Korea?

[BillsPlane]

I recall in a previous blog update mention about the next major update for Great Battles would be Korea and feature F4U Corsair, B-29, etc.  I'm stoked about this!  Is there a rough idea of when/if this will be available?  It will be using the new game engine?

[AEthelraedUnraed]

4 hours ago, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

I recall in a previous blog update mention about the next major update for Great Battles would be Korea and feature F4U Corsair, B-29, etc.  I'm stoked about this!  Is there a rough idea of when/if this will be available?  It will be using the new game engine?

We know next to nothing about it; officially we don't even know it's Korea.

 

All we do know are the aircraft types you mentioned (as well as a Yak-9, IL-10 and P-51), and that they'll indeed use an updated version of the current engine.

[BillsPlane]

Thanks.  Well, hopefully we will see it sometime.  Early next year perhaps?

 

A big reason I am very excited about this update is the Corsair, and particularly the very high performance versions that were used during the Korean war.  Here is some info:

 

"Ground Marines in Korea quickly came to accept the Corsair as a standard weapon.  Corsairs operated from both carriers and fixed bases in support of infantry.  The F4U-5, F4U-5N, F4U-5P, and the F4U-5NL versions of the Corsair came available during the five short years between WW II and Korea.  The AU-1, the attack version of the Corsair, which was developed during the Korean conflict based on the ground support lessons being learned, became available in 1952. The AU-1 joined six other models of the Corsair in the Korean fighting.  All versions of the Corsair proved their worth in the hands of an outstanding group of Navy and Marine aviators." (from www.vought.org)

 

"F4U-5: A 1945 design modification of the F4U-4, first flown on 21 December 1945, was intended to increase the F4U-4 Corsair's overall performance and incorporate many Corsair pilots' suggestions. It featured a more powerful Pratt and Whitney R-2800-32(E) engine with a two-stage supercharger, rated at a maximum of 2,760 hp (2,060 kW). Other improvements included automatic blower controls, cowl flaps, intercooler doors, and oil cooler for the engine, spring tabs for the elevators and rudder, a completely modernized cockpit, a completely retractable tail wheel, and heated cannon bays and pitot head. The cowling was lowered two degrees to help with forward visibility, but perhaps most striking as the first variant to feature all-metal wings. Maximum speed was 408 knots (470 mph) and max rate of climb at sea level 4,850 feet per minute.

 

F4U-5N: Radar equipped version.

 

F4U-5NL: Winterized version. Fitted with rubber de-icing boots on the leading edge of the wings and tail.

 

F4U-5P: Long-range photo-reconnaissance version.

 

AU-1: U.S. Marines attack variant with extra armor to protect the pilot and fuel tank, and the oil coolers relocated inboard to reduce vulnerability to ground fire. The supercharger was simplified as the design was intended for low-altitude operation. Extra racks were also fitted. Fully loaded for combat the AU-1 weighed 20% more than a fully loaded F4U-4, and was capable of carrying 8,200 lb (3,700 kg) of bombs. The AU-1 had a maximum speed of 238 miles per hour (383 km/h) at 9,500 ft (2,900 m), when loaded with 4,600 lb (2,100 kg) of bombs and a 150-US-gallon (570 L) drop-tank. When loaded with ten HVAR rockets and two 150-gallon drop-tanks, maximum speed was 298 mph (480 km/h) at 19,700 ft (6,000 m). When not carrying external loads, maximum speed was 389 mph (626 km/h) at 14,000 ft (4,300 m). First produced in 1952 and used in Korea, and retired in 1957. Re-designated from F4U-6." (from wikipedia)

 

470mph and a climb rate of 4850 fpm !!!

 

As much as I love the P-51, this will take the cake!  The same old P-51D was used in Korea.  A great plane, and my favorite to fly in IL-2, but was getting a little long in the tooth by that point.  Though prop planes were becoming pretty much ground attack/support planes by that point with the advent of jets.  But I will always have a place in my heart for the piston engined prop fighters.  The Korean Corsair, particularly the F4U-5 variants, will exceed the performance of any of the prop planes we have flown in IL-2 so far.  And that later double-wasp engine will be a great thing to experience too!  It is a pretty brutal sounding engine in the current P-47, but in this Corsair it not only makes significantly more power (which you will be able to feel/hear), but also the plane itself climbs and performs much better than the P-47.

