Presenting our new title, Korea. IL-2 Series

[Gunfreak]

On 7/10/2024 at 12:22 PM, Avimimus said:

It is reasonable for the WWI crowd to be a bit anxious - there was a ten year gap between Red Baron II and Rise of Flight, and then a ten year gap between Rise of Flight and Flying Circus... many of us feel like we are staring at another potential ten year gap after the next set of aircraft is released! While Flying Circus introduced a number of fixes and game engine updates, including updated flight models, as well as two new aircraft. At the same time current plans will leave it without five of the aircraft released for Rise of Flight... so, there is a bit of a sense that many of us have paid twice for less content.

 

That said, there are reasons for optimism. If the current third party developer decides to focus on other projects it creates room for another third party (and/or community members) to step in.

 

The relative lack of competitors in the WWI space means that there is plenty of potential for sustaining development longer. There is no reason that Flying Circus couldn't remain commercially viable.

 

Now let's keep calm and get back on topic.

 

  

 

My impression was that it was mixed - one of the team members along with some community volunteers.

WW1 needs it's own new sim. Built from the ground up. A new WOFF built with the Unreal Engine 5.

[ST_Catchov]

32 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

WW1 needs it's own new sim. Built from the ground up. A new WOFF built with the Unreal Engine 5.

 

Well of course that would be a money spinner. But we're talking about 1C's Korea and their new engine on which is plonked a mountainous peninsula surrounded by water. Say .... that sounds awfully similar to Italy! Hmm ....

 

So it follows logically that the sales from Korea will be utilised to modify the map and fund a new edition of WW1 - Flying Circus: The Italian Job.

 

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

WW1 needs it's own new sim. Built from the ground up. A new WOFF built with the Unreal Engine 5.

 

I know a lot of people are impressed by nanite - but it is important to remember that most UE5 features are aimed at FPS and Isomorphic RPGs... to render the huge distances, to do efficient physics and flight model calculations, to handle three dimensional (well, four dimensional really) AI systems... you basically would have to write most of an engine from scratch with millions of dollars worth of investment and then integrate it into UE5... and a lot of UE5's features might not bring that much of a benefit.

[Gunfreak]

41 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

I know a lot of people are impressed by nanite - but it is important to remember that most UE5 features are aimed at FPS and Isomorphic RPGs... to render the huge distances, to do efficient physics and flight model calculations, to handle three dimensional (well, four dimensional really) AI systems... you basically would have to write most of an engine from scratch with millions of dollars worth of investment and then integrate it into UE5... and a lot of UE5's features might not bring that much of a benefit.

Like any air sim would need to do starting with any new engine.

With the UE5. You get a well optimised, engine, with options for graphics and sounds built in. It also comes with built in support for VR. 

So yes, you'd have have to do the physics and other things. But you'll have a well made engine to work with. Instead of doing absolutely everything yourself which would cost far more in money and time.

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

Like any air sim would need to do starting with any new engine.

With the UE5. You get a well optimised, engine, with options for graphics and sounds built in. It also comes with built in support for VR. 

So yes, you'd have have to do the physics and other things. But you'll have a well made engine to work with. Instead of doing absolutely everything yourself which would cost far more in money and time.

 

I'm not saying that there aren't potential benefits from UE5, but I would like to point out that the various other things (which UE5 doesn't provide) are likely a much larger part of the work than we would imagine, and also that UE5 may require a lot of tweaking to get to work for a flight-simulator (i.e. it may not be optimised for the rendering distances, object handling etc.)

 

It definitely isn't a silver bullet and the amount of work to develop a new engine or integrate into a new engine required by a flight simulator is an order of magnitude (i.e. ten times) more work than it would be if one was developing an FPS or RPG.

[Gunfreak]

30 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

I'm not saying that there aren't potential benefits from UE5, but I would like to point out that the various other things (which UE5 doesn't provide) are likely a much larger part of the work than we would imagine, and also that UE5 may require a lot of tweaking to get to work for a flight-simulator (i.e. it may not be optimised for the rendering distances, object handling etc.)

 

It definitely isn't a silver bullet and the amount of work to develop a new engine or integrate into a new engine required by a flight simulator is an order of magnitude (i.e. ten times) more work than it would be if one was developing an FPS or RPG.

As I said company that plans on making a flight sim from scratch (as in not building on an older engine like IL2, IL2 Korea, Cliffs of Dover blitz) will be a lot of work. But nobody makes bespoke flight sim engines.

 

So the are 3 options.

