Dev blog #359: Daniel and Albert talk about the past, present and future for the IL-2 series

[Aapje]

3 hours ago, Hetzer-JG52 said:

I have no issues paying for the same content we have now to be upgraded to a new engine. No different to buying a new OS once the previous one has seen it's best. But not if it ends up being trickled out bit by bit AND done back to front again. We still don't have the Eindecker, DH2 and etc so we can play WW1 from start to finish and I doubt I'd ever live to see WW2 fully done on the new engine with the current process.

But I'll be onboard for Korea, so long as it's released fully-canned, so to speak.

 

You need to keep in mind that converting all the planes is a lot of work and they cannot just decide to not work on any truly new modules in the meantime, because I'm pretty sure that lots of people would mind not getting a new map/module.

 

With an Korean war module there would be some awesome new planes, like the MiG-15 and F-86F, which were incredibly well matched, so they are a great basis for a module that would work great in SP and MP. You also have the transition to these planes from prop and early jet planes like the P-51, Yak-9, La-7 and P-80. And they could do the awesome F-82 Twin Mustang.

 

It's the last of the wars before the modern era of jets truly began, as Vietnam saw air-to-air missiles and way more advanced onboard radars.

 

Then they could do a bunch of modules in the Pacific region. To satisfy your craving for biplanes, they could even do a module on the Second Sino-Japanese War, which would be very interesting, as there were a bunch of very good biplanes operating there, before the transition to mostly monoplanes in WW II. Although I'm not sure how much interest there is in such a module. China seems to have almost no flight simmers.

Edited March 23, 2024 by Aapje

[jokash]

17 hours ago, Aapje said:

 

A bit of a strange take. They are replacing large parts of the engine exactly because they want the game to grow to new heights, instead of its potential being limited.

 

The current engine has been used for over 10 years and will last a little while more. It also won't go away. You can still play the old modules when the next engine will come out. And of course the current engine will have remaining issues, but the new engine won't be perfect either.

 

Meanwhile, MSFS is already abandoning their current engine after 4 years.

No problem with thier decision,maybe il love the new project too,just grumpy commenting.

[Lusekofte]

If they continue to complement planes like I153 , IAR 80 and so on. I am going to stay in this game engine. If one chooses the battleground carefully these planes perform much better in this game engine. Ww1 is in my mind too fragile. Might be realistic. But too me spending so much time climbing just to loose a wing is frustrating. 
I am not arguing about developers point of view. They sound very reasonable. 
To me early war , 30 design and small calibre bullets are the best and favorite this game. It might be different for others

[LukeFF]

11 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

Appreciate the effort that went into creating this summary. It was an easy read and very useful. 

Thanks to whoever did this. 

 

Sneaksie did the majority of the work with translating it to English, and then I gave it a review to make sure it all sounded right. 

 

Glad you liked it. ?

[Blitzen]

Simply put: At this point what are the aircraft that will definitely be available before GB CloD ends the production line?

[IckyATLAS]

If we have an Odessa module (I mean an BOO) I am absolutely for it and also for personal historical reasons.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

Ww1 is in my mind too fragile. Might be realistic. But too me spending so much time climbing just to loose a wing is frustrating. 

That was a case in the past, they fixed fragile wings and control cables constant jamming. 

[=SqSq=SignorMagnifico]

Since the team is moving on to the new project, and existing content will have to be imported later, will drop tanks and the complex fuel system still get added to Great Battles or will this only be a feature in the new project?

[Vishnu]

10 hours ago, T24_Martin said:

Like already mentioned... For me personally it would be absolutely fine to pay for GB modules that I already own, if they would be transferred to the new engine. There is work behind and I am willing to pay a reasonable price to honour this work. 

 

Maybe it could be a win-win. We get our beloved WW2 content and the team gets extra money with (hopefully) less workload then creating something from scratch.

 

The GB series is awesome! So thank you team for creating this and still improving the game! I am also exited for Korea! Looking forward to a bright flight sim future ?

This X 100

[Aapje]

42 minutes ago, =SqSq=SignorMagnifico said:

Since the team is moving on to the new project, and existing content will have to be imported later, will drop tanks and the complex fuel system still get added to Great Battles or will this only be a feature in the new project?

 

You can be pretty sure that no new functionality will be added to GB.

[=69.GIAP=VLADI]

Good news!
Thanks!

[Mtnbiker1998]

A great writeup with lots of good information in it. Feeling a bit better about the new project and having Han in charge. Looking forward to seeing where Il-2 goes! 

[JG1_Vonrd]

On 3/22/2024 at 1:08 PM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

A lot of what gets interpreted as "bad AI" are in fact mission scripting errors.

I'm hoping that there may be a more user friendly version of the mission editor. There are relatively few who are truly competent at it (and that certainly doesn't include me) ?.

[ST_Catchov]

THE PILOT AS  A SEPARATE ENTITY

 

I share Albert's dream for the pilot to walk around or board and alight from an aircraft. Or hopping into a Crossley Tender to inspect the airfield and hangers and chat with riggers, fitters and armourers and watch them salute me with suitable deference. It would add a human touch and invest an emotional attachment to ones character.