Edited May 17, 2024 by Spitfire_Enthusiast1

[Gambit21]

I posted the probable plan set a while back. It’s Korea.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

3 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

I posted the probable plan set a while back. It’s Korea.

Of course it is Korea. I don't think anyone really doubts that. But we still don't have any official confirmation about that.

 

As for the time frame in which we might see the new title; I'd be surprised if it's before 2026. Late 2025 at the very earliest.

[cardboard_killer]

I put a new LED light-bulb in my garage overhead with the realization that it will still be working after I'm dead.

[Rjel]

18 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

I put a new LED light-bulb in my garage overhead with the realization that it will still be working after I'm dead.

Go towards the light man. Go towards the light. 

[Jaegermeister]

On 5/16/2024 at 9:59 PM, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

I recall in a previous blog update mention about the next major update for Great Battles would be Korea and feature F4U Corsair, B-29, etc.  I'm stoked about this!  Is there a rough idea of when/if this will be available?  It will be using the new game engine?

 

Not really... The last update I saw said the next major update for Great Battles will be Odessa.

[Avimimus]

On 5/19/2024 at 5:03 AM, Jaegermeister said:

Not really... The last update I saw said the next major update for Great Battles will be Odessa.

 

Which update? I gather that Odessa is being worked on by third parties (many of which have other jobs), so timelines can shift.

[Mysticpuma]

On 5/17/2024 at 7:10 AM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

And that they'll indeed use an updated version of the current engine.

Which as I understand it was an update of a previous engine..... so more of a lick of paint than a new house? 

[Gambit21]

On 5/17/2024 at 12:24 PM, cardboard_killer said:

I put a new LED light-bulb in my garage overhead with the realization that it will still be working after I'm dead.

 

Yep...that thing should go for a good year.

[BraveSirRobin]

18 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Yep...that thing should go for a good year.

Depending on his age, that is probably bad news for cardboard killer.  

[AEthelraedUnraed]

On 5/20/2024 at 5:51 PM, Mysticpuma said:

Which as I understand it was an update of a previous engine..... so more of a lick of paint than a new house? 

The IL2 engine is a development of the Rise of Flight engine, yes.

 

However, I do not quite agree with equating an engine update with a "lick of paint" vs a "new house". Upgrading a game engine is not like upgrading a house in the city center where you are limited by available space and restrictive regulations and a lick of paint may be all you're allowed to do, while real change can only come from buying a different house. Upgrading a game engine is more like upgrading a house on the Belgian countryside.* Put in an extra window or two, tear down a wall, extend the kitchen, add a garage... hell you might even add another floor or two.

 

Similarly, "upgrading" a game engine could mean anything from small updates to the implementation of new technology within the existing framework, to newly added functionality, to entire engine components being rewritten from scratch. From the available official sources, it seems the new project will see all of these. There'll be a more detailed damage model (small update), PBR-based shaders (new technology within the existing framework), working radars that provide vectors to the target (new functionality) and "completely redesign[ed] radio communication" (rewritten components).

 

 

* For those who've never been to Belgium; the country has a notorious lack of building and planning regulations leaving people largely free to do whatever they like. Which is a very, very bad idea.

[Aapje]

The proper analogy is probably a building renovation. Which can be extremely extensive.

[LukeFF]

5 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

*For those who've never been to Belgium; the country has a notorious lack of building and planning regulations leaving people largely free to do whatever they like. Which is a very, very bad idea.

 

🤣

[BMA_FlyingShark]

5 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

* For those who've never been to Belgium; the country has a notorious lack of building and planning regulations leaving people largely free to do whatever they like. Which is a very, very bad idea.

If ya me now, Kase.

 

Dooi.