1. Making absolutely everything from scratch, this is something very few companies have resources for, which is why games even with budgets in hundreds of millions of dollars, generally use either 3rd party engines, or reuse and upgrades engines made a decade or more ago.

2. Use UE5, which has great graphics, lots of support from the developers of the engine, is very malible, had built in support for vr. Has built in support for all kinda graphics options to let player's adjust the settings to their hearts content. 

3. Use another 3rd party game engine like Unity, that is no more suited to air simming than UE5, but lacks many of it's advantages (like excellent vr support) generally doesn't look as good etc.

So no. Don't think it a silver bullet, it's just the best option by a long way if you are gonna make a flight sim from cratch and you don't have 2000 people working on it bad don't have 150 million dollars laying around.

 

In theory you could try and make a deal with ED to make a semi separate game using the DCS engine. It has lots of advantages, for flight simming, but is also far harder to work with than say UE5. But would probably short down development time by some years and be much cheaper. Basically a flying circus type DLC for DCS. But then you are stuck with the advantages of the engine, and all the disadvantages. Pluss having to deal with a completely different company. Instead of being quite free to do exactly as you want if using UE5

Edited July 21, 2024 by Gunfreak

[FuriousMeow]

The biggest problem using an off the shelf engine is developers have no control over it,  aside from the fact there has yet to be a proven air combat sim running in UE5. In development, YouTube videos or "it totally runs in the civilian/defense training space" aren't sufficient.

 

Boeing had their own simulators, and so did DoD, and they would have been terrible for entertainment. Jank doesn't even begin to describe them. 

 

Star Citizen is the biggest and best example of taking an off the shelf engine and trying to bend it to something it wasn't designed to do. They had extended assistance from the CryTek magic Germans and, well, it's bad.

 

Any core changes to the render, Epic has to do and that feature must be waited on for when they can implement it and hopefully it does what is expected. 

 

Let's say UE5 is a great graphics renderer for an air combat sim... any that are made in it will look the same and that's not a good thing. I still have doubts until I see one running on my system though. 

[kissTheSky]

4 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

I know a lot of people are impressed by nanite - but it is important to remember that most UE5 features are aimed at FPS and Isomorphic RPGs... to render the huge distances, to do efficient physics and flight model calculations, to handle three dimensional (well, four dimensional really) AI systems... you basically would have to write most of an engine from scratch with millions of dollars worth of investment and then integrate it into UE5... and a lot of UE5's features might not bring that much of a benefit.

Interesting. Lockheed Martin does not seem to agree. 🙄

 

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2022/gaming-technology-the-future-of-training.html

 

 

 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

They're reviewing their own product, so that's basically an ad. I wouldn't take that at face value.

[LukeFF]

Guys, we are way off topic with talking about UE5 and Lockheed Martin. 

[Gambit21]

On 7/21/2024 at 2:07 AM, Gunfreak said:

WW1 needs it's own new sim. Built from the ground up. A new WOFF built with the Unreal Engine 5.

 

We may get it.

Elsewhere I mean. For now I hope FC is somehow ported over to the new tech in this product. 

WW1 content deserves the love. 

In any case Korea with this improved engine is going to be very nice I think. 

[JG4_Moltke1871]

6 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

We may get it.

Elsewhere I mean. For now I hope FC is somehow ported over to the new tech in this product. 

WW1 content deserves the love. 

In any case Korea with this improved engine is going to be very nice I think. 

FC in the next engine with improved AI, Cold and dark engine starts with taxiing, more complex engine management etc is a very seductive thought 🙂🙂🙂

 

But so far it’s even not fully ported to the GB engine 🤪

 

…. however, a nice thought… 😉

[Trooper117]

Not buying it again even if it does get 'ported' into the new engine... (mainly because I will be somewhere around Valhalla at that stage...) 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

2 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

Not buying it again even if it does get 'ported' into the new engine... (mainly because I will be somewhere around Valhalla at that stage...) 

Will gladly buy it again with new features added.  Instant buy here.

[Gambit21]

2 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

Not buying it again even if it does get 'ported' into the new engine... (mainly because I will be somewhere around Valhalla at that stage...) 

I don’t blame you. The conversation rate in Valhalla is out of control. 1 pound to 6.34 Kroner or something awful. Just not worth the expense it’s a PTO sim.