 

I do hope, with the new engine, and after the new project, they consider bringing back the Ilya Muromets in perhaps a new iteration of FC. I'd like to be able to take a stroll along the fuselage whilst in flight. Just for kicks.

 

 

And then of course, for similar reasons, Zeppelins ....

 

[III/JG52_Al-Azraq]

On 3/22/2024 at 7:28 PM, =SqSq=SignorMagnifico said:

 

 

Thanks everyone for clarifying my doubts.

 

From that screenshot, I understood that they were going to port them but as budget and time allows but I see I understood incorrectly.

[III./SG77S_Falke]

As a software engineer myself, I understand the challenges that the IL2 team is facing as they move towards new project development.

 

To me, all of them are at the level of "genius programmers and artists", so I have no complaints regarding their current product suite or what we can expect in a new lineup.

 

If they want me to pay for new modules under a newly designed engine, I am fine with that.  However, it would be nice if they offered existing customers an "upgrade price".

 

Nonetheless, the IL2 Development Team all need to eat so whatever they need, I am willing to support.  Considering that I have been playing their simulations since Rise of Flight in 2011, I have gotten a lot of enjoyment from all their efforts.

 

If I may suggest however, as it regards the complaints of the AI.  AI for flight simulations is a far more difficult implementation than that required for board-games adopted for the computer or even first-person-shooters in 3D.  And yet the IL2 Team has done an admirable job of it.

 

That being said, given the growing tool-sets that are now becoming available in the AI sphere for all forms of development, some research into the use of neural-networks for IL2's AI components may be something to consider.  This then would allow IL2 AI opponents to react against large-language-models of data that have been trained to reflect Human pilot reactions.  Of course, if IL2 does this and they are successful, IL2 Community members may find themselves up against AI opponents that can never be defeated...

[SupremeLoser]

As a software engineer myself, I understand and greatly appreciate the level of complexity experienced by the developers of this absolutely fantastic air combat simulator!  I knew way back when the first IL-2 Sturmovik came out and I bought it, that this was something SPECIAL.  Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator went on the shelf and was junk compared to IL-2 Sturmovik!  The feel of the plane, the working controls and the graphics I found very, very top notch.  I can appreciate that IL-2 GB is a REAL SIMULATION.  Don't worry, for many people I think the obvious real physics being modeled underneath "the hood" is readily apparent!  The modeling of the aircraft power, flight dynamics, engine (including very accurate sound, temp control, other subsystems, gauges, etc.) are all very apparent in IL-2 GB.  I never fell for those cheap, kiddy arcade style flying games.  To me, they are a waste of time and well... silly.  In contrast, IL-2 Sturmovik is the real deal.  It never gets old.  I get into the plane, feel it in flight, and it seems like a mature flight simulator in addition to modeling combat.  And now with my VR headset, it really never gets old!  It is the closest I have ever come to be able to feel what each one of these different hotrods of the sky were like to fly and do combat in.  I often take up a Spitfire IX or P-51 to just enjoy the plane... almost like taking it up into the air for real and satisfying my need for speed for a while.  It is a similar feeling of satisfaction to taking out my supercharged Miata for a drive in real life.

 

Any improvements you guys do with AI, graphics and the flight dynamics modeling with the next version is very much appreciated, but I will say a lot of it isn't really required or expected IMHO.  To me, just my 2 cents here, most of the improvement I would like to see would be improving the aircraft and flight modeling even more and the graphics somewhat (but doesn't have to be a huge amount for the detail level), and particularly, the ability to appreciate the aircraft more.  Your mention about the museum absolutely enthralls me!  That would be wonderful!  The AI already seems very good to me.  Perhaps I don't feel as picky as some other players there.  It seems surprisingly intelligent after the last update in particular.  Almost too intelligent :).  But, anyway, to me, if I want even more real life feel than that, IMHO that is what multiplayer combat is all about.  At a certain point I feel you just have to fly against other real live players.

 

