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

[Lusekofte]

12 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

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.

So why should We choose one before the other. They are basically making a new sim. Let them make it complete. 12 years of development + ROF years and we are at a point where they ditch their product. Do you really believe they do this just to deliver a half product?

They probably have gambled a little, but intention must be none the less a improvement

Edited April 4, 2024 by Lusekofte

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 minute ago, Lusekofte said:

. Do you really believe they do this just to deliver a half product.

Dunno. They have made in the past some bizarre decisions that - in my opinion - have cost them revenue and profit.

 

Do you understand business?

[Lusekofte]

6 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

you understand business?

I own my own company for four years. But due to prolonged treatment for cancer. Been supervisor for several windmill projects and other projects. I have shut it down. 9 employees 4 company cars two trucks and so on. I know all about what it takes to survive in both ups and downs. So do not lecture me please 

Edited April 4, 2024 by Lusekofte

[Koziolek]

9 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

 

They probably have gambled a little, but intention must be none the less a improvement

You know what they say about good intentions?

[Lusekofte]

Just now, Koziolek said:

You know what they say about good intentions?

Yes. But you got to believe and hope. You would not survive one minute in DCS and MSFS for that sake without believing and hoping. Show me one perfect CFS. 
They are all useful in some parts and you got to find it

[Koziolek]

9 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

Yes. But you got to believe and hope. You would not survive one minute in DCS and MSFS for that sake without believing and hoping. Show me one perfect CFS. 
They are all useful in some parts and you got to find it

You are absolutely right. That's why I am patiently waiting for the new project. And as to the perfect CFS I hope it will never come, because there will not be anything done after that ?

[BillsPlane]

I appreciate what you guys are talking about with limited resources and spending the time/money where it is most useful.  I think it comes down to a priority list.  My thoughts on that are that the top priority is to fix/improve the graphics and game engine (though it is pretty good compared to other flight sims I have played).  Fix the stutters and handle it more efficiently.  After that, I think further improving the modeling and accuracy of the flying characteristics of the planes... though again, I think it is quite excellent with the current version.  That would also include gunnery and various specifics about each plane.  Sound effects and such too.  To me, these sort of things are way above worrying about the AI.  I think it is about getting the planes to look, feel, sound and fly just right as the top priority.  It is followed closely modeling combat, which by that I mean the weapons, damage (sub system damage modeling, etc.)... without getting too crazy with it.  The AI?  I just don't see much of an issue there needing improvement?  There are a few things that could use correction here and there... the issue where you have AA artillery firing at you when you are behind your own lines (for example, I'm flying over SE England and getting shot at from a neighbor base in my RAF Spitfire... what the???  ).

 

The museum idea I really like because being able to appreciate these planes on the ground and have some good info to read about them is the one thing that is lacking.  There are things modeled with each specific plane that we only can figure out (and guess) once flying them.  It sure would be nice to have some polished reference material in the game itself.  That would include pilot's manuals for them.  The skill set for the people that would be involved in that would be different than the ones doing the modeling of the aircraft and game/graphics engine for the most part.  Sure, there would be some overlap, but being a software engineer myself, I understand that you have people on a team with different areas of focus that drive certain things.  I would presume there would be a team doing each of those separate things, and yet there would be communication between them.  In fact, I think the museum idea would be great to help improve the aircraft modeling because a lot of the research that the people involved in the museum portion would then provide more information for the people modeling the planes more accurately.  I would guess that the team involved on the museum, manuals and other related areas would have skills more in the graphic artist and historical research area.  The ones on the aircraft modeling, game/graphics engine would be more technical with programming those underlying technologies.  There would be a bit a talk between them that would only make things better IMHO.  The museum/manuals team would probably delve deeper into the research and bring about things to the aircraft modeling/game/graphics engine team that would help improve things further.

 

Anyway, it is up to the IL-2 team how they do it.  I'm just saying I support the ideas talked about by Daniel and Albert (translated... as I don't speak Russian).  Sounds great to me!  I trust they will figure out how to delegate the resources for it and also prioritize things correctly.

[EAF19_Marsh]

31 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

know all about what it takes to survive in both ups and downs. So do not lecture me please 

If you think that budget should be put towards resources for pointless and unprofitable Item 1 over customer requested Item 2 you and I live in different universes.

7 minutes ago, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

 

I appreciate

 

I mean this in the nicest way, but please google ‘paragraph’.

