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

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

11 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

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

You are just taking what it gets you.  There is more to take but you must have the best PC to have that when in 2D is not the case. We all know that is just a game, they try to represent reality but will never be able to do that.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

This was a positive update if you're concerned about static battlefields. The CPU cost of the fully modeled AI, and inefficiencies in the GUI is where the AI cost really kicks in, and both those are being addressed in the new game with simple AI FMs and a new GUI. So I dont think we're doomed to pretty parking lots based on what they've shown so far. Well have AI bomber streams at a minimum to add life, which in itself is a huge change. And of course multicore hasn't been confirmed or denied yet AFAIK, that would also obviously be huge.

[DD_Arthur]

22 hours ago, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

I do like the museum idea though.  

Oh Lordy! Sounds just like another one of Albert’s gimmicks - which in the past have cost him his job. When you’ve bought a game intended to replicate the fast moving experience of air combat a ‘museum’ will be interesting for at least three or four minutes…..

 

In my opinion the team need to concentrate on three areas;

 

Graphic fidelity balanced with performance. MSFS is leading the way with what can be done there at the moment.

 

Advanced physics in regards to flight and damage modelling. Undoubtedly this teams strong point.

 

The single player experience generally. This has unquestionably been hit and miss in the past and is heavily dependent on decent a.i. behaviour and a general increase on object limits. I say this as a dedicated multiplayer only guy when it comes to CFS but it seems obvious to me that if you take good care of the single players then everything else can be built on that solid foundation.

[CountZero]

37 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Oh Lordy! Sounds just like another one of Albert’s gimmicks - which in the past have cost him his job. When you’ve bought a game intended to replicate the fast moving experience of air combat a ‘museum’ will be interesting for at least three or four minutes…..

 

In my opinion the team need to concentrate on three areas;

 

Graphic fidelity balanced with performance. MSFS is leading the way with what can be done there at the moment.

 

Advanced physics in regards to flight and damage modelling. Undoubtedly this teams strong point.

 

The single player experience generally. This has unquestionably been hit and miss in the past and is heavily dependent on decent a.i. behaviour and a general increase on object limits. I say this as a dedicated multiplayer only guy when it comes to CFS but it seems obvious to me that if you take good care of the single players then everything else can be built on that solid foundation.

good thing they putt drive to airplane in back burner, i remenber their first video back 2 years ago and i knew they were planing to do something like that when they talked about geting player in game new way, and it was obvious with VR this is how you could start a game, pov of pilot in hangar or what not walking to parts of it to select mission and so on, then driving to airplane and so on... it sounds nice but gets boring after few trys, and a lot of time wasted

[LukeFF]

20 hours ago, tbauchot said:

could you redo the old obsolete BoB in order to integrate it into Great Battle ? Extension of existing maps, addition of a career mode, and then addition of some iconic planes from this period which could be used, who knows, in a possible Battle of France project ? ?

 

CloD is owned by a different publisher now and the underlying game engine is entirely different. So no, nothing like this is going to happen. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

3 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

This was a positive update if you're concerned about static battlefields. The CPU cost of the fully modeled AI, and inefficiencies in the GUI is where the AI cost really kicks in, and both those are being addressed in the new game with simple AI FMs and a new GUI. So I dont think we're doomed to pretty parking lots based on what they've shown so far. Well have AI bomber streams at a minimum to add life, which in itself is a huge change. And of course multicore hasn't been confirmed or denied yet AFAIK, that would also obviously be huge.

Yes , in DCS you can have huge numbers of AI, 100+ B17 without any problem. This is nothing special.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

It is special compared to BoX, its a big leap, nothing to dismiss.

[Zyfe]

I have played all of the IL2 games and have played IL2 BoS for many hours.  I also own many of the other "competitor" sims out there. 

 

But I will say this: no other game has cost me more hours of my life.  I do not play for the multiplayer.  I play for the single player flight combat simulation, and that is where IL2 shines.

 

No other sim comes close.  Yes the AI could be better,  but it is by far the best of what is out there and clearly there is a passionate team behind the project who intend to make it better.

 

I'm excited for what's next.