 

[BillsPlane]

I am very curious to see how the new game engine improves the simulation.  The biggest/only gripe I have with the current one is that the frame rate stalls when it loads large amounts of scenery in batches, particularly areas with lots of buildings.  I know that has been mentioned as an issue and is due to the old engine handling things in a single thread, linear processing, if I am not mistaken.  The new engine will allow multiple thread processing?  I am also interested to see what other changes in the game engine are apparent when flying.  Will it change the way the plane feels to fly?

 

Other than that, the other things I look forward too are new fighters.  To me, this simulation is about flying the fighter aircraft.  I know some like flying the bombers or attack aircraft, or even the tank battles... to each their own. I have a lot of appreciation for the early fighter models, like the early Spitfire and Bf-109 in particular.  Though slower, they have an appeal of simplicity, lighter weight and more of a "sportscar in the sky" feel.  I think it is analogous to comparing the evolution of the Porsche 911 or Datsun Z car.  If you have ever driven a late '60s Porsche 911 vs. one from the '90s and then a current one... you will know what I mean.  Or say, a Datsun 240Z vs the 300ZX from the '90s vs the current Z. There is something very endearing and "fun" about the original design.  I personally prefer it to enjoy for the sake of driving. At the same time, I would love to see the latest and "best", fastest, must brutal fighters that came at the very end of WW2 and into late 40s and early 50s.  Though, by that point the piston prop plane had seen its days as a top tier fighter.  Nevertheless, I would love to have an excuse for IL-2 to include the likes of the Corsair F4U-5 along with P-51H, Grumman Bearcat, Hawker Sea Fury, Supermarine Spiteful/Seafang.  The early jets used in Korea, particularly the Mig-15 and F-86 Sabre would be great too.  I lose interest in the fighter planes after those years for some reason.  My question though is does it have to be 100% historically correct as far as what planes are available? Nothing major (like putting F-16s in WW2 LOL), but what I mean is what about having the P-51H in the Korean module.  Technically though they didn't see combat, they were deployed and available in very limited numbers.  Also, the Hawker Sea Fury actually was there.  The Bearcat and Seafang weren't , AFAIK, but they were available at that time, so they "could" have been available in an alternative event timeline.  These other aircraft could be extra aircraft purchased separately.  I would definitely buy a P-51H (or F-51H should I say).

 

The things that I think should be 100% historically accurate and of prime importance is the planes themselves.  They should not only look 100% correct, with the accurate badging and other cockpit details (which IL-2 has been VERY good about), but also the engine and plane performance specs and modelling.  I think IL-2 is very, very good in this regards but probably could use a little improvement.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

I know that has been mentioned as an issue and is due to the old engine handling things in a single thread, linear processing, if I am not mistaken.  The new engine will allow multiple thread processing?  I am also interested to see what other changes in the game engine are apparent when flying.  Will it change the way the plane feels to fly?

Not quite; IL2 being singlethreaded is a persistent rumour that has been consistently proven false. You can easily check it yourself in Process Explorer; I can't remember the exact number but I believe there were some 30-ish threads. There probably is one main loop though, but that is nothing special for games.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Whatever the technical semantics are, our CPUs are being underutilized, and improving that would be a huge selling point for Korea.

[Aapje]

2 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Whatever the technical semantics are, our CPUs are being underutilized, and improving that would be a huge selling point for Korea.

 

You will always have parts of your system be 'underutilized' by some definition. Many people's definition of underutilization of a CPU is when it is not at 99% usage, but an optimal utilization of the CPU for gaming is almost always way below that.

 

And in general you want the CPU to not be the bottleneck due to a bunch of reasons. For example, it tends to result in bad stuttering if you are.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Yeah, I know we're not gonna see 100% of the cores used at 100% efficiency, but right now most of my CPU is napping while frame rates are dropping, so there is lots of room for improvement. 

[Yogiflight]

7 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Not quite; IL2 being singlethreaded is a persistent rumour that has been consistently proven false. You can easily check it yourself in Process Explorer; I can't remember the exact number but I believe there were some 30-ish threads. There probably is one main loop though, but that is nothing special for games.