One thing that I do think is very important is that the game continues to not only support, but continues to evolve the VR headset usage.  I recently switched from the flat screen to a Steam Valve Index VR headset.  It is an absolute game changer!  It so completely changes the simulator from being something that feels 2nd person on the flat screen, to immersing you into that actual plane in 1st person.  You feel the size of the plane.  The gunnery and combat becomes very different and much more real life (as far as I know).  You see the depth and placing shots becomes more intuitive to me.  But the main thing to understand is that it totally transforms the entire flying experience to be much more real life.  You feel the altitude and motion much more and I find myself ducking and flinching when being shot at. It is clearly the path forward.  I can never go back to a flat screen monitor for any sort of flight simulator.  The cost and availability of VR headsets is very good now and the computers have plenty of cpu power for it.  All it takes is a good graphics card.  I am running the NVidia GeForce RTX 3080 for reference and in VR IL-2 GB runs very, very well.  60fps is the norm for it.  As opposed to 30fps for Microsoft FS.  I really appreciate the work you guys have done!  The only criticism I have is the stutters that occur sometimes during combat with lots of planes and also when approaching areas with lots of ground scenery (small cities and such).  I totally understand the reason for this, and being a glass half full kind of guy, I am still very appreciative of what we do have.  It runs 60fps and the stutters that occur are not very often and handled pretty well.  However, IMHO for the next version, the handling of graphics, more than the level of detail, is the primary importance.  If you guys can figure out ways to smoothly load the more detailed ground scenery that would be great.  You can't get around the amount of data that needs to be loaded, but perhaps there are ways to cache it better.  In combat, we don't care nor will probably notice if the buildings are not as detailed, especially in distance, as it would need a few seconds to smoothly process this, for example. To me, holding it at that steady FPS would take precedence in a combat flight simulator (not so much in a pure flight sim like MSFS).  The icing on the cake is if with the next version you can handle metropolises like London and Berlin that would be awesome (then we could have the Battle of Britain and also the later Allied bombing raids). I would take that over having an extremely high level of detail.  But again, that would be icing on the cake.  The level of detail IMHO only needs to be about one step above where it is now for the next version.  Just enough to have the detail to see the plane up close in the museum and perhaps also to make it "almost" photorealistic when flying.  It isn't far from being photorealistic already.  But just to be clear, I certainly would not want to imply you guys having to do something that takes 10x the work to get a slight improvement in results.  Weigh it for yourselves what are the things that give you the best return for your hard work.  I will be appreciative of whatever you come up with for sure, based on the past versions of IL-2.

 

Also, I hope that the current IL-2 GB continues to be playable for many years.  There are probably many that enjoy it just the way it is.  If perhaps the multiplayer and server side support has to go away, that would be ok.  But that would be for those that don't want to buy the next version because of the possible expense (not just the game, but the computer required to keep it running smoothly).

 

Anyway, I hope the IL-2 series keeps going for many years.  I will gladly pay the price the upcoming updates and new version in the future.  I would most sincerely hope you guys make at least decent money doing this for sure.  The level of knowledge and talent behind this is very evident.  I have nowhere near the talent you guys have, but I can appreciate the very extreme level of detail and analysis you have done to bring this simulation to life. To me, the most important thing is QUALITY OVER QUANTITY.  You all have certainly made something of very high quality.  Keep up the outstanding work!  Thanks!

Edited March 25, 2024 by Spitfire_Enthusiast1

[ITAF_Rani]

34 minutes ago, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

As an software engineer myself, I understand and greatly appreciate the level of complexity experienced by the developers of this absolutely fantastic air combat simulator!  I knew way back when the first IL-2 Sturmovik came out and I bought it, that this was something SPECIAL.  Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator went on the shelf and was junk compared to IL-2 Sturmovik!  The feel of the plane, the working controls and the graphics I found very, very top notch.  I can appreciate that IL-2 GB is a REAL SIMULATION.  Don't worry, for many people I think the obvious real physics being modeled underneath "the hood" is readily apparent!  The modeling of the aircraft power, flight dynamics, engine (including very accurate sound, temp control, other subsystems, gauges, etc.) are all very apparent in IL-2 GB.  I never fell for those cheap, kiddy arcade style flying games.  To me, they are a waste of time and well... silly.  In contrast, IL-2 Sturmovik is the real deal.  It never gets old.  I get into the plane, feel it in flight, and it seems like a mature flight simulator in addition to modeling combat.  And now with my VR headset, it really never gets old!  It is the closest I have ever come to be able to feel what each one of these different hotrods of the sky were like to fly and do combat in.  I often take up a Spitfire IX or P-51 to just enjoy the plane... almost like taking it up into the air for real and satisfying my need for speed for a while.  It is a similar feeling of satisfaction to taking out my supercharged Miata for a drive in real life.

 

Any improvements you guys do with AI, graphics and the flight dynamics modeling with the next version is very much appreciated, but I will say a lot of it isn't really required or expected IMHO.  To me, just my 2 cents here, most of the improvement I would like to see would be improving the aircraft and flight modeling even more and the graphics somewhat (but doesn't have to be a huge amount for the detail level), and particularly, the ability to appreciate the aircraft more.  Your mention about the museum absolutely enthralls me!  That would be wonderful!  The AI already seems very good to me.  Perhaps I don't feel as picky as some other players there.  It seems surprisingly intelligent after the last update in particular.  Almost too intelligent :).  But, anyway, to me, if I want even more real life feel than that, IMHO that is what multiplayer combat is all about.  At a certain point I feel you just have to fly against other real live players.