[Marcio]

1. Thank you for your transparency and for expressing the challenges and problems!
They mentioned that: " In our case we emphasize more on the components of the game world, that is, we need the game world to be interesting, battles happen in it, and therefore the requirements for us are much higher in terms of artificial intelligence. → "I completely agree with this adopted strategy. Who wants "an online project or only a museum where you can look at a nice airplane and open hatches." will fly a commercial plane in Fight Simulator"
 

2. "We tried to make the AI comparable to a live player from PVP (where players fight each other) servers because we played on them all the time." → This strategy is completely right.
 

3. "Turns out that's not what people are expecting. When I damage a player on a PVP server, I will chase him to his airfield, I want him to be counted as my kill. And when the AI behaves like that, people complain that it acts illogically." → Generalizing this opinion is completely wrong! Then you are being guided by a delicate and sensitive, but noisy, minority. Believe me, most people like intense aerial combat, with challenges and threats from takeoff to landing.
 

4. "We tried to fix the chase to the airfield three or four times — we had to get into the basic system of switching AI states and build it on a new crystal clear, simple principle. And there's almost a Maslow pyramid of priorities. Different tasks are dumped on the AI — evasion from the ground, evasion from the threat, fulfillment of tasks according to the mission scenario, and fulfillment of commands given to it by the player, if it is a wingman AI." → That's when you got lost. To face half a dozen unmanly prizzy boys, you have distorted the combat simulator that was previously much more challenging, with missions where you were confronted from start to finish. Pursuits back to base ceased, the A.I. opponent became much less aggressive, bombers and attack aircraft began to maneuver much less to avoid attacks and were neutered in terms of aggressiveness. I remember ± 5 years ago campaign missions against A.I. aircraft in which 109s were chased by IL-02s and even Pe2s, the head on attacks by A.I. aircraft were much more aggressive and even once, on my first campaign mission to intercept an A20 reconnaissance, this one took a lot of work to shoot down. It maneuvered very well for a bomber (probably varying torque between engines), firing furiously with all its defensive weapons. Could it be that the people who whined on the Forum that the simulator was too difficult, that they didn't want to be chased back to their bases, weren't disguised competitors wanting to sabotage the combat simulator?
 

5. "Our fanatical decision to make the AI exactly on the same FM that the player flies has a very obvious inevitable downside — each of them requires the same processing power that the player's plane requires and the player's computer counts the planes of all AIs in fight." → But it's worth it. A combat simulator must be challenging so as not to become monotonous and tedious.
 

6. "...it is fundamental that it has the same FM as you because otherwise, it will be either too easy or impossible." → And, if in this balance, the balance tips more towards the impossible, the better. A good mission is one that is almost impossible, in which the pilot returns injured and the plane damaged. Patience, if there are any softies whining in the Forum. Life is hard with those who are soft!!!
 

7. "But in a situation where the player attacks a line of bombers, the task of these bombers is to stay in formation and shoot back, and in this case, an ultra-detailed FM is not needed, and a decent damage model is necessary. This does not mean, of course, that the bombers will start flying "on rails", as in the old IL-2, but the FM detail can be reduced in this case." → However, bombers that break away from formation must acquire a high level FM, allowing them to maneuver incredibly well and respond furiously with all their defensive weapons.
 

Good Easter!

Enviar feedback
Painéis laterais
Histórico
Salvas
Contribuir

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

10 hours ago, Marcio said:

7. "But in a situation where the player attacks a line of bombers, the task of these bombers is to stay in formation and shoot back, and in this case, an ultra-detailed FM is not needed, and a decent damage model is necessary. This does not mean, of course, that the bombers will start flying "on rails", as in the old IL-2, but the FM detail can be reduced in this case." → However, bombers that break away from formation must acquire a high level FM, allowing them to maneuver incredibly well and respond furiously with all their defensive weapons.

Even with Max level AI and a full FM bombers aren't going to provide much of a challenge to dogfight, and the CPU resources are better spent elsewhere. I'd rather not have FPS dips just to add complexity to a bomber I'd curb stomp with or without full AI. 
From a multiplayer perspective at least, we just need AI to be objective fodder, and the real challenge is ideally coming from the enemy human players attacking/defending them. So simple less CPU intensive versions of bombers, tanks, trucks, etc. are a good idea from that perspective, to enable adding more AI and create a more lively battlefield. And from a single player perspective, it's probably better to focus CPU resources on enemy fighters, and let that be where the challenge is, not dogfighting AI bombers.