[ST_Catchov]

6 hours ago, JG4_Moltke1871 said:

FC in the next engine with improved AI, Cold and dark engine starts with taxiing, more complex engine management etc is a very seductive thought 🙂🙂🙂

 

But so far it’s even not fully ported to the GB engine 🤪

 

…. however, a nice thought… 😉

 

It's not a nice thought. Why you ask? Because this has been the plan all along. It's not a thought. It's a reality. Korea is just testing the waters of the new engine and, if suitable to the Devs exacting standards, and successful financially, will fund the next iteration of FC. That's what the Devs have always wanted. It cannot be disputed. Or else I'm living in some kind of fantasy world ....

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

54 minutes ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

It's not a nice thought. Why you ask? Because this has been the plan all along. It's not a thought. It's a reality. Korea is just testing the waters of the new engine and, if suitable to the Devs exacting standards, and successful financially, will fund the next iteration of FC. That's what the Devs have always wanted. It cannot be disputed. Or else I'm living in some kind of fantasy world ....

Sounds like a solid plan.

[Avimimus]

Well, in the new engine the aircraft graphics would have to be redone, probably from scratch. It sounds like there is a major damage model revision - and it is quite plausible that they'd want to make use of that - if every wire, spar, and joint was modelled - it would solve the complaints about wings breaking too easily etc. There are also things like rendering the pilot's body in the cockpit, being able to exit the aircraft...

 

What I'm getting at is that they can't really do a "FC 2 2" where they just do a limited set of updates - they'd have to rebuild everything from scratch on the updated engine. Would it be worth it? Probably.

 

However, I think there is a stronger case for just expanding FC using the existing engine for the next couple of years. There is  a lack of competition from WWI simulators, and there is already a lot of content for FC - so it would likely be viable to keep building on that for another module or two. It would also be easier for a 3rd party.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Well, in the new engine the aircraft graphics would have to be redone, probably from scratch. It sounds like there is a major damage model revision - and it is quite plausible that they'd want to make use of that - if every wire, spar, and joint was modelled - it would solve the complaints about wings breaking too easily etc. There are also things like rendering the pilot's body in the cockpit, being able to exit the aircraft...

 

What I'm getting at is that they can't really do a "FC 2 2" where they just do a limited set of updates - they'd have to rebuild everything from scratch on the updated engine. Would it be worth it? Probably.

 

However, I think there is a stronger case for just expanding FC using the existing engine for the next couple of years. There is  a lack of competition from WWI simulators, and there is already a lot of content for FC - so it would likely be viable to keep building on that for another module or two. It would also be easier for a 3rd party.

I'd be onboard with all that.  Ideally of course,  it would be great to see FC rebuilt for the new engine,  but I think many would be happy just to see additional content developed for the current game (for now). Either way,  instant buy for me and I suspect many others.

Edited July 25, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[JG4_Moltke1871]

2 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

It's not a nice thought. Why you ask? Because this has been the plan all along. It's not a thought. It's a reality. Korea is just testing the waters of the new engine and, if suitable to the Devs exacting standards, and successful financially, will fund the next iteration of FC. That's what the Devs have always wanted. It cannot be disputed. Or else I'm living in some kind of fantasy world ....

To think about improvements is one thing…..…

 

….. buy ROF/FC/? one more time is completely another …😉

 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

It's a pretty normal business model in gaming. Look how many times people buy the same guns in the newer version of a shooter, or the same cars in a newer version of a racing game. It's takes resources and labor to upgrade the whatever to a new standard, so it's normal to pay in exchange for that.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

36 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

It's a pretty normal business model in gaming. Look how many times people buy the same guns in the newer version of a shooter, or the same cars in a newer version of a racing game. It's takes resources and labor to upgrade the whatever to a new standard, so it's normal to pay in exchange for that.

Not just gaming.   Just about everything commercially produced.  Product evolution. 

For example 

, windows, or the latest media player, video editor, automobiles, coffee machines, etc.  Sure some changes  (some were actually better than others lol) with the new versions, but basically the same stuff, repackaged, polished up, some improvements,  etc.  In other words...improved. 

 

Certainly we drive old cars.  They still work.  But the newer models have improvements (hopefully).   Just because the old one still starts, doesn't mean I won't buy a new one.  Nor do I expect them to give me a new one because I purchased the previous model 70,000 miles ago.

 

I would be very excited to have a newer, better, faster version of Flying Circus. 

 

IMO, It's unrealistic to expect anyone to publish a new game, with better graphics, more functions,  and various new features,  and expect them to just give it away to people who bought thier last game just because "it's just the same war, with many of the same planes".  