 

One thing that I do think is very important is that the game continues to not only support, but continues to evolve the VR headset usage.  I recently switched from the flat screen to a Steam Valve Index VR headset.  It is an absolute game changer!  It so completely changes the simulator from being something that feels 2nd person on the flat screen, to immersing you into that actual plane in 1st person.  You feel the size of the plane.  The gunnery and combat becomes very different and much more real life (as far as I know).  You see the depth and placing shots becomes more intuitive to me.  But the main thing to understand is that is totally transforms the entire flying experience to be much more real life.  You feel the altitude and motion much more and I find myself ducking and flinching when being shot at. It is clearly the path forward.  I can never go back to a flat screen monitor for any sort of flight simulator.  The cost and availability of VR headsets is very good now and the computers have plenty of cpu power for it.  All it takes is a good graphics card.  I am running the NVidia GeForce RTX 3080 for reference and in VR IL-2 GB runs very, very well.  60fps is the norm for it.  As opposed to 30fps for Microsoft FS.  I really appreciate the work you guys have done!  The only criticism I have is the stutters that occur sometimes during combat with lots of planes and also when approaching areas with lots of ground scenery (small cities and such).  I totally understand the reason for this, and being a glass half full kind of guy, I am still very appreciative of what we do have.  It runs 60fps and the stutters that occur are not very often and handled pretty well.  However, IMHO for the next version, the handling of graphics, more than the level of detail, is the primary importance.  If you guys can figure out ways to smoothly load the more detailed ground scenery that would be great.  You can't get around the amount of data that needs to be loaded, but perhaps there are ways to cache it better.  In combat, we don't care nor will probably notice with the buildings are loading up the detail quite as quickly as usual for example.   To me, holding it at that steady FPS would take precedence in a combat flight simulator (not so much in a pure flight sim like MSFS).  The icing on the cake is if with the next version you can handle metropolises like London and Berlin that would be awesome.  I would take that over have extremely high level of detail.  But again, that would be icing on the cake.  The level of detail IMHO only needs to be about one step above where it is now for the next version.  Just enough to have the detail to see the plane up close in the museum and perhaps also to make it "almost" photorealistic when flying.  It isn't far from being photorealistic already.  But just to be clear, I certainly would not want to imply you guys having to do something that takes 10x the work to get a slight improvement in results.  Weigh it for yourselves what are the things that give you the best return for your hard work.  I will be appreciative of whatever you come up with for sure, based on the past versions of IL-2.

 

Also, I hope that the current IL-2 GB continues to be playable for many years.  There are probably many that enjoy it just the way it is.  If perhaps the multiplayer and server side support has to go away, that would be ok.  But that would be for those that don't want to buy the next version because of the possible expense (not just the game, but the computer required to keep it running smoothly).

 

Anyway, I hope the IL-2 series keeps going for many years.  I will gladly pay the price the upcoming updates and new version in the future.  I would most sincerely hope you guys make at least decent money doing this for sure.  The level of knowledge and talent behind this is very evident.  I have nowhere near the talent you guys have, but I can appreciate the very extreme level of detail and analysis you have done to bring this simulation to life. To me, the most important thing is QUALITY OVER QUANTITY.  You all have certainly made something of very high quality.  Keep up the outstanding work!  Thanks!

Totally agree ...IL2 GB rules expecially in VR..

[Dagwoodyt]

2 hours ago, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

One thing that I do think is very important is that the game continues to not only support, but continues to evolve the VR headset usage.  I recently switched from the flat screen to a Steam Valve Index VR headset. 

I went from an Index to Varjo Aero on a 3090Ti and initially had fps ~80 on Ultra settings in GB. Seems i've lost 5-10 fps since latest updates, but still running smoothly on simple missions. Hopefully GB and successor products will eventually support DFR for those headsets for which it is available. Right now DCS MT with DFR works great on simple missions without need of a 4090. 1v1 over Manston in an FW190 A8 vs. Spitfire IX LF CW at near constant 90fps.

Edited March 24, 2024 by Dagwoodyt

[JimC]

Big thanks for the efforts the team makes for IL2. And a big thanks to the community managers. Your great work is always appreciated.

[Lusekofte]

14 hours ago, CountZero said:

in war thunder or old il-2

I talk VR and something that resembles a simulator. I acknowledge the fact that you and most people rather want yak 3 and other fast planes. I see no reason for you denying my wishes. It is not you that build them. Shape up and appreciate the planes you like

Edited March 25, 2024 by Lusekofte

[AEthelraedUnraed]

17 hours ago, III./SG77S_Falke said:

That being said, given the growing tool-sets that are now becoming available in the AI sphere for all forms of development, some research into the use of neural-networks for IL2's AI components may be something to consider.  This then would allow IL2 AI opponents to react against large-language-models of data that have been trained to reflect Human pilot reactions.  Of course, if IL2 does this and they are successful, IL2 Community members may find themselves up against AI opponents that can never be defeated...

@Aapje and I recently had a rather lengthy discussion about whether or not Neural Nets would work for a combat AI. We disagree vehemently on how this should best be implemented and how feasible it is in the first place, but the one thing we can more or less agree on is that at this point in time, it's questionable whether any company could create a good enough Neural Network-based AI within the constraints of the game/hardware, let alone that a relatively minor company such as 1CGS can afford the investment. 

 

At this point in time, I think the odds of seeing Neural Net-based AI in the next iteration of IL2 are absolutely nil.

