Presenting our new title, Korea. IL-2 Series

[Luftschiff]

I am entirely on board for Korea, I think it's an interesting and barely touched conflict with plenty of interesting assymetries and emerging technologies butting head with old tactics, much like the early days of WW2. There will never be a shortage of WW2 games, but I love aviation and I'm thrilled to see this era explored as an actual gameplay experience rather than single plane modules without context. Would have preferred the Skyraider to the P-51, and the disparity in air power raises some questions for later but still.

 

On the other hand I'm, like others, disappointed in the look of the environments. Trees, terrain, cities, textures, draw distance, everything looks just like IL2 and I can't really see any improvement in this regard, even taking into account that it's early days yet. I was also utterly flummoxed by the comment that "yes we know there were no trees in the mountains at this time but we might still leave them dense forests in game", which I can only interpret as "We/the Engine is incapable of making the world look good without them". 

Other changes all sound good to me, and I'm excited for upcoming DDs

[KodiakJac]

11 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I wouldn’t count on anything but increasingly sparse content for what is effectively a defunct engine after Korea is released. 

Might as well get used to that now.

 

The problem with that theory, is that it assumes everyone will want to fly in a different war and era just because it is on a newer engine.  Folks aren't going to give up flying WWI and WWII just because Korea now exists.  Maybe in MP, but certainly not WWI and WWII single players.  And single players make up the lion's share of combat flight sim players.  I've read more than once that single players outnumber MP combat flight sim players about 10 to 1.  Many of us still fly IL-2 1946 for content not covered by IL-2 Great Battles.

 

"Korea!  Oh, wow!  Forget WWI and WWII!" isn't going to happen by a long shot.  Whether the WWI and WWII market is continued to be served by 1C or another company, it will remain a robust market.  Nobody has lost interest in WWI and WWII.

 

I will also enjoy flying in Korea, but not instead of WWI and WWII, but in addition to WWI and WWII. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 hours ago, KodiakJac said:

I've been reading this thread on and off, but not everything.  So, I apologize for asking two questions that may have already been answered...

 

1.  Has 1C confirmed that there will be no weapon and/or aircraft upgrade unlocks in Korea: IL-2?

 

2.  Has 1C mentioned if the player will always land last under AI control in Korea: IL-2?  I'm hoping they will let the player land like the AI planes do in IL-2 Great Battles based on position in the flight.  That will give the player the greatest variety of landing positions and feel more realistic, as when the player is 7th in a flight, they would land 7th, and when the player is 3rd in a flight, they would land 3rd, etc.

 

Thanks!

  1. Yes, they have. There will not be any unlocks.

 

2. As we extensively discussed and tested in the following topic, player aircraft don't always land last in IL2 and in fact there is no difference in landing sequence between player and AI aircraft. Given the absence of any such differences in IL2, I don't see why there would be any in Korea.

 

41 minutes ago, Luftschiff said:

On the other hand I'm, like others, disappointed in the look of the environments. Trees, terrain, cities, textures, draw distance, everything looks just like IL2 and I can't really see any improvement in this regard, even taking into account that it's early days yet.

I beg to differ

Some clear differences:

- The trees have some kind of translucency effect, making them look more realistic than in IL2. Compare the trees in various areas of the picture, and how they react to the sun light.

- The terrain seems to have an additional specularity channel. Compare the rocky and grassy areas.

 

- The grass is denser and has higher resolution textures.

- The trees are *much* more detailed than in IL2.

- There seems to be a greater variety in buildings. Overall the city looks pretty realistic to me.

[Duckman]

YAY!

[CountZero]

45 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

  1. Yes, they have. There will not be any unlocks.

 

2. As we extensively discussed and tested in the following topic, player aircraft don't always land last in IL2 and in fact there is no difference in landing sequence between player and AI aircraft. Given the absence of any such differences in IL2, I don't see why there would be any in Korea.

 

I beg to differ

Some clear differences:

- The trees have some kind of translucency effect, making them look more realistic than in IL2. Compare the trees in various areas of the picture, and how they react to the sun light.

- The terrain seems to have an additional specularity channel. Compare the rocky and grassy areas.

 

- The grass is denser and has higher resolution textures.

- The trees are *much* more detailed than in IL2.

- There seems to be a greater variety in buildings. Overall the city looks pretty realistic to me.