[BillsPlane]

14 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

If you think that budget should be put towards resources for pointless and unprofitable Item 1 over customer requested Item 2 you and I live in different universes.

I mean this in the nicest way, but please google ‘paragraph’.

We will just have to agree to disagree on both of your points.  I have been writing a long time and though paragraph structure certainly varies by the author, my structure is quite acceptable.  I have certainly seen ridiculously unreadable paragraph structure of unrelated ideas, but I am simply not seeing it with my writing here.  It is perhaps a bit more detailed.  You will find many technical manuals or books will have paragraphs considerably longer.  It is about keeping related subject matter together.

 

Pointless and unprofitable?  Sounds like an assumption to me.    I mean that kindly.  I am pointing out that there seems to be a lot of assumptions here.

Edited April 4, 2024 by Spitfire_Enthusiast1

[danielprates]

10 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

1. FLYABLE B-26 MARAUDER.

2. Improved AI

3. 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)

4. New maps

5. New aircraft

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

 

I wonder where the votes would fall.

 

You've made a litte error just there. Here, let me fix that for you:

Edited April 4, 2024 by danielprates

[EAF19_Marsh]

4 minutes ago, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

We will just have to agree to disagree on both of your points

1. Pointless and unprofitable: adds little for customers and makes little money

 

2. Paragraphs: within this forum setting your text requires rather more generous spacing

 

Feel free to disagree, but I am not sure for how long I can be bothered to point out the blindingly obvious.

Just now, danielprates said:

 

You've made a litte error just there. Here, let me fix that for you:

Damn! It’s always the little things!!!!!

[BillsPlane]

17 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

1. Pointless and unprofitable: adds little for customers and makes little money

 

2. Paragraphs: within this forum setting your text requires rather more generous spacing

 

Feel free to disagree, but I am not sure for how long I can be bothered to point out the blindingly obvious.

Damn! It’s always the little things!!!!!

Are you part of the IL-2 development team?

[EAF19_Marsh]

11 minutes ago, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

Are you part of the IL-2 development team?

No. I work in aerospace and have with global companies and governments for getting on 20 years. I know my way around business. Just a bit.

 

Also, as a counterpoint, I do not work for Microsoft, Ford or MacDonalds but as a consumer that provides their revenue I could pass on some advice.

 

Why do you ask?

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

If you think that budget should be put towards resources for pointless and unprofitable Item 1 over customer requested Item 2 you and I live in different universes.

*It is not mine or yours budget, it is theirs, and we know nothing about it. That is my point, this is not a kindergarden and no one here believe in Santa claus, but you sit here and tell everybody it is ok with a half game, because of a tight budget. Is that business? If I told my clients I will only bother with them 50% , how much work would I get? 

I said don\t lecture me

[BillsPlane]

46 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

No. I work in aerospace and have with global companies and governments for getting on 20 years. I know my way around business. Just a bit.

 

Also, as a counterpoint, I do not work for Microsoft, Ford or MacDonalds but as a consumer that provides their revenue I could pass on some advice.

 

Why do you ask?

The way you are carrying on and your title made me think you were part of the team and thus, in that case I would have deferred to what you have you say.  However, you aren't and it boils down to your opinion vs mine.  I beg to differ on both of your points, I'll leave it at that and not have our discourse devolve further.

 

Regarding qualifications, I've been a software engineer for over 30 years, have written car performance software (though not as graphics intense as IL-2 by any means) and have also tuned high performance engines for many years. That includes development work of various parts and systems and also writing many technical manuals for users of various knowledge levels. While I haven't owned a business yet, I have worked closely with owners and am quite adept with the needs vs wants and planning things based on cost effectiveness.  I am humble about it though, that is for sure.  My experience has shown it is not about being right, but about what is learned.  That is the real value.  Good day sir.

Edited April 4, 2024 by Spitfire_Enthusiast1

[Enceladus828]

My patience is at the verge of expiring here, what is the reason for the devs not revealing the complete plane set and exact time period of the "New Project"?

[ITAF_Rani]

5 minutes ago, Enceladus828 said:

My patience is at the verge of expiring here, what is the reason for the devs not revealing the complete plane set and exact time period of the "New Project"?

Maybe not 100% decided yet?

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 hour ago, Lusekofte said:

but you sit here and tell everybody it is ok with a half game, because of a tight budget.

