Upcoming AI improvements?

[Gobnik20]

I've been reading a lot of forums about how the devs can't "acquire"  a dedicated AI programmer. What baffles me though if that were the case, why can't you / they share the code for the AI to the community? It sounds ridiculous to me that they'll just leave the AI as it is and continue onto the next game? 

 

If that were the case, I would be questioning you as a consumer as well if you want to support a company that leaves a half done product and moves onto the next? Also just looking at the sheer cost and amount of DLCs should guarantee a flawless SP experience, imagine all that going down the drain. Maybe I am coming across agressive but I am just frustrated that a game like IL-2 1946 had AI so magnificent, with a code accessible to the public for amending. That game was released in 2006.

 

In 2 years that will be 20 years since release and the AI still beats a next gen game. That is beyond comprehension.

 

Give me a logical explanatiopn why this game cannot beat an almost 20 year old game's AI.

Edited May 1, 2024 by Gobnik20

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

40 minutes ago, Gobnik20 said:

I've been reading a lot of forums about how the devs can't "acquire"  a dedicated AI programmer. What baffles me though if that were the case, why can't you / they share the code for the AI to the community? It sounds ridiculous to me that they'll just leave the AI as it is and continue onto the next game? 

 

If that were the case, I would be questioning you as a consumer as well if you want to support a company that leaves a half done product and moves onto the next? Also just looking at the sheer cost and amount of DLCs should guarantee a flawless SP experience, imagine all that going down the drain. Maybe I am coming across agressive but I am just frustrated that a game like IL-2 1946 had AI so magnificent, with a code accessible to the public for amending. That game was released in 2006.

 

In 2 years that will be 20 years since release and the AI still beats a next gen game. That is beyond comprehension.

 

Give me a logical explanatiopn why this game cannot beat an almost 20 year old game's AI.

You raise some valid points.  What jumps out at me from these questions is another question.   How are they going to do AI in the upcoming game if they can't find (or train) a couple of clever AI programmers?

[Zooropa_Fly]

They're never going to give their code away any time soon, and rightly so.

If there are community members with the know how and desire.. there appears to be a job for them.

If not, then releasing the code probably won't yield much anyway.

 

I'm not sure '1946 and the current game are comparable - the bots back there 'cheats' a bit to make it how it is.

In GB they are programmed to the same limitations as if human pilots.

And would you like to go back to 1946 FM's and DM's etc..

 

It also comes down to what individuals want from bots - please some and others will still complain.

You can't copy real life, so there's probably no correct answer to the question.

 

Although they could be better, and I expect they will be at some point, I'm happy enough with the game experience as is.

I think some forget it is a game.. which tries very hard to 'simulate' as much as it can.

 

S!

[Gobnik20]

1 hour ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

You raise some valid points.  What jumps out at me from these questions is another question.   How are they going to do AI in the upcoming game if they can't find (or train) a couple of clever AI programmers?

This.

1 hour ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

They're never going to give their code away any time soon, and rightly so.

If there are community members with the know how and desire.. there appears to be a job for them.

If not, then releasing the code probably won't yield much anyway.

 

I'm not sure '1946 and the current game are comparable - the bots back there 'cheats' a bit to make it how it is.

In GB they are programmed to the same limitations as if human pilots.

And would you like to go back to 1946 FM's and DM's etc..

 

It also comes down to what individuals want from bots - please some and others will still complain.

You can't copy real life, so there's probably no correct answer to the question.

 

Although they could be better, and I expect they will be at some point, I'm happy enough with the game experience as is.

I think some forget it is a game.. which tries very hard to 'simulate' as much as it can.

 

S!

Very good point. It just naturally feels underwhealming compared to IL2 1946, even if the AI cheats there, the flow of the battles feel so real and engaging. I feel like the AI can be improved in so many ways as it just feels like it misses something imo I can't really pin point what it is but It doesn't exactly feel like I am fighting another pilot. The game has all the qualities it needs to succeed, the foundation is there, Why give not make it better? Surely if they really cared for the AI something would of been done a while ago. It feels more like excuses rather than actually making a change.

[LukeFF]

49 minutes ago, Gobnik20 said:

It feels more like excuses rather than actually making a change.

 

Before you go and make any more statements like that, I suggest reading the latest dev blog entries if you've not done so, where they talk about the challenges with AI. 