Edited March 25, 2024 by AEthelraedUnraed

[CountZero]

5 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

I talk VR and something that resembles a simulator. I acknowledge the fact that you and most people rather want yak 3 and other fast planes. I see no reason for you denying my wishes. It is not you that build them. Shape up and appreciate the planes you like

no problem, you just keep waiting for something that will never happend, if they didnt do thouse type of airplanes untill now, they aint gona start now

[Lusekofte]

2 hours ago, CountZero said:

no problem, you just keep waiting for something that will never happend, if they didnt do thouse type of airplanes untill now, they aint gona start now

I am not stupid. I don’t wait. I wish. There is a difference.  You know , wait       Wish

[FABR_Pollako]

Well gentlemen, nothing very surprising news, just the certainty that until today it was always more a question of marketing than of the real capabilities of the graphics engine, I'm really happy that the team grew, matured and learned what was necessary to reprogram everything from scratch and better than the current product, the only thing that really disappoints me was the lack of honesty from the beginning, making us believe and invest in a product that now has an expiration date and that they finally admit that they are not capable of evolving it, in my country our currency is very devalued, with each DLC purchase directly affecting the family budget, each purchase that was made in the past was intended to repay the devs and encourage them for the work completed and for those works that made us believe that they would be done and They never were, we can now hope that they do not charge high prices for those who already own the series, on the same product with a new graphics engine, as today the financial situation of many is no longer the same as it was before the pandemic. Note: I know that the company also suffered from the pandemic, but honesty and transparency with the community, which is already small, creates a feeling of partnership and builds customer loyalty instead of vague promises and lies to hide inabilities and problems that will never be able to be resolved , I hope that above all from now on, they learn that the community is the one who sponsors them and without it, the company will end!

[Aapje]

@FABR_Pollako

 

I don't understand your comment. We knew that they were making a new engine before this dev blog and that this would be incompatible with the existing modules. So what new certainty have we learned exactly with this dev blog?

 

And I highly doubt that they ever promised a product without an 'expiration date,' ten years ago when they released the first module. It would be utterly absurd for programmers to support the same software indefinitely. No one can promise that, since no software can stick to the same technology for decades. So how were they dishonest?

 

And note that (possibly) not getting new content for the old game engine after Odessa is not actually even the same as having an expiration date, since the old modules will still work. In fact, they seem intent on releasing new planes and a new module even after starting on the new engine, so they keep supporting people on the old engine for now.

 

Quote

we can now hope that they do not charge high prices for those who already own the series, on the same product with a new graphics engine

 

It's actually more than just a new graphics engine. They will also improve a lot of other stuff.

 

And we know that at least part of what they will release will not be the same product with a new engine, but completely new modules like Korea and probably the Pacific. At no point have they even said anything about reimplementing the old modules with the new engine.

[FABR_Pollako]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

@FABR_Pollako

 

Eu não entendo seu comentário. Sabíamos que eles estavam fazendo um novo motor antes deste blog de desenvolvimento e que isso seria incompatível com os módulos existentes. Então, que nova certeza aprendemos exatamente com este blog de desenvolvimento?

 

E duvido muito que eles tenham prometido um produto sem “prazo de validade”, há dez anos, quando lançaram o primeiro módulo. Seria totalmente absurdo que os programadores apoiassem o mesmo software indefinidamente. Ninguém pode prometer isso, já que nenhum software consegue manter a mesma tecnologia por décadas. Então, como eles foram desonestos?

 

E observe que (possivelmente) não obter novo conteúdo para o mecanismo de jogo antigo depois de Odessa não é o mesmo que ter uma data de expiração, já que os módulos antigos ainda funcionarão. Na verdade, eles parecem ter a intenção de lançar novos aviões e um novo módulo mesmo depois de ligar o novo motor, então eles continuam apoiando as pessoas no motor antigo por enquanto.

 

 

Na verdade, é mais do que apenas um novo mecanismo gráfico. Eles também irão melhorar muitas outras coisas.

 

E sabemos que pelo menos parte do que eles vão lançar não será o mesmo produto com um novo motor, mas módulos completamente novos como a Coreia e provavelmente o Pacífico. Em nenhum momento eles disseram alguma coisa sobre reimplementar os módulos antigos com o novo motor.

In fact, I always knew from the beginning that this RoF engine was clearly limited for a series of this size like the IL-2 1946, but due to the long delay in pronouncing on the graphics engine's incapacities, it generated a lot of expectations and discussions about it. of PTO, MTO and etc... It generated a "feeling" of being treated dishonestly, but to avoid being radical I will change the word dishonest to ''inexperienced'' in the business and I believe that this explains a lot of what happened! When I said "dishonest" it was because of all the marketing involved around a series that was born out of date, but I confess that I didn't think about how radical this statement would be, but although my opinion is not what is expected as a form of encouragement, it is not worry, my opinion will not be considered in any way, as they mentioned that they learned that they should not bow down to the community and continue with their plans regardless of the opinion of whoever pays, this is the beginning of a firm and consistent doctrine and that this continue for years to come!

