setup screen, so for instance in the P-40 you can end up with US, British, or Soviet comms, plus the correct pilot model and tactical codes.

Ah, thanks for the correction. In that case, the advice to the OP would be to choose the skin on the quick mission map, not in the hangar after you've generated the mission. Also note that if you use custom skins, the game doesn't have a way of knowing which country it is for so it'll likely default to a specific one.

 

39 minutes ago, Enceladus828 said:

To elaborate on these, the Invasion of Sicily can be done; large cities like Naples and Rome can be excluded and it would bring a great plane set with the Beaufighter Mk. X, flyable B-25, P-40F, P-38G, A-36, MC 205 and SM.79. I'm not convinced that the area would be too urban.

It was my big hope for the new module, but that turns out to be Korea... Still a good choice and I'm looking forward to it, but I'm nevertheless a bit saddened that it's not Sicily.

 

43 minutes ago, Enceladus828 said:

With North Africa, if you're referring to the Tobruk area then no. It's already covered in great detail in Desert Wings-Tobruk and trying to recreate in in IL-2 GBs just for the sake of people who want to fly over the Libyan-Egyptian desert in GBs wouldn't be worth it when there are many places that haven't been explored which would be more appealing to players.

Yeah I agree that the chances of getting an official Tobruk map are all but nil. However, I do have some hopes of getting a player-made one someday. It seems to be one of the easiest areas to make: not much variation in terrain (textures), uncomplicated buildings, little foliage, few towns...

 

In fact, if there are any good 3d modelers out there, drop me a message and perhaps we can come up with something

[SupremeLoser]

Thanks for the detailed explanations!  Makes sense why we can't have big cities, nor extended regions, not showing all the details of the engine and such.  I can live without those things in return for the greatness of the rest of this simulation.

 

Also, I'm a little embarrassed to say this, but the supposed "bug" I thought I was experiencing with the force feedback vibrating was due to the cowl flaps being open too much at higher speeds. Ooops!  No bug!

 

The point about the vertical wall of grass outside the hangar only occurs in the hangar view during setup of the aircraft prior to a mission.  Not a deal breaker at all, but I figured it would be a simple fix (or simpler)?  For example, if one just rendered a basic environment like when in the flying part of the game there, the issue would be resolved (no vertical walls of grass in the actual simulation part).

 

Another issue I hope gets resolved is the engine sound.  The engines sound GREAT and realistic, as far as I know.  The issue I have is with the engine sound pitch changes not being quite accurate.  For example, fly a P-51 and put the throttle at 61" and 3000rpm.  Don't touch the throttle and climb at a steady 2-3K ft/min.  As you climb from say 10-13k ft and also from 21kft and higher, while keeping the engine at 3000rpm steady, as the manifold pressure starts to drop from 61" you will hear the sound pitch of the engine drop.  This is not what would happen!  The sound pitch of the engine you hear should be based solely on the engine rpm.  That's it.  So the engine sound pitch should remain constant in this demonstrated case.  What would change with the decrease in manifold pressure, but same engine rpm?  The volume of the sound, slightly.  The engine volume (and other sounds) already correctly changes with load (manifold pressure) on the engine, so no need to correct that part of the engine sound.  Thus, I think the engine sound pitch correction should be quite simple.  In fact, I am guessing it would actually be simpler than the current (incorrect?) logic for determining the engine sound pitch.  Anyway, not a huge deal either, but I think it is important to technically hear the engine correctly.  For example, if I were driving a car simulation, I would not expect the engine sound pitch to change when cruising down the road at 70mph in top gear and then giving it a little more throttle so as to maintain the same speed going uphill.  The engine rpm would not change.  The volume would change slightly as there is a little more load on the engine.  Hope this explanation is clear :).

 

The Korea map sounds very enticing!  I am guessing that means the Korean War and the planes that were involved?   For example, the Mig 15 and F-86 Sabre jets along with the F-51D Mustang and La-9 prop planes.  There were others, but just this core set would be enough for 90% of the combat.  The Hawker Sea Fury would be a great one to add if possible.  It was the one prop plane to be successful once against a jet.  Didn't happen again as far as I know.  Also, maybe will have the ability to takeoff/land on carriers?