Show someone picture of that P-51 or any other picture without telling them what they are and he will think its from GB , differances are so minimal.

Edited July 3, 2024 by CountZero

[Avimimus]

9 hours ago, danielprates said:

So it doesnt take much calculation to realize a simple truth: how much of the same effort went in the last products, for maps, planes etc.? Of all the work output available, lets say a map took half the effort, the 8 or so planes ate up the other 50%. If from now on only only 5-ish percent goes to GB, we can hardly expect a single new flyable, let alone whole maps as some people are expecting.

 

It depends, we have two third party maps announced and they've announced several flyables (some of which won't come out until just before the release of Korea). It is theoretically possible that third party teams could keep releasing content and it could be profitable enough to support one or two staff members whose job is to implement/code the flight models and damage models (with the third party handling graphics). It isn't impossible that they could expand the team to do this.

 

However, I'd expect improvements to the older branch of the engine to be increasingly unlikely. I'd love it if they could implement working infantry, and improve the AI spotting though... maybe if we ask nicely enough?

 

I think the biggest opportunity for third parties is actually taking over WWI development, as there are no competitors.

 

8 hours ago, deathmisser said:

So atm this could be a one off sim right? 

 

I think the point being made was that discussing possible expansions is something which can't be done prior to release. I suppose you are right though - if it did very poorly they might limit the number of Collector Planes or avoiding doing Carriers and instead focus on another projects. Of course, that is highly speculative. The point is that it is hard to predict the future perfectly and these are early days. That said, I'm pretty sure they've started work on a couple of Collector Planes.

 

3 hours ago, KodiakJac said:

I've been reading this thread on and off, but not everything.  So, I apologize for asking two questions that may have already been answered...

 

1.  Has 1C confirmed that there will be no weapon and/or aircraft upgrade unlocks in Korea: IL-2?

 

2.  Has 1C mentioned if the player will always land last under AI control in Korea: IL-2?  I'm hoping they will let the player land like the AI planes do in IL-2 Great Battles based on position in the flight.  That will give the player the greatest variety of landing positions and feel more realistic, as when the player is 7th in a flight, they would land 7th, and when the player is 3rd in a flight, they would land 3rd, etc.

 

Thanks!

 

Yes, there will be no in-game unlocks. Technically there may be DLC and some field modifications may be limited by date in the campaign mode... but there won't be any earning of XP or grinding to unlock content.

 

I have no idea about the second question.

 

  

3 hours ago, biglouis said:

VR support on release? That would be the only thing stopping me from a pre-order honestly. I cannot do flat screen flight sims ever again. (sorry if it has already been asked)

 

The Great Battles engine currently supports VR, and this is a direct development of that engine - so I'd assume that it will still be fully supported.

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, Luftschiff said:

On the other hand I'm, like others, disappointed in the look of the environments. Trees, terrain, cities, textures, draw distance, everything looks just like IL2 and I can't really see any improvement in this regard, even taking into account that it's early days yet. I was also utterly flummoxed by the comment that "yes we know there were no trees in the mountains at this time but we might still leave them dense forests in game", which I can only interpret as "We/the Engine is incapable of making the world look good without them". 

 

Where did they say that about the trees? Battle of Kuban already has mountains that have a treeline, with barren rock and then ice as you move up them. The issue isn't with the trees, it is with the fact that large amounts of Korea were pastureland at that time and there was also more scrub. I've never seen a comment that implied it was a game engine limitation, all that I've seen is a statement that the developers are aware that tree cover distributions were different in the 1950s but no decision has been reported.

 

9 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Show someone picture of that P-51 or any other picture without telling them what they are and he will think its from GB , differances are so minimal.

 

This comment makes me think that they should've waited another six months before making the announcement!

 

I can see the difference:

Spoiler

 

[danielprates]

@Aapje and @Avimimus sure, I know that, but that's another issue. Even to this day there are companies developing planes for FSX, justflight has a few examples. I am talking about what you can expect from the actual developers. So say, a flyable B25, or "GB:Po Valley" or whatever. Thats a ship that has sailed and as @Gambit21 says, we better just open our eyes to that fact and get on with it.

[Aapje]

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

The Great Battles engine currently supports VR, and this is a direct development of that engine - so I'd assume that it will still be fully supported.