[Avimimus]

Moved the discussions/speculations about Odessa here:

 

[Avimimus]

By the way, with regard to AI I think the biggest issues is spotting:

 

- The AI is too predictable at spotting aircraft (compared to historical accounts). We really should be sometimes spotted from further out, and sometimes ignored entirely.

 

- The AI seems to never lose track of us once it has spotted us. This gives the AI an advantage in clouds or certain weather types/times of day. As a player, while conducting air combat manoeuvres, I regularly lose contact with opponents and have to re-acquire them.

 

- In Tank Crew the biggest issue is AI being too good at spotting opponents.

 

So, I'd focus on AI spotting as the major upgrade (including possibly cribbing a few notes from the DCS Petrovich design documents). If crew members also became a bit better at reporting what they are seeing (i.e. in the new title), it'd also be great. Sharing information within a tank or airplane gives an advantage to having multiple crew members.

[Marcio]

But it will only be bondardeiros who stray from training who would acquire a higher level of FM...

Furthermore, the GNA A.I. cores of Intel CPUs (Processors) and the A.I. tensor cores of RTXs allow attack aircraft such as IL2s and bombers such as A20s and Pe2s, e.g. strays from large formations, to have an FM that makes them bone-hard. chewable, maneuvering relatively well and using, with fury and precision, its defensive armament, without sacrificing that much in FPSs.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

If they have tricks to make that not tank FPS then that's fine, but I have doubts we'd get a free lunch, especially if multiple of them break off from a giant formation.

[Lusekofte]

In old il 2 large formations with B 17 did not hurt too much. But When they dropped their ordonance it became a slideshow. It took a while to fix that. 

[EAF19_Marsh]

On 3/29/2024 at 7:25 PM, Avimimus said:

By the way, with regard to AI I think the biggest issues is spotting:

Totally, which is the absolute opposite of what it should be. They seem to lack a ‘cold side’ and never seem to make errors based on losing track and them turning the wrong way in confusion.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

On 3/27/2024 at 11:46 AM, CountZero said:

good thing they putt drive to airplane in back burner, i remenber their first video back 2 years ago and i knew they were planing to do something like that when they talked about geting player in game new way, and it was obvious with VR this is how you could start a game, pov of pilot in hangar or what not walking to parts of it to select mission and so on, then driving to airplane and so on... it sounds nice but gets boring after few trys, and a lot of time wasted

Agree the pilot animations driving or walking to the plane do not interest me either and believe it would become extremely boring very quickly.  MS CFS3 had a little video at the start, where a pilot bails out,  hides in a barn, etc.  Was cool the 1st time , but after that it was just boring.  If they want to spend time animating the pilot outside of the cockpit,  I sure hope the focus on things like getting in a life raft, running from a ditched aircraft , etc..

Edited April 2, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[sevenless]

33 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Agree the pilot animations driving or walking to the plane do not interest me either and believe it would become extremely boring very quickly. 

 

Hey that is supposed to be a feature in "Mighty Eighth VR"...

 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Meh

[Lusekofte]

I loved mighty eight. I took off. Navigated sat in the turret when attacked. Gave first aid to crewmembers and did bomb aiming. Then radio procedures and landing. Crew got better for each mission but mission got harder too. Loved it. 
I will buy the vr version. Just for old time sake. None of the cfs withstand the time without getting old one way or the other. Trick is to switch between them before getting bored

[Gambit21]

On 3/22/2024 at 8:53 AM, S10JlAbraxis said:

 I want to experience what it was actually like to be a WW2 pilot including the historical context and enviornment that surrounds that.  I want to be fully immersed in it.  

 

 Yeah 1946 was getting pretty close.

 

 

 

[DD_Arthur]

On 3/22/2024 at 3:53 PM, S10JlAbraxis said:

 I want to experience what it was actually like to be a WW2 pilot including the historical context and enviornment that surrounds that.  I want to be fully immersed in it. 

So we definitely don’t need a ‘museum’ or a journey across an airfield in a jeep.

 

You start off in the GUI and select ‘Eighth Airforce B17 mission’ and hit ‘Start’.

You then find yourself in a crowded dance hall in an industrial city in the British midlands. You’re drinking weird beer served at room temperature with your buddies. Your head is throbbing, the room is spinning, your surrounded by four dozen women ranging in age from sixteen to sixty with bad teeth and Veronica Lake hairdos’.