Last time I tried it with the Task Manager, there were five cores at very high usage and the remaining cores at a few percent. As far as I know IL-2 uses four cores, so the fifth maybe has to do with graphics somehow?

[BillsPlane]

7 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Not quite; IL2 being singlethreaded is a persistent rumour that has been consistently proven false. You can easily check it yourself in Process Explorer; I can't remember the exact number but I believe there were some 30-ish threads. There probably is one main loop though, but that is nothing special for games.

Ah, my mistake, thanks for the clarification.  Well, I recall that the new game engine was said to improve the processing of the graphics and should smooth things out for a given cpu and video card setup?  However they did it I will be very appreciative.  The only processing difficulties I see with the current one on my setup is when loading scenery that has lots of ground objects.  However, with normal fighting and scenery and full detail settings it has no issues.  It is just when flying over cities. If they can pull off just the ability to smoothly process the big chunks of data, that is enough for me.  I don't need faster frame rates, just more consistent ones.  Now, if they somehow raise the detail level and improve the frame rate consistency, that would be something incredible. 

Edited May 23, 2024 by Spitfire_Enthusiast1

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, Yogiflight said:

Last time I tried it with the Task Manager, there were five cores at very high usage and the remaining cores at a few percent. As far as I know IL-2 uses four cores, so the fifth maybe has to do with graphics somehow?

That's not how multithreading usually works. You *can* specify a certain "affinity" for a specific core, but that's very unusual and in fact is extra programming effort, so usually isn't done unless you've got a good and very specific reason to. I don't think IL2 has one. In other words, IL2 doesn't use "four/five cores"; IL2 uses 30-ish threads that are externally divided across cores by the OS (i.e. Windows). Which might be four cores, or one, or a hundred (up to the number of threads), depending on your hardware configuration and drivers.

 

Modern CPUs often have some sort of boosting that is at least partially core-specific (see e.g. here for Intel CPUs). This means that - as long as you don't run out of thermal/processing/memory management headroom - it can actually be faster to just dump all threads on a single core rather than evenly divide them across all of them. So the fact that one core is doing most of the work doesn't really mean anything - this may very well be the fastest way to run the game.

 

As far as *predicting* what the best way to divide all threads is in order to still give good performance, given any number of instructions and memory that may be called/accessed in the near future so that you don't have to move things around potentially leading to stuttering; well, if anyone's got any good ideas then I'm sure Intel will have a lucrative job opening for you

 

1 hour ago, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

Ah, my mistake, thanks for the clarification.  Well, I recall that the new game engine was said to improve the processing of the graphics and should smooth things out for a given cpu and video card setup?  However they did it I will be very appreciative.  The only processing difficulties I see with the current one on my setup is when loading scenery that has lots of ground objects.  However, with normal fighting and scenery and full detail settings it has no issues.  It is just when flying over cities. If they can pull off just the ability to smoothly process the big chunks of data, that is enough for me.  I don't need faster frame rates, just more consistent ones.  Now, if they somehow raise the detail level and improve the frame rate consistency, that would be something incredible. 

Well one thing they've confirmed for the new engine is that the AI aircraft don't always run on full physics fidelity. Meaning it should save a lot of CPU for distant aircraft (or specific aircraft models; they haven't told much about the exact implementation). So that should at least solve the time dilation issue with many AI aircraft around. Regarding the city loading stutters; they haven't really said much about that but it shouldn't be impossible to solve so I'm hopeful

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I do change affinity for my hardware to use specific core, core 0 is free for system, but GPU , networkcard, USB hubs are running in separate cores, my latency dropped and system is stutter free in games.

[Jaegermeister]

On 5/20/2024 at 7:44 AM, Avimimus said:

Which update? I gather that Odessa is being worked on by third parties (many of which have other jobs), so timelines can shift.