Edited March 2, 2024 by Spitfire_Enthusiast1

[AEthelraedUnraed]

On 3/2/2024 at 8:30 AM, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

The Korea map sounds very enticing!  I am guessing that means the Korean War and the planes that were involved?   For example, the Mig 15 and F-86 Sabre jets along with the F-51D Mustang and La-9 prop planes.  There were others, but just this core set would be enough for 90% of the combat.  The Hawker Sea Fury would be a great one to add if possible.  It was the one prop plane to be successful once against a jet.  Didn't happen again as far as I know.  Also, maybe will have the ability to takeoff/land on carriers?

It's not been announced officially yet, so we know little of the exact map and planeset. However, there are a couple of screenshots out there of the following:

- Yak-9P

- F4U "Corsair"

- IL-10

- B-29

 

With the above planes, it looks as if we're getting an early Korean War scenario, i.e. Pusan perimeter. I don't count on carriers since they already semi-announced a while ago that they wouldn't be doing those for the next module.

[SupremeLoser]

On 3/4/2024 at 8:44 AM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

It's not been announced officially yet, so we know little of the exact map and planeset. However, there are a couple of screenshots out there of the following:

- Yak-9P

- F4U "Corsair"

- IL-10

- B-29

 

With the above planes, it looks as if we're getting an early Korean War scenario, i.e. Pusan perimeter. I don't count on carriers since they already semi-announced a while ago that they wouldn't be doing those for the next module.

Thanks for sharing! Have to take what we can get.  Not the end of the world without carriers, as I could see that would add a lot of programming complexity.  That would be quite interesting to have B-29s, especially if they are flyable.  If they are non-player planes only, it would be ok with me though.  I hope they also have the F-51Ds though.  And I really hope they add the infamous "Mig Alley" and have the corresponding Mig vs Sabre jets... even if it is add-on module that we pay for later.

 

From what I gather, the efficient use of programming is to add single and two-engine planes along with scenery that doesn't have massive cities.  Four engine bombers, carriers and metropolises are to be avoided as it adds a lot of programming complexity that the IL-2 Great Battles platform was not designed for.  At least, that is my interpretation.... I'm not a software engineer/programmer on this project, though I am an software engineer by profession... so I understand the issue I think.

Edited March 6, 2024 by Spitfire_Enthusiast1

[AEthelraedUnraed]

21 minutes ago, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

From what I gather, the efficient use of programming is to add single and two-engine planes along with scenery that doesn't have massive cities.  Four engine bombers, carriers and metropolises are to be avoided as it adds a lot of programming complexity that the IL-2 Great Battles platform was not designed for.  At least, that is my interpretation.... I'm not a software engineer/programmer on this project, though I am an software engineer by profession... so I understand the issue I think.

Kind of correct, only that it is more of a design/performance issue than a programming one. Large cities take a lot of effort to design, and a lot of GPU power to render. That said, they're in the process of massively improving the game engine so who knows

 

For the same reasons, four-engine planes like the B-29 are more costly to develop, so I personally don't expect to see a flyable B-29. But again, who knows.

 

I think I recall Han (the lead producer) saying that they'd want to do a PTO map after this, so we might see carriers after all in a few years. Of course, Jason's (the old lead producer) new PTO-focused sim might influence those plans if it is successful, as it would be an obvious competitor to IL2.

[SupremeLoser]

Thanks for that information! I took a look at the link for the PTO focused sim... wow!  Detailed 3d modelling of the engine?  Wow!  It looks like this sim will take it to the next level.  Still an IL-2 diehard fan however.  I really like the "feel" of the aircraft in this sim in VR.  Even compared to say, Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 and probably 2024.

 

I use an old Microsoft Sidewinder Force Feedback 2 flight stick and there just doesn't seem to be anything like it available.  I read it had to do with a patent with the FF technology, though I also saw that there is now a workaround that.  But with FF it really makes IL-2 come alive.  The subtleties in the feel, weight and flight characteristics of each plane are captured to make one really appreciate the work put into this sim and also literally put you in the pilot's seat.  Especially in VR!  VR is another subject of its own.  Since going to flying in VR, I just can't go back ever to a flat screen, no matter how big or high res it may be.  After experiencing VR, using monitors seems so...well 20th century!  