 

Beyond that, there will be no more discussion here about the team merely making excuses for what is currently in the game.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

6 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Before you go and make any more statements like that, I suggest reading the latest dev blog entries if you've not done so, where they talk about the challenges with AI. 

 

Beyond that, there will be no more discussion here about the team merely making excuses for what is currently in the game.

I am curious about how the team is addressing the AI for the upcoming new game.  Anything you can share?

[LukeFF]

4 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Anything you can share?

 

Not right now, sorry. 

[354thFG_Leifr]

2 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

You raise some valid points.  What jumps out at me from these questions is another question.   How are they going to do AI in the upcoming game if they can't find (or train) a couple of clever AI programmers?

 

I despaired at the state of the AI just three days back.

Growing tired of the stale online environment, I thought I'd try an offline campaign again and chose the well-reviewed Hurtgen P47 campaign. Well, I knew it was doomed from the start after two of the P47s in my flight decided to taxi to the runway through the nearby forest surrounding Asch airfield and wreck themselves. It's a farce really, and I don't hold much stock in the future title being any better really.

[Gobnik20]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Before you go and make any more statements like that, I suggest reading the latest dev blog entries if you've not done so, where they talk about the challenges with AI. 

 

Beyond that, there will be no more discussion here about the team merely making excuses for what is currently in the game.

I stated that "It feels" as that is how i feel about it. I am probably being ignorant to an extent but not fixing core issues of AI for so long baffles me.

So from my understanding. The team is working on a new game, with "New AI"? But at the same time the team is unable to attain an AI programmer for the current game? Also if the AI is being adressed in the new game why can't that AI be implemented into this title? I don't really understand the flow here.

 

When we say new title. You mean new game new engine right? Or are we talking about the same engine but a new DLC?

[BlitzPig_EL]

New game, new engine, or at least one so modified that it won't be backwards compatible with the current sim.

[Aapje]

1 hour ago, Gobnik20 said:

Also if the AI is being adressed in the new game why can't that AI be implemented into this title?

 

I expect them to pretty much copy the existing AI into the new engine.

 

1 hour ago, Gobnik20 said:

When we say new title. You mean new game new engine right? Or are we talking about the same engine but a new DLC?

 

You are thinking too black/white. The new engine will have major overhauls and thus won't be compatible with the old content, but it won't be a completely new engine.

[DD_Arthur]

10 hours ago, Gobnik20 said:

I am just frustrated that a game like IL-2 1946 had AI so magnificent, with a code accessible to the public for amending. That game was released in 2006.

 

In 2 years that will be 20 years since release and the AI still beats a next gen game. That is beyond comprehension.

 

Give me a logical explanatiopn why this game cannot beat an almost 20 year old game's AI.

 

Firstly, the code for IL2 1946 is only “accessible to the public for amending” by downloading some specialist tools and you’ll also need a lot of knowledge and experience to mod that game successfully too. It was certainly not meant to be modded by its original creator.

He went to considerable effort to prevent this in order to protect the integrity of the online game for many years.

 

One of the attractions of original IL2 online was you could be pretty certain that your opponent wasn’t flying a ‘109 secretly equipped with eight thirty mil cannon and capable of Mach two in level flight….

 

Secondly, creating credible a.i. behaviour is simply difficult. One of the reasons multiplayer is such a major feature of all modern pvp combat games is that it’s much cheaper and easier to create an efficient netcode over high speed fibre than it is to spend months and years of programming time trying to replicate the sophisticated decision making behaviour of the human brain.

 

Fast moving air combat in three dimensions is as difficult as it gets.
If your customers already possess a sophisticated decision making engine situated between their ears, why not make them use it?

 

One of the problems this iteration of IL2 has is that it is based on a game engine developed by a small but talented team with limited resources who took this exact route.
This is best illustrated not by a.i. behaviour itself but by the paucity of a.i. commands a pilot can give his wingmen. To change this now would require a deep dive into the game engine.
As has been mentioned, our devs are having a hard time recruiting a specialist a.i. programmer. They’re based in Moscow. Such skills are in high demand worldwide and…er…for one reason or another, Russia has been experiencing a brain drain of the young and talented in recent years.

Personally, I can’t see this situation changing in the near future.

All we can hope is that the devs are making a new title with a much modified game engine being worked on by a relatively large team. If major changes to the a.i. system are to be made - and we have had hints that this is planned - now is the time to do this.

We can but keep our fingers, feet and testicles crossed that they mange this.