1 hour ago, JG4_Moltke1871 said:

To think about improvements is one thing…..…

 

….. buy ROF/FC/? one more time is completely another …😉

 

Because it's perfect as is right?  Not possible to make it better in any significant way?

And if they do invest the time and money to make a better version,  they should just give it away to people who purchased (and enjoyed the crap out of it for several years) the previous product?

 

 

Edited July 25, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Zooropa_Fly]

Can't imagine them doing ww1 again, ever.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

There are so many things missing in WW1 gernre that bringing it together with old and new planes would sell well I believe. No competition is also somehow beneficial to developers no to customers.

[Avimimus]

41 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

There are so many things missing in WW1 gernre that bringing it together with old and new planes would sell well I believe. No competition is also somehow beneficial to developers no to customers.

 

It is true that a lack of competition can cause developers to 'rest on their laurels'. Although, with these devs it would be more likely that they'd just focus on improving something else.

 

On the other hand, a lack of competition can ensure sales more predictable, as there is no risk of a competitor releasing a flashy product around the same time and on the same subject - thus drawing away sales. Predictability can make it safer to do things which are profitable, but might not have the highest returns... more moderate rewards make sense in the context of more moderate (or minimal) risks.

 

So if it gave them the confidence to do a Roland D.II or a Morane-Saulnier L - then it would be a benefit to consumers...

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

48 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

It is true that a lack of competition can cause developers to 'rest on their laurels'. Although, with these devs it would be more likely that they'd just focus on improving something else.

 

On the other hand, a lack of competition can ensure sales more predictable, as there is no risk of a competitor releasing a flashy product around the same time and on the same subject - thus drawing away sales. Predictability can make it safer to do things which are profitable, but might not have the highest returns... more moderate rewards make sense in the context of more moderate (or minimal) risks.

 

So if it gave them the confidence to do a Roland D.II or a Morane-Saulnier L - then it would be a benefit to consumers...

 

déjà vu

 

[danielprates]

On 7/21/2024 at 6:53 AM, ST_Catchov said:

Flying Circus: The Italian Job

 

"You were only supposed to blow the bloddy fokker off!"

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

 

déjà vu

 

 

Yeah. I wondered why what I was writing felt so familiar.

 

I'm quite busy with multiple deadlines at the moment - so it seems I just forgot that I'd already said what came to mind.

[ST_Catchov]

21 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

I would be very excited to have a newer, better, faster version of Flying Circus. 

 

It's an arousing thought indeed. I never liked the title "Flying Circus" though. It would need a new name for the new engine. RoF was/is very well respected so ....

 

Rise of Flight II: Rises Again. A nod to the original Russian Dev team who produced a classic. It worked for Red Baron.

 

 

15 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

There are so many things missing in WW1 gernre that bringing it together with old and new planes would sell well I believe.

 

I could see that over and over again and it would still be true.

 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

1 hour ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

 

Rise of Flight II: Rises Again. A nod to the original Russian Dev team who produced a classic. It worked for Red Baron.

 

 

Actually, there is precedence 

 

From Wikipedia...

 

IL-2 Sturmovic " is a series of World War II combat flight simulation video games originally created in 2001 by Russian video game developer Maddox Games under the brand name 1C:Maddox Games, following its association with 1C Company. Maddox Games left 1C Company in 2011. Since 2012, 1C's new developers are 1C Game Studios (who develops the Great Battles series of simulation games) and Team Fusion Simulations (who develops the Dover series of simulation games). Thus, 1C Company currently owns the IL-2 Sturmovik label and runs three different accumulated generations of IL-2 games (three generations of IL-2 games have been established as three different game engine stages have been developed since 2001)."

 

 

 

It sure sounds like people will buy the same game 2 times.😉  But who's counting?

 

ROF 2 - Rises again, really shouldn't be any different?  

1 hour ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

 

Edited July 26, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Avimimus]

6 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

It's an arousing thought indeed. I never liked the title "Flying Circus" though. It would need a new name for the new engine. RoF was/is very well respected so ....

 

Rise of Flight II: Rises Again. A nod to the original Russian Dev team who produced a classic. It worked for Red Baron.

 

I could see that over and over again and it would still be true.

 

 

I like that myself personally. I remember how exciting Red Baron II was (even though I couldn't run it)... and the decision to update it to Red Baron 3d never landed with me as a new title.