One of them leads you outside into the darkness of the blackout. You light a cigarette, inhale but the coldness of the air and the eight pints of p#ss swilling around your stomach bring you to your knees. 
Just as you spill your guts on the sidewalk you notice her shoes are falling apart….

Fade to the cockpit of a B17 on a hard standing with the engines running. The sky is dull and cloudy this dawn. You’re in the left hand seat, looking around.  There are B17’s front back and side rolling along the peri track.

Clipped to the yoke in front of you is a sheet of signal pad with but one word upon it;

Schweinfurt….

 

?

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

So we definitely don’t need a ‘museum’ or a journey across an airfield in a jeep.

 

You start off in the GUI and select ‘Eighth Airforce B17 mission’ and hit ‘Start’.

You then find yourself in a crowded dance hall in an industrial city in the British midlands. You’re drinking weird beer served at room temperature with your buddies. Your head is throbbing, the room is spinning, your surrounded by four dozen women ranging in age from sixteen to sixty with bad teeth and Veronica Lake hairdos’.

One of them leads you outside into the darkness of the blackout. You light a cigarette, inhale but the coldness of the air and the eight pints of p#ss swilling around your stomach bring you to your knees. 
Just as you spill your guts on the sidewalk you notice her shoes are falling apart….

Fade to the cockpit of a B17 on a hard standing with the engines running. The sky is dull and cloudy this dawn. You’re in the left hand seat, looking around.  There are B17’s front back and side rolling along the peri track.

Clipped to the yoke in front of you is a sheet of signal pad with but one word upon it;

Schweinfurt….

 

?

That was a good start of a ww2 novel. I really felt the atmosphere. ???

[DD_Arthur]

I tell you Luse; it’ll be a smash hit in VR!?

[SupremeLoser]

I am probably in the minority from the sounds of it, but I like the museum idea because I would like to be able to appreciate the planes up close along with better, more detailed information about them.  Furthermore, it is something that would have no impact on frame rate or any of the game play.  For those who aren't interested, you don't have to look at the museum and can just fly if that floats your boat.  I think it would be a great thing that would give a bit more soul to the game and complete it.  Perhaps even have a little article for each plane about some of the great pilots and the history.  Wouldn't take much too put that in the game.  I am not talking about movies and such for that, just what would fit on a placard next to the plane as you tour the museum. For those that would say, you can just look it up on wikipedia.  Sure, you can, but wouldn't it be nice to have it integrated into the game?  I think so, especially since it would have no impact on gameplay.  It would take some time to do, but I do not think it is anywhere near the complexity nor man hours involved in say, redoing the game engine or improving the AI.

 

Another thing I think would be nice and would not effect frame rate or game play would be to have a somewhat authentic looking manual for each plane.  Could be available in the cockpit of the plane and put in the place where they would keep them.  You open the manual and it would have all the specs, power settings and such, giving a more "finished" look than the current text only popups in the mission preview.  It would be very nice to be able to open the manual while you are in the plane and even flying it, just like the real pilots did.

 

I agree with the above about not having ridiculous long drawn out movie like scripts to the game.  That would be a side track of programming and gameplay for sure that really wouldn't give much benefit.  I think this game is about the planes and flying and appreciating them.  And the missions of course. 

 

Regarding the AI, I like it when it is as realistic as possible without hurting the frame rate too much.  I am running a Dell Alienware R13 with 64GB Ram and a NVidia GeForce RTX 3080 10GB.  If I set the VR at 2016 x 2044 resolution, I find this hits a minimum "very good" resolution while being able to maintain a steady 60fps with max detail in the IL-2 settings.  I found the combination of frame rate and resolution is just right.  If I raise the VR resolution to 150% of that resolution, the frame rate, though not bad is no longer steady.  It sometimes goes up to 50 and other times dips down to 30.  I can notice that and the flight no longer feels quite as real or smooth in VR.  Anyway, my system is about a medium high end IMHO.  Certainly not the top of the line like some run with the RTX 3090, but not a bare bones VR setup either.  Thus, I think it would be a reasonble reference point. I think the next version of this game should try to be able to maintain a similar frame rate (60fps) with a system similar to mine.