 

Given that they are moving to DirectX 12, the entire rendering engine seems to have been rebuild. So there is a good chance that VR support has/had to be rebuilt. Which I actually hope, since I'd like for them to move to OpenXR.

 

35 minutes ago, danielprates said:

I am talking about what you can expect from the actual developers. So say, a flyable B25, or "GB:Po Valley" or whatever.

 

Definitely not for the old engine.

 

35 minutes ago, danielprates said:

Thats a ship that has sailed and as @Gambit21 says, we better just open our eyes to that fact and get on with it.

 

I'd suggest assuming the more pessimistic side, including Odessa/Karelia being abandoned or taking until 2030, then you'll get pleasantly surprised with what you do get.

Edited July 3, 2024 by Aapje

[Gambit21]

6 hours ago, KodiakJac said:

The problem with that theory, is that it assumes everyone will want to fly in a different war and era just because it is on a newer engine.  Folks aren't going to give up flying WWI and WWII just because Korea now exists.  Maybe in MP, but certainly not WWI and WWII single players.  And single players make up the lion's share of combat flight sim players.  I've read more than once that single players outnumber MP combat flight sim players about 10 to 1.  Many of us still fly IL-2 1946 for content not covered by IL-2 Great Battles.

 

"Korea!  Oh, wow!  Forget WWI and WWII!" isn't going to happen by a long shot.  Whether the WWI and WWII market is continued to be served by 1C or another company, it will remain a robust market.  Nobody has lost interest in WWI and WWII.

 

I will also enjoy flying in Korea, but not instead of WWI and WWII, but in addition to WWI and WWII. 

Who said they had to give up flying WWII or WWI? Those products are not going to vanish. Further, more WWII is coming with the new engine.

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

I'd suggest assuming the more pessimistic side, including Odessa/Karelia being abandoned or taking until 2030, then you'll get pleasantly surprised with what you do get.

 

Well, they were announced (along with some supporting aircraft) after Korea was in development for a year, and Odessa is aiming for a release date in 2025 (ideally summer). Of course, as a third party project it could easily get delayed.

[Avimimus]

33 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Even "if" they don't revisit WW2 in the near future,  there is hope.  Combat Pilot is looking really cool, and by all accounts will deliver the WW2 fighter plane action, as well as carrier operations in the PACIFIC, that clearly, many want.   MicroProse iirc, is also poised to produce some cool WW2 action in the not so distant future.  So even if IL-2 ceases to be a WW2 flight sim developer, there are great WW2 flight sims coming from elsewhere.   And it would appear they will be here long before IL-2 potentially re-enters the genre.  So WW2 sim fans need not despair.  Cool stuff coming relatively soon.

 

Let's keep discussion of Combat Pilot in the appropriate thread (there is a specific thread for it). Marianas WWII is also expected for DCS. So, fans of the Pacific in WWII may have three or four options all of a sudden. As for the devs here - I don't think they have any plans to abandon WWII, and they'll likely return to it shortly after Il-2 Korea comes out (I'd personally expect an announcement sometime in the next couple of years). That said, it might make sense to do a second 1950s jet module to add variety, but I think it is unlikely and a return to WWII is inevitable.

The people who are in a place to legitimately worry are the WWI folks. On the other hand, WWI is probably the biggest opportunity for third parties.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

 

Let's keep discussion of Combat Pilot in the appropriate thread (there is a specific thread for it). Marianas WWII is also expected for DCS. So, fans of the Pacific in WWII may have three or four options all of a sudden. As for the devs here - I don't think they have any plans to abandon WWII, and they'll likely return to it shortly after Il-2 Korea comes out (I'd personally expect an announcement sometime in the next couple of years). That said, it might make sense to do a second 1950s jet module to add variety, but I think it is unlikely and a return to WWII is inevitable.

The people who are in a place to legitimately worry are the WWI folks. On the other hand, WWI is probably the biggest opportunity for third parties.

Well...the Korean installment is 2 or more years away from release.  If they announce a new WWII sim in 2 years, safe to expect it would be at least 2-3 years after that before they have a product to release.  That puts it out approximately 5 years.   My whole point was that WW2 fans shouldn't despair.   As you pointed out, DSC is working on Marianas.  Others (unnamed), are also working on WWII aviation sims, that also should be out in the next year or 3.  I'm sure the future,  so far unannounced, WWII offering from Il-2 will be great.  But until then, there will be other WW2 combat flight sims to fill the void.  So, don't despair.  WW2 aviation will not be forgotten.   Cheers!