 

With all that said; you’re quite right - IL2 1946 still sets the gold standard in what a.i can and should be able to do - in my opinion.

For a start your wingmen, indeed whole formations, can be given detailed, logical commands that they will follow reliably. 
Enemy a.i. will also make good tactical decisions, are not prone to wasting ammunition seemingly randomly and very importantly they can be taken unawares; they can be bounced.

The essence of being a successful fighter pilot has nothing to do with dogfighting or aerobatic ability.  It’s about seeing your opponent first, creeping up behind him unseen and blowing his brains out on the first pass…….

 

 

 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

7 hours ago, Aapje said:

 

I expect them to pretty much copy the existing AI into the new engine.

 

 

You are thinking too black/white. The new engine will have major overhauls and thus won't be compatible with the old content, but it won't be a completely new engine.

Old AI in the new engine?   Would hope they set the bar a little higher..

 

Current AI performance is one of the biggest complaints I see on the forum.   You'd think if they can't hire the appropriate talent,  they would start training someone already on staff, or hire someone with good base skills, and get them the required training to take on this important task.  

Edited May 2, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Im 99% sure I heard them say in one of the dev vids that plan A is to get a dedicated guy to work on the AI, but they have a plan B to get other people to team up on it, if they can't find that guy. We'll just have to wait and see how the AI turns out.

[Flying_Anchor]

7 часов назад, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie сказал:

Im 99% sure I heard them say in one of the dev vids that plan A is to get a dedicated guy to work on the AI, but they have a plan B to get other people to team up on it

Thats true. 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

9 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Im 99% sure I heard them say in one of the dev vids that plan A is to get a dedicated guy to work on the AI, but they have a plan B to get other people to team up on it, if they can't find that guy. We'll just have to wait and see how the AI turns out.

Honestly, ihmo they should do both.  Hire someone with the skills,  and invest in training for a couple of others without the experience/knowledge.  Talented people tend to move around,  so better to be prepared for it.

[Aapje]

We have to keep in mind that this is a fairly small developer. It's not EA. Their resources are limited.

 

I hope that they can find a solution, but their exasperated statements that they can't find someone with the right skills doesn't make me too hopeful that we'll see it improve soon.

 

Quote

Current AI performance is one of the biggest complaints I see on the forum. 

 

I think that visuals sells games initially, but the quality of the gameplay is what keeps them playing the game, and after a while, people stop buying games with a small player base.

 

I personally think that games like IL-2 and DCS focus too much on what happens close to the human pilot and too little on the bigger picture. I think that Falcon BMS did it right in that they essentially made two games. One being a strategy game that simulated a whole war with many units that all have goals and such, but which can be simulated in a relatively simple way (low fidelity). And the other game is the actual combat sim that happens close to the human pilot(s) and which has high fidelity.

 

So then you could have a world filled with planes, air defense, vehicles, targets, etc, but as long as they are not near the human pilot(s), they are simulated in a very simplistic way. No real flight models for planes far away, but just like Civilization, the game engine recalculates new waypoints based on their goals, together with a speed that they should be able to maintain (based on their plane, altitude and damage). And then when the game has the speed and waypoint for other planes, it should be able to quickly calculate new locations for those planes, even very many of them. And if planes get into fights far away from the player, the game wouldn't simulate a real fight, but just do an odds calculation like strategy games normally do.

 

Only when AI units get close to the player, would you then switch to high fidelity.

 

A setup like that would IMO really liven up combat sim games, as it would feel like a world filled with others.

 

Of course, this would then result in (at least) two AI's, one running the strategy game and another handling the flying up close. The latter would still need to be improved a bit so AI planes don't crash into other planes as often.

 

My suggestion to a development company picking this kind of stuff up would be to convince Kevin Klemmick to give advice as a consultant and then hire a developer with a strategy game background to build the strategy part. This is an interview with Klemmick:

 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2024 by Aapje

[tattywelshie]

17 minutes ago, Aapje said:

We have to keep in mind that this is a fairly small developer. It's not EA. Their resources are limited.

 

I hope that they can find a solution, but their exasperated statements that they can't find someone with the right skills doesn't make me too hopeful that we'll see it improve soon.

 

 

I think that visuals sells games initially, but the quality of the gameplay is what keeps them playing the game, and after a while, people stop buying games with a small player base.