 

Getting back to AI, I think AI should not hold back nor be easily fooled.  They should chase you to the airfield for sure and also be hard to hit in turning combat and show some aptitude in strategy.  Nothing too mind boggling though.  The aforementioned ideas are things I think would not be very complicated and would not eat up a lot of resources nor slow the frame rate.  I notice that after the last update with the current IL-2 GB game, the AI opponents are considerably smarter and harder to hit.  I used to be able to fairly easily pick them off in steady turning fights, even when they are ace level.  Not so much any more.  I appreciate that  .  They also chase me as far as they have fuel if I am in sight of them.  Losing sight from them isn't easy either.  Anyway, I think the AI for the next version of this game doesn't need too much more.  Make them even smarter and stop before the frame rate gets impacted too much.

 

The rest of the game I hope focuses the improvements mainly on the plane itself.  Both the graphics, though like I have said previously, I think it doesn't need that much more... just a modest improvement.  But I think most of improvement should be in the game engine and physics/realism of flying the aircraft.  Afterall, that is what this game is about isn't it?  That sounds great to me that they are looking at improving this.  The only negative thing I have to say about the current IL-2 GB is that it does seem to momentarily pause/hang when there is too much going on the backend processing.  It appears to be when there is a lot of ground scenery and also during combat and there is a lot going on.  Whatever methods the team uses to improve that would be great.  I think it is a matter of a new way of handling it.  I read better use of multi-threaded processing and that, to me, makes sense to solve it (along with other things I'm sure).  I would leave it up to them how they do it, I don't want to say how, but instead just point out the behavior.

 

Last but not least, keep the planes accurate as possible in how they fly and specifics like the engine power settings, roll rate, turn rate, etc.  Most of the planes in the current IL-2 GB seem pretty close in this regards based on what I have read about all of them and studied.  I never flew them in real life though.  There are a few outliers like the P-47 I think need more work to get right.  P-40 too.  And those are just ones I am more knowledgeable about.  I know a lot of research and work has already been done... I am just saying to take another look at it and refine it.  Make sure they all fly as close to realistic as we know and match the specs.  Unfortunately, most of the pilots who flew these planes during WW2 are no longer with us.  But there are recorded interviews.  Sure, take what they say in context, but it is hard to argue with real world experience.  Back it up and cross check with the flight manuals for the planes and also tests run on them.  Yes, there are conflicts in information.  Just do your best is all we can expect  .

Edited April 3, 2024 by Spitfire_Enthusiast1

[=621=Samikatz]

I definitely don't mind the museum idea, I suppose it depends how many resources are put into it. I definitely think flight sims the past few years have felt too much like dry software and having a more indepth exploration of the history of the aircraft and battles would be welcome. I have definitely learned a lot about various planes and air forces because of sims, but it's largely by coming to forums like this one. Having that in game would be cool. I think it would also be helpful for new players to have a place to read about the different aircraft. For example, unless you go out of your way to look it up, the sim doesn't directly explain the difference between, random example, a Bf-109G-2, a G-4, and a G-6. Having a page that would go over the differences and tell you directly that the G-4 has more robust landing gear for use on unprepared fields making it heavier, but in return has access to a higher boost setting, and that the G-6 is heavier still but with upgraded armament for destroying bombers, would both let players make more informed choices about what they want to fly and also hopefully gain an appreciation for how the circumstances of war influence aircraft development.

 

For more famous aircraft sure this information is easy enough to find, but for example I still have no clue what the practical difference is between the two Pe-2s outside of the S.87's turret mod

[DD_Arthur]

5 hours ago, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

It would be very nice to be able to open the manual while you are in the plane and even flying it, just like the real pilots did.

“Red 2, get back in formation”

”Red 2, I said get back in formation!”

”Red 2, what are you doing man!?”

”Hello Red leader. I’m reading the manual. Amazing! Says this Spitfire is made out of wood”

 

[danielprates]

7 hours ago, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

For those who aren't interested, you don't have to look at the museum and can just fly if that floats your boat

.

I think this isn't true actually, obviously everyone is affected since all development effort spent anywhere, is effort not spent somewhere else. There are so many features still absent, which are waaaaaay higher in the overall priorities list.

 

 

[SupremeLoser]

We'll let the development team decide that.  I find the news they shared with us very encouraging.

Edited April 4, 2024 by Spitfire_Enthusiast1

[EAF19_Marsh]

8 hours ago, danielprates said:

.

I think this isn't true actually, obviously everyone is affected since all development effort spent anywhere, is effort not spent somewhere else. There are so many features still absent, which are waaaaaay higher in the overall priorities list.