Edited July 3, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

 

Let's keep discussion of Combat Pilot in the appropriate thread (there is a specific thread for it). Marianas WWII is also expected for DCS. So, fans of the Pacific in WWII may have three or four options all 

The people who are in a place to legitimately worry are the WWI folks. On the other hand, WWI is probably the biggest opportunity for third parties.

Worry?   Heartbroken...

[LukeFF]

57 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Well...the Korean installment is 2 or more years away from release.  If they announce a new WWII sim in 2 years, safe to expect it would be at least 2-3 years after that before they have a product to release.  That puts it out approximately 5 years.   My whole point was that WW2 fans shouldn't despair.   As you pointed out, DSC is working on Marianas.  Others (unnamed), are also working on WWII aviation sims, that also should be out in the next year or 3.  I'm sure the future,  so far unannounced, WWII offering from Il-2 will be great.  But until then, there will be other WW2 combat flight sims to fill the void.  So, don't despair.  WW2 aviation will not be forgotten.   Cheers!

 

Nope, as we say on the new web page, the release is planned for next year. 

 

20 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Worry?   Heartbroken...

 

As Avi has said, we have a dedicated place to talk about CP. Here, in the main IL2 General Discsussion web page is not the place for that.

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Well...the Korean installment is 2 or more years away from release.  

 

Nope:

Korea IL-2 Series (il2-korea.com)

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

Nope, as we say on the new web page, the release is planned for next year. 

 

 

As Avi has said, we have a dedicated place to talk about CP. Here, in the main IL2 General Discsussion web page is not the place for that.

Ok. 4+- years out then...  or if you prefer,  it's gonna be a while (years), before we see a WW2 replacement from the devs.  😉

 

 

Avi's comment that I replied "heartbroken" to, was regarding Flying Circus..  Not CP. (I made sure I did not reference any non IL-2 products,  and stayed within the IL-2 General Discsussion parameters. )

Edited July 3, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Avi's comment that I replied "heartbroken" to, was regarding Flying Circus..  Not CP. (I made sure I did not reference any non IL-2 products,  and stayed within the IL-2 General Discsussion parameters. )

 

Yeah, I figured that. Maybe we should move it to the Flying Circus forum. IMHO, would benefit from updates more than WWII would, and there are a couple of significant gaps... but it is that near ten year gap between WWI titles which is a reason for nervousness... if there is an FC sequel - will it be a decade from now (as was the gap between RoF and FC)? Sometime in the 2030s?

 

At the same time, the lack of competitors does mean that it might be more viable for a 3rd party developer to step into that space (if the devs are willing to partner with them)... so that is my hope. It'd give us some new aircraft, maybe a map and some objects... if we were very lucky, infantry. It would help keep interest in WWI sims alive, and if FC sequel does come along in the 2030 (with AI and damage model improvements), it would mean there would be a community waiting.

[[CPT]Crunch]

I'm just worried about the ground war, it'll make or break the sim in the long run.  Mig Alley fight's will only entertain for so long, even more limited variety in plane match ups there than what we have now.  The real muscle and variety was engaged directly in ground support.  From almost being ejected into the sea in the Pusan Perimeter too advancing all the way up towards the Yalu in two months, that's one war of seriously rapid movement and really a golden opportunity if can be made believable.

 

Hard to imagine the territory and terrain changes as you advance through various airfields at that sort of rapid pace, you barely have time to learn the terrain and the army your supporting has pushed on or retreated.

[jadebullet]

My grandfather fought in Korea so I am really happy and excited for this conflict finally getting some attention. Early jets is also a very interesting subject. 

 

I am hoping to see Corsairs in action, possibly twin mustangs. 

 

 

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

I'm just worried about the ground war, it'll make or break the sim in the long run.  Mig Alley fight's will only entertain for so long, even more limited variety in plane match ups there than what we have now.  The real muscle and variety was engaged directly in ground support.  From almost being ejected into the sea in the Pusan Perimeter too advancing all the way up towards the Yalu in two months, that's one war of seriously rapid movement and really a golden opportunity if can be made believable.