[RoteDreizehn]

On 3/24/2024 at 11:44 AM, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

As a software engineer myself, I understand and greatly appreciate the level of complexity experienced by the developers of this absolutely fantastic air combat simulator!  I knew way back when the first IL-2 Sturmovik came out and I bought it, that this was something SPECIAL.  Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator went on the shelf and was junk compared to IL-2 Sturmovik!  The feel of the plane, the working controls and the graphics I found very, very top notch.  I can appreciate that IL-2 GB is a REAL SIMULATION.  Don't worry, for many people I think the obvious real physics being modeled underneath "the hood" is readily apparent!  The modeling of the aircraft power, flight dynamics, engine (including very accurate sound, temp control, other subsystems, gauges, etc.) are all very apparent in IL-2 GB.  I never fell for those cheap, kiddy arcade style flying games.  To me, they are a waste of time and well... silly.  In contrast, IL-2 Sturmovik is the real deal.  It never gets old.  I get into the plane, feel it in flight, and it seems like a mature flight simulator in addition to modeling combat.  And now with my VR headset, it really never gets old!  It is the closest I have ever come to be able to feel what each one of these different hotrods of the sky were like to fly and do combat in.  I often take up a Spitfire IX or P-51 to just enjoy the plane... almost like taking it up into the air for real and satisfying my need for speed for a while.  It is a similar feeling of satisfaction to taking out my supercharged Miata for a drive in real life.

 

Any improvements you guys do with AI, graphics and the flight dynamics modeling with the next version is very much appreciated, but I will say a lot of it isn't really required or expected IMHO.  To me, just my 2 cents here, most of the improvement I would like to see would be improving the aircraft and flight modeling even more and the graphics somewhat (but doesn't have to be a huge amount for the detail level), and particularly, the ability to appreciate the aircraft more.  Your mention about the museum absolutely enthralls me!  That would be wonderful!  The AI already seems very good to me.  Perhaps I don't feel as picky as some other players there.  It seems surprisingly intelligent after the last update in particular.  Almost too intelligent :).  But, anyway, to me, if I want even more real life feel than that, IMHO that is what multiplayer combat is all about.  At a certain point I feel you just have to fly against other real live players.

 

One thing that I do think is very important is that the game continues to not only support, but continues to evolve the VR headset usage.  I recently switched from the flat screen to a Steam Valve Index VR headset.  It is an absolute game changer!  It so completely changes the simulator from being something that feels 2nd person on the flat screen, to immersing you into that actual plane in 1st person.  You feel the size of the plane.  The gunnery and combat becomes very different and much more real life (as far as I know).  You see the depth and placing shots becomes more intuitive to me.  But the main thing to understand is that it totally transforms the entire flying experience to be much more real life.  You feel the altitude and motion much more and I find myself ducking and flinching when being shot at. It is clearly the path forward.  I can never go back to a flat screen monitor for any sort of flight simulator.  The cost and availability of VR headsets is very good now and the computers have plenty of cpu power for it.  All it takes is a good graphics card.  I am running the NVidia GeForce RTX 3080 for reference and in VR IL-2 GB runs very, very well.  60fps is the norm for it.  As opposed to 30fps for Microsoft FS.  I really appreciate the work you guys have done!  The only criticism I have is the stutters that occur sometimes during combat with lots of planes and also when approaching areas with lots of ground scenery (small cities and such).  I totally understand the reason for this, and being a glass half full kind of guy, I am still very appreciative of what we do have.  It runs 60fps and the stutters that occur are not very often and handled pretty well.  However, IMHO for the next version, the handling of graphics, more than the level of detail, is the primary importance.  If you guys can figure out ways to smoothly load the more detailed ground scenery that would be great.  You can't get around the amount of data that needs to be loaded, but perhaps there are ways to cache it better.  In combat, we don't care nor will probably notice if the buildings are not as detailed, especially in distance, as it would need a few seconds to smoothly process this, for example. To me, holding it at that steady FPS would take precedence in a combat flight simulator (not so much in a pure flight sim like MSFS).  The icing on the cake is if with the next version you can handle metropolises like London and Berlin that would be awesome (then we could have the Battle of Britain and also the later Allied bombing raids). I would take that over having an extremely high level of detail.  But again, that would be icing on the cake.  The level of detail IMHO only needs to be about one step above where it is now for the next version.  Just enough to have the detail to see the plane up close in the museum and perhaps also to make it "almost" photorealistic when flying.  It isn't far from being photorealistic already.  But just to be clear, I certainly would not want to imply you guys having to do something that takes 10x the work to get a slight improvement in results.  Weigh it for yourselves what are the things that give you the best return for your hard work.  I will be appreciative of whatever you come up with for sure, based on the past versions of IL-2.

 

Also, I hope that the current IL-2 GB continues to be playable for many years.  There are probably many that enjoy it just the way it is.  If perhaps the multiplayer and server side support has to go away, that would be ok.  But that would be for those that don't want to buy the next version because of the possible expense (not just the game, but the computer required to keep it running smoothly).

 

Anyway, I hope the IL-2 series keeps going for many years.  I will gladly pay the price the upcoming updates and new version in the future.  I would most sincerely hope you guys make at least decent money doing this for sure.  The level of knowledge and talent behind this is very evident.  I have nowhere near the talent you guys have, but I can appreciate the very extreme level of detail and analysis you have done to bring this simulation to life. To me, the most important thing is QUALITY OVER QUANTITY.  You all have certainly made something of very high quality.  Keep up the outstanding work!  Thanks!