 

I personally think that games like IL-2 and DCS focus too much on what happens close to the human pilot and too little on the bigger picture. I think that Falcon BMS did it right in that they essentially made two games. One being a strategy game that simulated a whole war with many units that all have goals and such, but which can be simulated in a relatively simple way (low fidelity). And the other game is the actual combat sim that happens close to the human pilot(s) and which has high fidelity.

 

So then you could have a world filled with planes, air defense, vehicles, targets, etc, but as long as they are not near the human pilot(s), they are simulated in a very simplistic way. No real flight models for planes far away, but just like Civilization, the game engine recalculates new waypoints based on their goals, together with a speed that they should be able to maintain (based on their plane, altitude and damage). And then when the game has the speed and waypoint for other planes, it should be able to quickly calculate new locations for those planes, even very many of them. And if planes get into fights far away from the player, the game wouldn't simulate a real fight, but just do an odds calculation like strategy games normally do.

 

Only when AI units get close to the player, would you then switch to high fidelity.

 

A setup like that would IMO really liven up combat sim games, as it would feel like a world filled with others.

 

Of course, this would then result in (at least) two AI's, one running the strategy game and another handling the flying up close. The latter would still need to be improved a bit so AI planes don't crash into other planes as often.

 

My suggestion to a developer picking this kind of stuff up would be to convince Kevin Klemmick to give advice as a consultant and then hire a developer with a strategy game background do build the strategy part. This is an interview with Klemmick:

 

 

 

Hit the nail on the head there re Falcon and the dynamic career mode they had. As you say, it was a mixture of strategy and sim, and worked brilliantly, the fact that I still remember it to this day says something about how iconic it was in the flight sim world. We’ve gone backwards in terms of dynamic campaigns and AI since MP reared its head unfortunately. I mean the attacking AI used by fighters in B17 Mighty 8th is a step up from some of the routines we have in IL2 🙁

[Aapje]

I think that one issue is that gamers have become more stratified. In the past, a typical gamer would play most genres, while you now often see people play nothing else than simming games. So flight simmers are less likely to ask for things from different genres as many cannot even imagine any improvements other than to improve the flight model, damage modelling, graphics, etc. In other words, just doing the same, but a little better, rather than make a major leap. And since flight sim developers themselves are typically gamers, they also get stuck more and more into this tunnel vision of just replicating the experience of being in a plane, rather than learning from other genres, to create something broader.

 

And I also think that flight sim developers have an extra challenge, since they've had to create their own engines, which requires so much investment nowadays that it is hard to switch to developing for a different engine. So it is very easy for them to become superfocused on a single genre, because that's all they know. This is different for a game company that makes shooters, because lots of shooters are made with generic engines like Unreal Engine, so it's relatively easy for UE developers to switch to a different genre of games. And then they can take lessons from one genre to another.

 

From that perspective I'm very interested in seeing what Combat Pilot becomes, and I hope that they succeed in showing that UE can be made to work for flight sims. It could bring experienced UE developers that know other genres into flight sim development and could lower the difficulty of making these games.

 

Anyway, what I found especially interesting about the interview that it was just one person who made the dynamic campaign for Falcon, and he believes that he made it overly complicated. So I think that in theory it should be feasible even for a smaller developer like 1CGS to do this, although it would require a bit of thinking outside of the box.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Well certainly one skilled person could do the job.  But...  that one person could get a better offer somewhere else, or step in front of a bus, etc..   Skilled people are typically in high demand.  Putting all the eggs in one basket is a risky business practice.  This is of course problematic for smaller companies with smaller staff/budget.  But if you want to run with the big dogs, you have to get used to peeing in the tall grass.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

I'd assume they are doing what you suggest, as since they don't have the dedicated guy yet, they must have a team working on the AI and learning in the process right now.

[Aapje]

4 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Putting all the eggs in one basket is a risky business practice. This is of course problematic for smaller companies with smaller staff/budget.

 

They are already in that situation with the current AI, with them only being able to tweak it a bit, but not being able to make large changes, because the guy who made it, left. Having one person who can do it is a lot better than to have zero people who can do it.

 

And I can guarantee you that 'only one guy really understands it' or even 'no one really understands it' is pretty common in programming and business in general.

Edited May 2, 2024 by Aapje

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

 

"And I can guarantee you that 'only one guy really understands it' or even 'no one really understands it' is pretty common in programming and business in general."