 

Hard to imagine the territory and terrain changes as you advance through various airfields at that sort of rapid pace, you barely have time to learn the terrain and the army your supporting has pushed on or retreated.

 

I agree. They really need to nail down the mud-moving... ground targets have to be interesting, gameplay has to feel meaningful and exciting.

[Panzerlang]

I hope SimShaker will be incorporated, with a far greater range and quality of vibe outputs.

Ditto FFB.

[sevenless]

If you can get in wingman/flight commands like in Il-2 1946 that are actually working, that will be a huge step forward from Il2-GB

[KodiakJac]

17 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

 

 

2. As we extensively discussed and tested in the following topic, player aircraft don't always land last in IL2 and in fact there is no difference in landing sequence between player and AI aircraft. Given the absence of any such differences in IL2, I don't see why there would be any in Korea.

 

 

Your statement is incorrect.  You need to re-read the thread.  But here is the summary of its content by Juri...

 

"In the PWCG mission posted above all aircraft are not enabled at mission start.  Instead the player aircraft is activated and the wingmen are spawned. When this is the case, the player aircraft will land first. When I had edited the mission and enabled all aircraft at mission start, the player landed last. I haven't checked what happens when only the player is enabled and the other aircraft are activated or spawned." @Juri_JS

 

So, my question still stands "Will the player's plane always land last under AI control in Korea: IL-2 as it does in IL-2 Great Battles?

[LukeFF]

46 minutes ago, KodiakJac said:

So, my question still stands "Will the player's plane always land last under AI control in Korea: IL-2 as it does in IL-2 Great Battles?

 

It's far too early to answer questions like that. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 hours ago, KodiakJac said:

Your statement is incorrect.  You need to re-read the thread.  But here is the summary of its content by Juri...

No, yours is. I did some pretty extensive testing there, after Juri did some preliminary tests. Look at my final post in that thread for the complete test results, but these were the conclusions:

• There is no difference for player aircraft compared to AI aircraft
• There is no difference for spawned aircraft compared to those enabled at mission start
• The aircraft land in order of their mission code IDs
• The Editor re-orders mission IDs in such a way that the flight leader is always the lowest ID.

In other words, the landing order is basically largely up to the mission creator. There is no code whatsoever in IL2 that forces the player to land last. At no point in my tests did my (AI-controlled) player aircraft land last.

 

Anyhow, if you have any further comments or questions about the issue, I suggest taking it back to that thread again rather than going off-topic here.

[CountZero]

9 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

I'm just worried about the ground war, it'll make or break the sim in the long run.  Mig Alley fight's will only entertain for so long, even more limited variety in plane match ups there than what we have now.  The real muscle and variety was engaged directly in ground support.  From almost being ejected into the sea in the Pusan Perimeter too advancing all the way up towards the Yalu in two months, that's one war of seriously rapid movement and really a golden opportunity if can be made believable.

 

Hard to imagine the territory and terrain changes as you advance through various airfields at that sort of rapid pace, you barely have time to learn the terrain and the army your supporting has pushed on or retreated.

You do know that map is small and dont have south areas or early war with fast changing front.

 

 

april 1951, only thing moving to end war from then , compared from fast changing situations up then , is numbers of dead and new soldiers, and map will cover northen part of korea 440x440, so focus is on air and mig alley.

Edited July 4, 2024 by CountZero

[KodiakJac]

2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

No, yours is. I did some pretty extensive testing there, after Juri did some preliminary tests. Look at my final post in that thread for the complete test results, but these were the conclusions:

• There is no difference for player aircraft compared to AI aircraft
• There is no difference for spawned aircraft compared to those enabled at mission start
• The aircraft land in order of their mission code IDs
• The Editor re-orders mission IDs in such a way that the flight leader is always the lowest ID.

In other words, the landing order is basically largely up to the mission creator. There is no code whatsoever in IL2 that forces the player to land last. At no point in my tests did my (AI-controlled) player aircraft land last.

 

Anyhow, if you have any further comments or questions about the issue, I suggest taking it back to that thread again rather than going off-topic here.

 

Ok, you can find my reply here...

 

Why Does The Player's Aircraft Always Land Last?