 

I can appreciate that IL-2 GB is a REAL SIMULATION.  Don't worry, for many people I think the obvious real physics being modeled underneath "the hood" is readily apparent!  The modeling of the aircraft power, flight dynamics,  engine (including very accurate sound, temp control, other subsystems, gauges, etc.) are all very apparent in IL-2 GB.
  

Any improvements you guys do with AI, graphics and the flight dynamics modeling with the next version is very much appreciated, but I will say a lot of it isn't really required or expected IMHO.  To me, just my 2 cents here, most of the improvement I would like to see would be improving the aircraft and flight modeling even more and the graphics somewhat (but doesn't have to be a huge amount for the detail level), and particularly, the ability to appreciate the aircraft more. 
  
  
 omg - Now don't exaggerate. The hairs on the back of my neck stand up when I read something like that
They improve a bit thats true, but its far from be perfect.. Just my 2 Cents....

 

[Charon]

On 3/22/2024 at 12:48 PM, 357th_KW said:

The big improvement would be to get the AI to recognize clouds and have their visibility limited by them. 

 

On 3/23/2024 at 2:20 AM, jollyjack said:

That's for sure, but IMO impossible at least for current and even high class computers calculating power in regards of constant changing 'no fly 'zones for the Ai.

 

The funny thing is that they already are limited by clouds, at least with the Attack Area command... it's just that once they "latch on", they don't seem to ever re-evaluate visibility and so don't lose sight of their target; as a result hardly anyone even notices the work that was done to make the AI is cloud-aware. I wish this check could just be used a little more broadly. It seems to me like the hard work here has already been done.

[jollyjack]

If so that's for sure great works by the developers! -

 

[EAF19_Marsh]

On 3/24/2024 at 7:44 PM, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

One thing

 

Not disagreeing with you, but you need to edit that into paragraphs or it is the definition of TL;DR

[SupremeLoser]

I just wanted to say, that for those that think my comments were exaggerating or over the top, they are accurate to what I think about this simulation.  I haven't found anything better in terms of feeling like you are in the seat of a real WW2 fighter plane. VR and force feedback really bring this "game" to life. The authentic recreation of the aircraft, including the accurate reproduction of the engine sound (which I think is important), along with the feel of the aircraft (which force feedback really is necessary to experience) makes this the best WW2 aircraft simulator I have used.

 

I think it is important to retain the authentic model, performance, feel and sounds of the aircraft over spending lots of CPU power on AI and the like.  In other words, if we have to pick between having to model in massive detail 100 enemy ground AA, platoons, ship AA, etc. or better frame rates and sticking with the bulk of the intense modeling of the few aircraft in combat (including the player's of course), I would gladly go with the latter and accept a simpler model for the AA and other gunnery.  Likewise, I would rather see larger cities like London, so we can have the Battle of Britain... which would also add the early aircraft many desire..., instead of massive detail of things we can't see.  For that, I think bringing the graphics detail up just one notch from what it is would be sufficient for the next version.  The biggest issue I think is the current handling of the graphics detail in larger environments.  If there is a way the developers can figure out to cache this out so as not to affect the immediate framerate, even if that means less detail (especially further out) while it is loading, that is more than acceptable IMHO.

 

I do like the museum idea though.  I know that sounds counter to what I said above, but for the aircraft themselves, I think that is where the details should be made.  It is almost all there already it seems to me.  One just has to update the program to have the player as a separate entity, as they talked about, and I think most of the graphics are already there to be able to look at and enjoy.  Just a bit more with the engine and bringing the detail level of the entire plane up one notch... not two notches  .

 

I am excited about the Korean addition in the future.  That sounds great to me.  I have been desiring to be able to fly the last, fastest and most powerful of the piston prop planes in aerial combat.  I'm hoping they add the Mig alley jet situation too.  That would be imperative for the Korean war game IMHO.

[kestrel79]

16 minutes ago, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

I just wanted to say, that for those that think my comments were exaggerating or over the top, they are accurate to what I think about this simulation.  I haven't found anything better in terms of feeling like you are in the seat of a real WW2 fighter plane. VR and force feedback really bring this "game" to life. The authentic recreation of the aircraft, including the accurate reproduction of the engine sound (which I think is important), along with the feel of the aircraft (which force feedback really is necessary to experience) makes this the best WW2 aircraft simulator I have used.

 

I think it is important to retain the authentic model, performance, feel and sounds of the aircraft over spending lots of CPU power on AI and the like.  In other words, if we have to pick between having to model in massive detail 100 enemy ground AA, platoons, ship AA, etc. or better frame rates and sticking with the bulk of the intense modeling of the few aircraft in combat (including the player's of course), I would gladly go with the latter and accept a simpler model for the AA and other gunnery.  Likewise, I would rather see larger cities like London, so we can have the Battle of Britain... which would also add the early aircraft many desire..., instead of massive detail of things we can't see.  For that, I think bringing the graphics detail up just one notch from what it is would be sufficient for the next version.  The biggest issue I think is the current handling of the graphics detail in larger environments.  If there is a way the developers can figure out to cache this out so as not to affect the immediate framerate, even if that means less detail (especially further out) while it is loading, that is more than acceptable IMHO.