 

No argument here on that. I've witnessed it personally (more than once)  and the crippling effect it had on things company wide when that one person moved on.

Which is precisely why I'm advising against it.

Edited May 2, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[ST_Catchov]

Whatever the reasons may be, if they continue to quibble over the difficulties of implementing decent AI, then people just walk away. 

[Panzerlang]

I've found it necessary in many games to modify my perspective/mind-set to accommodate flaws or deficiencies in the game's code and or attributes. IL2 has been no different. What it has been able to provide is a realistic-enough role-playing experience and I've had more than my money's worth from it.
Right now I'm waiting for the DH2 and Eindeker for WW1 before getting back into it.

[Art-J]

On 5/2/2024 at 4:42 AM, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

You'd think if they can't hire the appropriate talent,  they would start training someone already on staff, or hire someone with good base skills, and get them the required training to take on this important task.  

I don't follow this part to be honest. Who's going to do the training for their team (or that "someone with good base skills") then? Unlike recipe for scrambled eggs, which can be self-tought from blogs and youtube, I don't think complex coding skill can be acquired (or improved significantly) without experienced "teacher / supervisor". In-house or contractor. Which brings us back to square one, unfortunately. They have to find such a person in either case.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

18 hours ago, Aapje said:

I think that one issue is that gamers have become more stratified. In the past, a typical gamer would play most genres, while you now often see people play nothing else than simming games. So flight simmers are less likely to ask for things from different genres as many cannot even imagine any improvements other than to improve the flight model, damage modelling, graphics, etc. In other words, just doing the same, but a little better, rather than make a major leap. And since flight sim developers themselves are typically gamers, they also get stuck more and more into this tunnel vision of just replicating the experience of being in a plane, rather than learning from other genres, to create something broader.

Not sure if this is true. I play many games and genres besides IL2/flight simming (RTS, RPG, grand strategy, citybuilding, racing; just to name a couple), and I don't think I'm very special in that regard. What I do think is true, is that the flight simming crowd is more dedicated to the genre than players of most other genres. A lot of people play IL2 because of an interest in (historical) aviation. If you look at the age demographics of flight simming, they are much flatter than that of other genres with many of IL2's players well past retirement age. They play IL2 because of their interests; not because they stumbled upon it when playing other games.

 

I don't think it's warranted in any way however, to automatically assume this goes for all IL2 developers. Albert Zhiltsov, the head of 1CGS, is also involved with Caliber, an FPS, and War of the Worlds: Siberia, an action/adventure game. I'd say that's plenty of first-hand experience with developing other genres, not even to mention playing them.

 

18 hours ago, Aapje said:

And I also think that flight sim developers have an extra challenge, since they've had to create their own engines, which requires so much investment nowadays that it is hard to switch to developing for a different engine. So it is very easy for them to become superfocused on a single genre, because that's all they know. This is different for a game company that makes shooters, because lots of shooters are made with generic engines like Unreal Engine, so it's relatively easy for UE developers to switch to a different genre of games. And then they can take lessons from one genre to another.

Actually, as you can read above, 1CGS is a company that makes shooters The fact that RoF and IL2 have a proprietary engine hasn't stopped 1CGS from expanding into different genres. Neither has the fact that IL2 and Caliber run on different engines stopped the teams from occasionally working together (reportedly, they are co-operating on soldier models for both the current IL2 and the next generation).

 

2 hours ago, Art-J said:

I don't follow this part to be honest. Who's going to do the training for their team (or that "someone with good base skills") then? Unlike recipe for scrambled eggs, which can be self-tought from blogs and youtube, I don't think complex coding skill can be acquired (or improved significantly) without experienced "teacher / supervisor". In-house or contractor. Which brings us back to square one, unfortunately. They have to find such a person in either case.

It can be acquired without explicit lessons. Most of my programming knowledge is self-taught, and I've written some complex stuff. If you've got a bright guy who's got some basic knowledge and who is prepared to learn, you could put him on AI development and have him learn the ropes as he works.

 

However, this learning process will take a while. It will likely take him a long time to come up with a working product and there will be many wrong turns and dead ends along the way. With the waste of time associated with this, it's almost certainly cheaper to hire someone who already has the required skills. But should that not be feasible, I think it is possible to have someone acquire these skills without explicitly teaching him.