 

I suppose I am paraphrasing various individual comments I have read. Future updates with new Flying Circus planes, the Odessa map and perhaps the Karelia map with an included scripted campaign are on the horizon, probably before the release of the "New Project". This is just what I recall without going back and looking up specific quotes and I certainly have not seen any dates mentioned either.

 

@LukeFF might have a better idea of the future update schedule than I do.

[LukeFF]

The next and likely last batch of FC planes is tentatively planned to be released at some point later this year as one package. The other things are still TBD. 

[Enceladus828]

5 hours ago, LukeFF said:

The next and likely last batch of FC planes is tentatively planned to be released at some point later this year as one package.

Why isn’t Ugra going to, at the very least, add the Channel Map and seaplanes? Seems like professional suicide right there to just axe FC and by extension any further WW1 development when there is so much more to be desired with FC. Many people including myself will definitely get the Channel Map and I’ll even get FC2 to do cross-Channel flights in the HP 400 and Gotha. If it wasn’t that profitable in RoF doesn’t mean the same will be in FC. I mean, what’s the point of rebuilding RoF as FC if the Channel and Tarnopol maps and their respective planes won’t be in it??
 

I’m tired of the Western Front, let alone France, being overly represented; the Eastern Front and Italian Front to name a few played an important role in the Entente victory and had lots of aerial activity — hundreds of sorties in the two fronts above — that lasted for much more than simply a few months. If FC and WoFF are all there is for high fidelity WW1 sims, the former being the only one with VR, then who else is going to add the Eastern and Italian Front maps?

 

Lastly, does this mean that there will be no slower two-seaters for the poor Eindecker and DH.2 pilots to catch up with like the BE2c, Caudron G.4, Alabtross C.I, and Aviatik C.I, and the DFW will be the only Central Powers two-seater for the mid-late war in the game??

Edited May 24, 2024 by Enceladus828

[LukeFF]

46 minutes ago, Enceladus828 said:

Why isn’t Ugra going to, at the very least, add the Channel Map and seaplanes? Seems like professional suicide right there to just axe FC and by extension any further WW1 development when there is so much more to be desired with FC. Many people including myself will definitely get the Channel Map and I’ll even get FC2 to do cross-Channel flights in the HP 400 and Gotha. If it wasn’t that profitable in RoF doesn’t mean the same will be in FC. I mean, what’s the point of rebuilding RoF as FC if the Channel and Tarnopol maps and their respective planes won’t be in it??
 

I’m tired of the Western Front, let alone France, being overly represented; the Eastern Front and Italian Front to name a few played an important role in the Entente victory and had lots of aerial activity — hundreds of sorties in the two fronts above — that lasted for much more than simply a few months. If FC and WoFF are all there is for high fidelity WW1 sims, the former being the only one with VR, then who else is going to add the Eastern and Italian Front maps?

 

Lastly, does this mean that there will be no slower two-seaters for the poor Eindecker and DH.2 pilots to catch up with like the BE2c, Caudron G.4, Alabtross C.I, and Aviatik C.I, and the DFW will be the only Central Powers two-seater in the game??

 

As of right now, this next group of planes is all that is planned. If something changes we will of course announce it when the time is right.

[BillsPlane]

I might be in the minority, but if I can pick just one thing all I want are more WW2 fighter planes.  The best and highest performing ones.  That's what I would buy over anything else.  Even if it isn't 100% historically correct for the theater.  For example, if you had that Corsair F4U-5 available, I'd buy it in a heart beat.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

You're in luck then, Korea will have the highest performing super props and if you don't care about being historical it won't matter if you're on the wrong map, have the wrong skin etc.

[Flying_Anchor]

24.05.2024 в 23:25, Enceladus828 сказал:

Many people including myself will definitely get the Channel Map and I’ll even get FC2 to do cross-Channel flights in the HP 400 and Gotha

I guess you don't have the numbers, but the devs do. 

[ST_Catchov]

We've got the Gotha. It needs the Channel map to make it relevant. Insta-buy for the WW1 crowd.

[Zooropa_Fly]

Yeah, but how big is the ww1 crowd ?