 

 

 

I agree. The path taken by Elite Dangerous should be a warning to anyone that thinks small, tertiary aspects do not have an opportunity cost. The team already claims that they could use more hours for core elements, but then suggest they might spend money / time / energy on a wholly irrelevant front end. Maybe have a vote:

 

1. Improved AI

2. Great immersion and mission / campaign work (including basic things like having airborne aircraft around airfields as an option, or friendly trains and vehicles on your side of the lines - a pet peeve of mine)

3. New maps

4. New aircraft

5. A kewl museum feature!!! Like In Jane's WW2 Fighter!!! Because.....relevance!!!

 

I wonder where the votes would fall.

[Aapje]

@EAF19_Marsh

 

Keep in mind that different things require different skill sets, so it is not so easy as: you have to work on X or Y.

 

Things like making maps and aircraft is largely different from developing the game engine, which is why they are releasing new planes while working on the new game engine. This doesn't slow them down much and they can still earn some money this way.

[the_emperor]

Still missing in this game are 

1. A proper engine simulation (instead of the arcade timer)

2. internal system that can individually be damaged

3. Historical correct ammunition (still no incendiary), and the option for different belting and own belt configuration

4. Individual gun harmonisation 

5. AI….

And I guess there is much more Iam missing. 

I really would like to see this game finished before a new one is started 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

1 hour ago, the_emperor said:

I really would like to see this game finished before a new one is started 

Sometimes it makes more sense to start fresh, rather than try to fix the old whatever. 

[EAF19_Marsh]

28 minutes ago, Aapje said:

@EAF19_Marsh

 

Keep in mind that different things require different skill sets, so it is not so easy as: you have to work on X or Y.

 

 

No.

 

Opportunity cost is opportunity cost. The salary, energy and management effort is stretched across new and pointless elements and this adversely affects work on core aspects. Anyone that has managed teams and projects knows this.

 

The GB teams has limited resources and a long ‘to do’ list covering key points. Adding a new and rather pointless front-end revamp either involves:

 

a) hours from team members that could have worked on key features that most customers agree need attention

 

or

 

b) involve spending money and energy coordinating new resources (probably out-sourcing) for something of - at best - marginal gain.

 

There are no free lunches: the museum idea will cost something else. It is also, IMHO, a symptom of poor project focus and management like - I dunno - unlocks or that weird CLoD ‘love-rat’ story line. Did the latter cause CLoD being a cluster? No. Was it likely a symptom of wider mismanagement? I would guess that it was.
 

These things have to be ruthlessly managed and prioritized. Hiring a new decorator is not helping the structural integrity but it is burning through your cash.

[Aapje]

@the_emperor

 

That is not going to happen.

 

@EAF19_Marsh

 

I agree that a museum will probably come at the cost of things like engine improvements, but I disagree with your suggestion that people have to choose between better AI and new planes. I don't think there is a lot of overlap there.

[EAF19_Marsh]

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

but I disagree with your suggestion that people have to choose between better AI and new planes. I don't think there is a lot of overlap there.

Team has limited people, time, money etc. They will prioritize some things. Removing or re-prioritizing some things will boost focus on others. It might not be the exact same staff, but it comes from the same pot. This weird museum idea will take time / energy / money. Time, energy and money for aircraft will likely come from maps or AI and so forth.

 

I don’t buy my house, my car and my pimp outfit from the same sources, but it all comes from the same pot of cash. With larger resources they could do more, but there is always a decision.

 

As the old aphorism goes: you can have good, cheap or fast. Pick 2.

Edited April 4, 2024 by LukeFF
watch the tone

[LukeFF]

Guys, let's watch it with some of the comments. 

[EAF19_Marsh]

Edit: OK, I see you there. But I feel that the CloD / Love Rat comment stands.

Edited April 4, 2024 by EAF19_Marsh

[Lusekofte]

4 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Team has limited people, time, money etc.

This is none of our business. We are in a forum and can point out what we feel can be corrected on a software we have purchased, but we should do it in a proper place.

[EAF19_Marsh]

6 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

This is none of our business. We are in a forum and can point out what we feel can be corrected on a software we have purchased, but we should do it in a proper place.

Errr, that is a fact. Like the sun has a limited life.

 

I suspect that our local OG plasma will not be too offended by this observation.