 

I do like the museum idea though.  I know that sounds counter to what I said above, but for the aircraft themselves, I think that is where the details should be made.  It is almost all there already it seems to me.  One just has to update the program to have the player as a separate entity, as they talked about, and I think most of the graphics are already there to be able to look at and enjoy.  Just a bit more with the engine and bringing the detail level of the entire plane up one notch... not two notches  .

 

I am excited about the Korean addition in the future.  That sounds great to me.  I have been desiring to be able to fly the last, fastest and most powerful of the piston prop planes in aerial combat.  I'm hoping they add the Mig alley jet situation too.  That would be imperative for the Korean war game IMHO.

 

I think a lot of people here are right there with you. I know I'm guilty of a few gush posts from time to time that are very similar in nature.

 

To me it's the "feeling of flight" of this sim that tops all the others. It's hard to explain, but you have to feel it in VR with the sim shaker on yep! Completely game changing for me and I can't go back to 2d and no Buttkickers.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

This genre do need simulation of the dynamic environment, what we have now is just static objects, some have just hitboxes, in most times  they are poorly animated ,without physical interaction just with smoke and mirrors to cover it up,  on map that surface and local appearance can be changed only in limited and timed fashion.

Weather modeled without stimulated turbulant air, planes modeled without visible mechanical  forces present in the cockpit or airframe. 

This all is more apprent in VR where you should immerse yourself but you can't looking at that static , lifeless environment , siting inside that  big toy plane powered by the sound of an engine.

Edited March 26, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Crazy76]

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

Ce genre a besoin d'une simulation de l'environnement dynamique, ce que nous avons maintenant n'est que des objets statiques, certains n'ont que des hitbox, la plupart du temps ils sont mal animés, sans interaction physique juste avec de la fumée et des miroirs pour le couvrir, sur la carte de cette surface et l’apparence locale ne peut être modifiée que de manière limitée et chronométrée.

Météo modélisée sans air turbulent stimulé, avions modélisés sans forces mécaniques visibles présentes dans le cockpit ou la cellule. 

Tout cela est plus évident en VR où vous devriez vous immerger, mais vous ne pouvez pas regarder cet environnement statique et sans vie, assis à l'intérieur de ce gros avion jouet propulsé par le bruit d'un moteur.

 

Which computer for this kind of simulation? Doesn't this risk reducing the number of players?

[Aapje]

2 minutes ago, =SqSq=SignorMagnifico said:

With the release of the IAR, and the announcement about Odessa and the new collector planes, is there any chance we can get an outline for 2024 like we did last year? This was really helpful for keeping track of what's next. 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I think that we need to keep in mind that most work is now being done on the new engine, which is a lot of innovative work that requires learning on the go and adapting to what they figure out. Some things they tried or are going to try won't work out. And things can take longer than planned when they are innovating. So they can't really make any promises with regard to timelines or exact features for the new engine, but that is most of their work. We probably won't see the new engine in prerelease before 2025 anyway.

 

And this engine has very high priority, so if they need the same person both for the new engine and for something like FC4, I'm sure that they will choose to delay FC4 a bit rather than delay the work on the new engine.

 

With regards to Odessa, they are dependent on a third party, so they can't really promise when those people are done.

[w00dy]

On 3/24/2024 at 7:19 PM, ITAF_Rani said:

Totally agree ...IL2 GB rules expecially in VR..

 

Totally agree with everyone about VR in the game, it's the only way I will play it now in VR.

 

I hope the new engine will take advantage of the amount of cores most CPU's have now, or even better scale the performance to the amount of cores you have.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 hours ago, Crazy76 said:

Which computer for this kind of simulation? 
Doesn't this risk reducing the number of players?

There is always a risk but do we want just more polygons on models where environment is still static, it's the same since decades now , better models,  higher resolution and technology to draw that efficient. 

Time to change that , Newton would agree. Besides,  despite no use deep learning graphics technics in il2 I have huge headroom in fps.

27 minutes ago, w00dy said:

 

Totally agree with everyone about VR in the game, it's the only way I will play it now in VR.

 

I hope the new engine will take advantage of the amount of cores most CPU's have now, or even better scale the performance to the amount of cores you have.

They should add native support for OpenXR and quad views for dynamic Foveated Rendering. For me the current state of VR is not enough to choose it as replacement for  2d version. 2D offers better performance, better picture quality and easy of use. 

[Aapje]

12 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

They should add native support for OpenXR and quad views for dynamic Foveated Rendering. For me the current state of VR is not enough to choose it as replacement for  2d version. 2D offers better performance, better picture quality and easy of use. 

 

I agree that IL-2 really should look into dynamic Foveated Rendering to keep its lead in VR. If a cheapish headset gets released that is like the Quest 3, but with eye tracking and perhaps a mini displayport, then having dynamic Foveated Rendering will be an enormous advantage.

[Lusekofte]

I got a old pc by todays standards and a 3080 gpu. I have no complaints om vr 

mostly because I know I am flying in a game. It will never be like real world flying. I wish you all a Nice day