Edited March 7, 2024 by Spitfire_Enthusiast1

[Aapje]

@Spitfire_Enthusiast1

 

Brunner makes FF joysticks if you are willing to spend the big bucks. VPforce RHINO also makes them for a bit cheaper.

[SupremeLoser]

4 hours ago, Aapje said:

@Spitfire_Enthusiast1

 

Brunner makes FF joysticks if you are willing to spend the big bucks. VPforce RHINO also makes them for a bit cheaper.

Thanks for that!  I took a look at both of them and they are things of beauty!  But you aren't kidding when you say big bucks.  That is close to my system cost once you have everything you would need  .  But, the day I become a wealthy man...

[Aapje]

16 hours ago, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

Thanks for that!  I took a look at both of them and they are things of beauty!  But you aren't kidding when you say big bucks.  That is close to my system cost once you have everything you would need  .  But, the day I become a wealthy man...

Force Feedback was never all that popular and most consumers who are willing to spend more than the basics seem to have decided that they rather have other features like more buttons, a separate HOTAS, reliability, etc than to have force feedback.

 

And you then get a downward spiral where game support is also not that great, because few people have FF, so the developers don't bother too much. For example, I've been told that FF is hit or miss in DCS, depending on the module. And the other part of the downward spiral is that the factory produced options disappeared, so now you only have the expensive hand-made versions left.

 

An issue is also that flight simming itself has become more niche. I remember when regular gamers would play these kind of games, but most gamers now never seem to play them.

 

On the other hand, some crucial patents seem to have expired in 2022 and perhaps market conditions will change in the future. For example, perhaps once you can run VR on a $300 GPU, VR gamers will want to take the next step in immersion and will be willing to get FF sticks. Or perhaps one of the big studio's looks at the succes of MSFS 2020/2024 and will decide to make a big budget combat sim and give it so much marketing that regular gamers will play it and the demand for joysticks will skyrocket, causing Thrustmaster to pull their thumb out and come up with a proper replacement for the Warthog, which in turn will push one of VKB, Virpil & Winwing into developing a FF stick to not be crushed by the Thrustmaster marketing machine. Or perhaps someone like you who still loves FF will be put in charge in a crucial position at a game company or a hardware company and they will push for this.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

45 minutes ago, Aapje said:

Force Feedback was never all that popular

Were  popular in Rise of Flight,I know many players which use it and they still do in GB. I'm talking about MSFF2 one of the best in that time, they still working since 2004.  Ppl would buy more but we need a good and adorable FF joystick.

Edited March 9, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[[CPT]Crunch]

If I was going to invest $1500+ in a FFB stick I'd just wait and save up more for a $3500+ six DOF motion platform and get some real feed back.

[Aapje]

On 3/9/2024 at 2:35 PM, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Were popular in Rise of Flight,I know many players which use it and they still do in GB.

 

Yes, but I think that if you look at popularity of the flight sim category, the 90's were really the heyday of the genre, with major publishers making the games. In the early 2000's that ended and small companies took over.

 

Microsoft probably made their FF joysticks in large part because they made Combat Flight Simulator and MSFS. But Microsoft pretty much abandoned the entire genre from 2006 to 2020, and even their comeback with MSFS 2020 was only as a publisher for a small studio.

 

Of course, the success of MSFS 2020 surprised everyone (although COVID may have played a major role). But I would like for one of the bigger publishers to at least try again to make a combat flight sim or pair up with an indie and then put their marketing behind that. I would argue that Sony at the very least should really have released a combat flight sim game for the PS5 with PSVR2 support, because it would have played to the strength of the PSVR2.

 

And then companies like MSFS or Thrustmaster might be interested in making a mass market FF joystick, but for that you probably need mass market flight sims first.