 

 

[Avimimus]

10 hours ago, sevenless said:

If you can get in wingman/flight commands like in Il-2 1946 that are actually working, that will be a huge step forward from Il2-GB

 

Ideally they'd do a bit better... it'd be great if you could tell your wingman to regroup, act as close escorts for the bombers, or attempt to outclimb the enemy... i.e. give them a couple of tactics that you could specify as the wing commander.  But that is probably asking a lot.

[lantern53]

Can't wait!

[Luftschiff]

@AEthelraedUnraed 

You may beg to differ, of course, but those screenshots you are using to refute my opinion are the same I used to form that opinion in the first place.

The engine is using PBR so a variance in how objects are rendered is to be expected, but I still do not think this make any useful difference in how the game is perceived from the air and I maintain my position - I personally think it looks rather underwhelming. I am glad that you are happy with it though!

 

On 7/3/2024 at 12:57 PM, Avimimus said:

 

Where did they say that about the trees? Battle of Kuban already has mountains that have a treeline, with barren rock and then ice as you move up them. The issue isn't with the trees, it is with the fact that large amounts of Korea were pastureland at that time and there was also more scrub. I've never seen a comment that implied it was a game engine limitation, all that I've seen is a statement that the developers are aware that tree cover distributions were different in the 1950s but no decision has been reported.

 

 

Presumably the same statement I was referring to, page 6, though I admit I was hasty in ascribing it directly to the devs, I see now it was Luke who said it - but the gist is exactly what we both describe: The devs are aware the mountains in this period have much less tree coverage, it has been discussed, but no decision has been reported - i.e they might decide to leave the trees in. The very fact that the historical reality is being debated is what surprised me. Granted we have many inaccuracies in IL2 as well, visavis say, bombed out airfields and such - but it still stuck out to me, that's it. If it's a debate, there must be a counterargument and since it wouldn't be more expensive to remove assets my assumption is that they are unsure they can make it look good without the trees. I'm not making any grander conclusion though, and will happily be proven wrong! I am, after all, excited for Korea : )

[Eisenfaustus]

On 7/3/2024 at 3:57 PM, Gambit21 said:

Further, more WWII is coming with the new engine.

Maybe but that will take a while. Until then I hope that the servers responsible for GB careers either keep running or they update it in such a way that careers become clienthosted and GB can be fully enjoyed offline. 
 

Korea doesn’t interest me one bit - I might pick it up on sale in a few years though. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

11 hours ago, Luftschiff said:

@AEthelraedUnraed 

You may beg to differ, of course, but those screenshots you are using to refute my opinion are the same I used to form that opinion in the first place.

The engine is using PBR so a variance in how objects are rendered is to be expected, but I still do not think this make any useful difference in how the game is perceived from the air and I maintain my position - I personally think it looks rather underwhelming. I am glad that you are happy with it though!

My post was mostly in response to the second sentence of the part I quoted, namely that you "can't really see any improvement" in trees, terrain, cities and textures. Whether or not you like the look or are disappointed by it is an opinion and I cannot argue with you there

 

However whether or not there is any improvement is an objective fact, and objectively there is visible improvement in those things. I agree with you that especially the terrain textures/shaders aren't quite as good as they could be yet, but I see evidence of some important changes to the engine that will enable the Devs to further improve their look compared to IL2 as we get closer to the release date.

[=FB=BeholderRUS]

https://vk.com/video-55386695_456239304

 

[LuftManu]

English version too!

 

Interesting picture from Career?

[=FB=BeholderRUS]

I bought a "Korea" magazine, there too good (c)

[Trooper117]

Yes, ''fingers crossed'' very happy with Korea as the next project... looking forward to 2025!

[deathmisser]

39 minutes ago, LuftManu said:

English version too!

 

Interesting picture from Career?

Didn't they tease they may do the pacific for the next one ? 

 

Tbh I hope not as I would like to see at least one African module. 

[Gambit21]

38 minutes ago, deathmisser said:

Didn't they tease they may do the pacific for the next one ? 

 

Tbh I hope not as I would like to see at least one African module. 

That’s essentially been a foregone conclusion for a long time now (if you’re going by hints)

 

Put Africa out of your mind.

 

 

Edited July 5, 2024 by Gambit21

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, LuftManu said:

Interesting picture from Career?

 

Indeed it is 🙂