Edited May 3, 2024 by AEthelraedUnraed

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

7 hours ago, Art-J said:

I don't follow this part to be honest. Who's going to do the training for their team (or that "someone with good base skills") then? Unlike recipe for scrambled eggs, which can be self-tought from blogs and youtube, I don't think complex coding skill can be acquired (or improved significantly) without experienced "teacher / supervisor". In-house or contractor. Which brings us back to square one, unfortunately. They have to find such a person in either case.

Haven't checked with educational opportunities recently,  but historically universities (big and small) offered classes in various technologies,  as did IBM, tech oriented professional organizations and companies. A trade show/expo would be a good place to find educational opportunities (as well as potential hires). Would imagine course work likely available online as well.  

Not suggesting there is a class in AI programming (currently).  Maybe there is?   Would be surprised if there was not to be honest.  Although would image not very common yet.  Was suggesting course work in somewhat relatable studies for that gifted student(s). Obviously not a fast path, but a long term investment. 

 

 

Update...  just Google AI course work.   There are quite a few currently available.   Obviously nothing will be "AI programming for IL2", but certainly plenty of courses available to train someone on AI programming.  Getting the basics obviously just the 1st step, but indicates to me they could invest in the training to help them get proficient , and begin the task of improving the software with current staff or new hires. 

Edited May 3, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[JG27_Steini]

4 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

It can be acquired without explicit lessons. Most of my programming knowledge is self-taught, and I've written some complex stuff. If you've got a bright guy who's got some basic knowledge and who is prepared to learn, you could put him on AI development and have him learn the ropes as he works.

 

However, this learning process will take a while. It will likely take him a long time to come up with a working product and there will be many wrong turns and dead ends along the way. With the waste of time associated with this, it's almost certainly cheaper to hire someone who already has the required skills. But should that not be feasible, I think it is possible to have someone acquire these skills without explicitly teaching him.

 

Experiences within the last years show something other. In my mind the current AI is probably extrem complex. The code is probably build completly different. Instead reacting to trigger i think the entities do have a stand procedure and wait for the environment to change their procedure to another template. Each entity is living in this environment and is listening to changing variables. This sounds pretty cool to me, but it makes the environment pretty complex and you can not just change the behaviour of an entity because it has to listen to everything and has to decide what to do. 

 

Single entity do behave very strange and even the simplest things (for a human) wont work. Even after 10 years we have crashing planes with each other or the ground or during taxiing. I dont think that is that easy to change, because it is always happening. 

 

I like your optimism, but we do argue about this over years now. None of us here experienced any major changes flying with the AI. Every month a beginner reports the same problems, all other deal with or dont fly anymore, but it keeps poping up regularly. So no, i dont think it is realistic to wait for another talented programmer solving this problems.

 

That the team was at least honest in their last interview was helpfull to understand why is that all hapening but it sounded very pessimistic the same time.

Edited May 3, 2024 by JG27_Steini

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

4 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Not sure if this is true. I play many games and genres besides IL2/flight simming (RTS, RPG, grand strategy, citybuilding, racing; just to name a couple), and I don't think I'm very special in that regard. What I do think is true, is that the flight simming crowd is more dedicated to the genre than players of most other genres. A lot of people play IL2 because of an interest in (historical) aviation. If you look at the age demographics of flight simming, they are much flatter than that of other genres with many of IL2's players well past retirement age. They play IL2 because of their interests; not because they stumbled upon it when playing other games.

I think as VR becomes more accessible, and with the right exposure VR can change the demographics in flight sims. Personally I knew nothing about planes 3 or 4 years ago, and I only got into IL2 and DCS because I read I had the ultimate flight sim headset already, and I thought why not let's try flight sims, and I found that VR dogfighting is a hard experience to beat in gaming. 

This change can be good or bad. Obviously you don't want to sell the soul of the game and cater to the easy mode type of gamer who wants mouse controls and external views like War Thunder, but there's lots of positive lessons from non-sim games that have sold millions of copies as well, that could be applied without selling the games soul.

Many gamers crave challenge and depth though, so if you combined the physics and realism of IL2 with the game modes and features of other games, the game could blow up. Those game modes and features may or may not break immersion, but the role play people could always take a page from World of Warcraft and have RP only servers, where everyone is required to stay in character. With the expanded player base, there would be more money for features and content that benefit every type of player.

 

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

(reportedly, they are co-operating on soldier models for both the current IL2 and the next generation).

 

Yes, they have created models for IL2, IIRC this includes some of the paratroopers.