I said exactly the opposite. Re-read. Slowly.

1 hour ago, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

My experience has shown it is not about being right, but about what is learned.  That is the real value.

So logically you agree with everything I said, given that is largely the point I made.

 

You can have million ideas, but if they did not sell then you might be ignoring economic gravity. Or serving with the Luftwaffe production planning staff 1940-42.

 

A lot of supposedly business-wise people here, suddenly, yet very little business 101.

 

Odd.

[danielprates]

 

Speaking of "business", I'll just drop this little thingy here. Emphasis on the "short, concise" bit. Just to.... you know, whomever is willing to take a hint. Could be anyone.

[Aapje]

The main issue I have with a museum is that it is great for a demo and to spend a bit of time, but how much time will you actually spend in it compared to the time you are flying?

 

So if for the sake of argument, a museum costs as much time/effort/etc as implementing FSR+DLSS, but you spend 8 hours in the museum for every 1000 hours of flying, then you get 1000 hours of benefit of FSR+DLSS versus 8 hours of fun in the museum. Is the museum worth that?

[danielprates]

2 minutes ago, Aapje said:

The main issue I have with a museum is that it is great for a demo and to spend a bit of time, but how much time will you actually spend in it compared to the time you are flying?

 

So if for the sake of argument, a museum costs as much time/effort/etc as implementing FSR+DLSS, but you spend 8 hours in the museum for every 1000 hours of flying, then you get 1000 hours of benefit of FSR+DLSS versus 8 hours of fun in the museum. Is the museum worth that?

 

That's my math too.

 

Lets face it, by the time of 1990's games, with all the scarce access to information we had, those plane/ship viewers with 3d models (if now we can call it that, in hindsight) were AWESOME. Honorable mention to SSI games.... remember aces of the deep anyone? It had a detailed u-boat room viewer, pictures, interviews with freaking Kretschmer et al!

 

But nowadays... any half-hour spent watching a "Rex's Hangar" YT video is time better spent. There are just so many sources, it's overwhelming.

 

[Aapje]

54 minutes ago, danielprates said:

But nowadays... any half-hour spent watching a "Rex's Hangar" YT video is time better spent. There are just so many sources, it's overwhelming.

 

Or the Inside the Cockpit series of Military Aviation History:

 

 

 

[sevenless]

50 minutes ago, danielprates said:

.. remember aces of the deep anyone?

 

Yep I do. Am I really that old? Seriously, point is, back then developers laid way more focus on gameplay features, AI and singleplayer entertainment. An art often neglected nowadays. If I want to play air-quake there are other apps to play which rule the market.

[danielprates]

38 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Yep I do. Am I really that old? Seriously, point is, back then developers laid way more focus on gameplay features, AI and singleplayer entertainment. An art often neglected nowadays. If I want to play air-quake there are other apps to play which rule the market.

 

I felt so proud counting the little flags hoisted on the aerial in the "back to port" cutscene. Iirc it was white for freighters, red for combat ships, black for something? Seems trivial today but for those days' standards it was a lot. It made me feel more immersed than, say, GBs carreer info.

 

44 minutes ago, Aapje said:

 

Or the Inside the Cockpit series of Military Aviation History:

 

 

 

 

That one is great too. Then there is his "ze germans" buddy from military history visualized, tank chats, drachinifel...  so much great stuff.

 

A in-game grimoire feels increasingly less necessary if you ask me.

[EAF19_Marsh]

12 hours ago, danielprates said:

 

 

Speaking of "business", I'll just drop this little thingy here. Emphasis on the "short, concise" bit. Just to.... you know, whomever is willing to take a hint. Could be anyone.

 

Could you be more precise?

[kestrel79]

That museum feature and walkaround people are talking about would be cool, but I'd rather spend time and money on the actual gameplay instead.

 

I LOVED that feature in 90's sims, reading up on all the aircraft, viewing the 3d model...but this was in the 90's and early 2000's...now if I want to know more about the MiG-3 all I have to do is google it, read the wiki page or go on YouTube and there's hundreds of videos on it. I feel that type of stuff was great in sims for the time, but the technology is so much better now it's not as needed. 

 

Same with the giant books and instruction manuals you would get. People make their own guides on YouTube now.

 

One thing I hope they would focus on is built in training missions, IL-2 was lacking with this stuff out of the box.