There wasn't a 'General Section' forum post for more than 10 days recently.

The MP servers are likely still in poor shape, out-with the organised events.

 

I take the 'glass half full' approach, in that they're going to finish everything they said they would finish.

I wasn't convinced that would happen the way things were going.

 

Obviously a different period, but the Normandy map can be utilised for Channel battles.

 

S!

[Avimimus]

On 5/24/2024 at 6:56 PM, LukeFF said:

The next and likely last batch of FC planes is tentatively planned to be released at some point later this year as one package. The other things are still TBD. 

 

Ah, interesting! So they aren't being released as individual Collector Planes? That is probably a good idea. I kind-of hope they'll make two more (even variants like the F.E.2d) to get to a full volume's worth of aircraft (or that, with development ceasing, it'll open up a space for another 3rd party to step in). 

[Avimimus]

 

  

1 hour ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Yeah, but how big is the ww1 crowd ?

 

It was enough to sustain the entire development of Rise of Flight (Approximately 40 aircraft) and support the development of the Great Battles game engine.

 

Given that the game engine is already developed and there is a lot of existing content, it should be overall easier to successfully release additional aircraft. This is especially true as there is no other modern competitor in the WWI genre. So, I suspect it is more of an issue of all hands being needed for the next major release (i.e. the new project is higher priority).

 

There is also the minor issue that we are running out of fighter aircraft for WWI - assuming we don't include floatplanes (i.e. Channel Map) or move to the Venice/Isonzo Italian front maps - those would add several very distinctive fighters. That said, there are still enough aircraft for one more release covering the Western Front (three German fighters, two British, one French, a few two-seat fighters etc.)

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

10 hours ago, Avimimus said:

It was enough to sustain the entire development of Rise of Flight (Approximately 40 aircraft) and support the development of the Great Battles game engine.

 

Given that the game engine is already developed and there is a lot of existing content, it should be overall easier to successfully release additional aircraft. This is especially true as there is no other modern competitor in the WWI genre. So, I suspect it is more of an issue of all hands being needed for the next major release (i.e. the new project is higher priority).

 

There is also the minor issue that we are running out of fighter aircraft for WWI - assuming we don't include floatplanes (i.e. Channel Map) or move to the Venice/Isonzo Italian front maps - those would add several very distinctive fighters. That said, there are still enough aircraft for one more release covering the Western Front (three German fighters, two British, one French, a few two-seat fighters etc.)

Would still like to see the Nieuport 24.  Would be a great addition imo, and would help fill a timeline void for French aircraft. 

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Would still like to see the Nieuport 24.  Would be a great addition imo, and would help fill a timeline void for French aircraft. 

 

Nieuport 27 might also be interesting (as the definitive version of that series, even if just a couple hundred were made). If one is willing to consider two-seat fighters - then the Nieuport N.12 would be an interesting addition (so far as I can tell they were rarely used for bombing - just observation and escort work).

 

People periodically also ask for the Spad XII (with its cannon) - even though it was quite rare. It is a bit interesting in the sense that it - like the Fokker E.IV and Fokker D.III - were aircraft primarily issued to aces, rather than equipping full squadrons.

 

What other French fighters are we missing? I always feel like I'm missing something.

[Enceladus828]

5 hours ago, Avimimus said:

So, I suspect it is more of an issue of all hands being needed for the next major release (i.e. the new project is higher priority).

But as far as I know FC is being developed by a 3rd party, Ugra Media, and while yes they do more than simply bring the RoF planes and maps over here like assist with the maps and made the U-2, Li-2 and the C-47 flyable, they can still help with the new project (Korea) and add the Channel Map and seaplanes which at the very least is one map and 3 planes. With some of the devs’ comments about further WW1 development after FC4 “We have no plans” it indicates to me that Ugra is done with FC and any further development will have to be by the devs.

[BlitzPig_EL]

25 minutes ago, Enceladus828 said:

it indicates to me that Ugra is done with FC and any further development will have to be by the devs.

 

Or more likely, not done at all.