 

If they included a Bristol Boxkite trainer or a Taube in it... they could make a good claim to the 'Rise of Flight' label. FS-WWI had a 'pioneers of flight' expansion with a couple pre-1914 aircraft and it went really well. Honestly, taking off in a Boxkite/Farman or a Demoiselle only to fly over modern stripmalls and six lane highways really loses a lot of the magic... so it is something that current civil sims (FS2020, XP12) can't really give us.

[ST_Catchov]

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

I like that myself personally. I remember how exciting Red Baron II was (even though I couldn't run it)... and the decision to update it to Red Baron 3d never landed with me as a new title.

 

If they included a Bristol Boxkite trainer or a Taube in it... they could make a good claim to the 'Rise of Flight' label. FS-WWI had a 'pioneers of flight' expansion with a couple pre-1914 aircraft and it went really well. Honestly, taking off in a Boxkite/Farman or a Demoiselle only to fly over modern stripmalls and six lane highways really loses a lot of the magic... so it is something that current civil sims (FS2020, XP12) can't really give us.

 

Well then, it seems you and I travel to the beat of the same drum. But I always knew that. Why, if I could get my hands on a Demoiselle .... the mature age members of this forum may remember the film Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines. When I saw that as a young lad, I was smitten and awed by those pre-war machines. Edwardian art and poetry in motion in one package.

 

I flew a Jenny across the US in FS2004. Took a while. The Wright Flyer wasn't up to it. 😁 If 1c gave those early crates a go, I'd be in. Rise of Flight III: Pre-War.

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

1C can't make money selling a game to only two people.

[Avimimus]

8 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

1C can't make money selling a game to only two people.

 

They can't make money selling a game to only one person either.

 

What's your point?

[BlitzPig_EL]

My point is that the audience for pre WW1 aviation is infinitesimal and a losing proposition financially.

[BraveSirRobin]

4 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

I flew a Jenny across the US in FS2004. Took a while. The Wright Flyer wasn't up to it. 😁 If 1c gave those early crates a go, I'd be in. Rise of Flight III: Pre-War.

 

‘Why should 1C try to replicate what FS2024 has already just done?  That does not sound like a good business model.

[Avimimus]

52 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

My point is that the audience for pre WW1 aviation is infinitesimal and a losing proposition financially.

 

...and yet we have Rise of Flight (with more than half a decade of development), plus Flying Circus.

 

It is alright that you don't like WWI aircraft... you can just say that. It is also alright to say that you'd like to discourage software developers from ever representing WWI in the form of a flight simulator again.

 

But if you are going to claim that there is no market and that it can't be made profitable then you are going to have to present some facts. You are also going to have to explain how it was possible for this sim to be built up using WWI (in the more than half-decade of Rise of Flight development), but it is now impossible to do something similar.

I suspect you would probably have said the same thing about the air-war over Eastern Europe in World War II... I've seen so many comments over the years about the 'Eastern Front' being a side-show with no interest that doesn't  appeal to the American market etc. etc. ...and yet we have three modules over a half-decade of development, plus the original IL-2 series... 

 

  

5 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

‘Why should 1C try to replicate what FS2024 has already just done?  That does not sound like a good business model.

 

He did write FS2004... so, a sim twenty years ago... which would might mean that there could be significant improvements. Also, (1) the flight models would be better, and (2) the map would be WWI era (not modern)... so the product would be better.

 

Also, it is worth noting that some of these really early aircraft are relatively cheaper to produce... especially aircraft like the Farman/Boxkite and Demoiselle - they lacked cockpits after-all... but I agree the case for doing a 1912 DLC for Flying Circus is a bit weaker than some of other possibilities... but it might also be a good, lower-risk/lower-reward way for a new third party to train on the formats required to do WWI aircraft for Flying Circus... so that could be a logic as well.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Reading for comprehension sir.  I said Pre WW1 aircraft.  I do like WW1 kites and want to see FC carry on as long as possible.  However, early civilian kites, and training aircraft that labor to stay in the sky at 40mph are a losing proposition, IMHO.

[Avimimus]

8 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Reading for comprehension sir.  I said Pre WW1 aircraft.  I do like WW1 kites and want to see FC carry on as long as possible.  However, early civilian kites, and training aircraft that labor to stay in the sky at 40mph are a losing proposition, IMHO.

 

But they have such adorably low wing-loadings... like you know how WWI aircraft fly? They fly even more like that! It is hilarious.

[Trooper117]

You would have more success with the Avro 504, this would mean you would have a trainer, plus an early fighter and bomber... I certainly would buy that, but not any pre war stuff...