 

9 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

If I was going to invest $1500+ in a FFB stick I'd just wait and save up more for a $3500+ six DOF motion platform and get some real feed back.

Yeah, if you have a VR setup with a 4090, then a motion platform seems like the next step.

 

Although the 6-axis system is more like $5700, so a 3-axis system seems way better value, and safer too.

Edited March 11, 2024 by Aapje

[SupremeLoser]

I am just glad that I have a MS FF joystick and VR.  To me, those two things really make the difference in immersing you into the plane and really feeling the plane's motion and feedback vs. just looking at a flat screen.  I was surprised when I first experienced VR that you also really "feel" the motion.  Apparently, your eyes give your brain feedback that gives you a sense of inertia.  Also, when in VR, it doesn't really matter what your joystick or seat setup looks like, unlike in the pre-VR days.  All of that melts away, and you don't see it at all... rather you get immersed in the 3d VR world.  What matters is simply the feel of the joystick, controls and seat.  At this end, I find the MS FF joystick and a good office chair more than satisfactory.  Without the FF, it really dulls the feel in IL-2 GB.  Likewise, not too sure of the benefit of 6-axis rotating platform.  I suppose you might feel a bit more, but you still won't feel the cornering G-force.  I'm back at the thought that the sense of motion just through the VR headset is close to being as good at a fraction of the cost.  For one thing, when flying a real plane you don't have the sense of gravity of the earth so much unless you are flying on the straight and level.  As soon as you introduce any sort of turning, diving or climbing... you introduce G-forces (especially in a fighter plane) that can completely mask the gravity of earth direction.  This is the reason there have been crashes in the past when instrument flying.  What feels like up really can be down or sideways in reality.  Thus, I am not sure of the benefit of 6-axis setup.... that would be more accurate for just static gravity, but not sure of the usefulness for simulating flying a fighter plane.

 

What I would like to see is further development with FF joysticks like the MS FF which is a real gem IMHO.  What it needs is a means of locking it to the table and also some optional pedals.  Perhaps a bigger throttle level with more travel, along with one for mixture/prop pitch.

 

A further development I would like to see someday are gloves you wear that would allow you to move your hands/fingers in the VR world.  This would potentially allow you to directly operate the various buttons, switches and levers in the cockpit without having to blindly press keys on the keyboard.  Gone would be the days even bothering to program the key inputs... imagine that!  It would be the next level of immersion in the VR world and with the right programming I think it would become natural feeling.  Especially if there is a way to have a sort of force feedback in the glove itself (in addition to having sensors at the finger tips and palm so to know the location of the hand/fingers).

 

I hope this doesn't come off as dismissive of those really creative and very finely built aircraft control systems above.  I think they are great for the right market (high end and particular customers).  I might consider one of them when I have more disposable income  

Edited March 14, 2024 by Spitfire_Enthusiast1

[Aapje]

I don't think that the proper question is whether it is truly similar to flying, but how much it improves the experience. And interestingly, there are systems that attempt to mimic G-force:

 

https://www.simxperience.com/shop/sx-gs5-001-gs-5-g-seat-711#attr=

https://makers.bergison.com/introduction

 

But personally I get the impression that the current crop of motion platforms were designed more for the (larger) driving sim market, also because the benefits are larger for that market without VR. So it requires a lot of research and experimentation, and platforms like the DOF Reality still have issues when used for flight simming.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I wander what happened with The Entrim 4D by Samsung, probably they burned some testers brains ?

 

It was  describes as a “motion headset that lets you feel (and not just see) VR”. The headset contains electrodes that “correspond with movement data input by engineers,” thus your physical responses to an on-screen event

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35551727/

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38235479/

Edited March 15, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[SupremeLoser]

On 3/15/2024 at 4:00 AM, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

I wander what happened with The Entrim 4D by Samsung, probably they burned some testers brains ?

 

It was  describes as a “motion headset that lets you feel (and not just see) VR”. The headset contains electrodes that “correspond with movement data input by engineers,” thus your physical responses to an on-screen event

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35551727/

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38235479/

That's incredible!

 

We might be closer to the Matrix than we thought?  Or maybe we already are and just don't know it?