Presenting our new title, Korea. IL-2 Series

[Avimimus]

 

  

7 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

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... 

 

This might have been a little bit unfair of me, maybe it was - I'm tired of people claiming things about the market without any evidence (or making claims without evidence generally)... it gets exhausting... so I have this urge to say 'where is the evidence?', especially when there is evidence on the other side of the argument.

 

To be fair, I also didn't think it is only prejudice. I think a lot of similar observations have some validity and I would actually agree to a large extent: I agree that starting with Battle of Normandy would have made more money than Battle of Stalingrad, and I agree that there is more of a market for WWII than WWI. I'd also agree that freemium games, with premium currencies, and which spend a lot of money on advertising are also the most profitable. If we're honest, I think we could agree that - if the only goal was to maximise profit - then this genre wouldn't exist. There are reasons why there aren't big AAA studios investing in flight simulators, and way so much effort goes into mobile games and microtransactions. So, the same arguments can be used for why combat flightsims shouldn't exist.

 

But one doesn't have to maximise shareholder returns to produce a good, profitable, and stable product - and so long as there is a profitable market for something, even if the profits aren't being maximised - there is still an opportunity for investors to make money and engineers to make marvels.
 

The real question is the point at which the potential profits are low enough (compared to the investment) that the risk becomes too high to make a product viable... it is often hard to say exactly where that line is - but the success of the Il-2 series shows that it includes Eastern Europe in WWII and the success of Rise of Flight shows that it can include WWI...

 

P.S. As for going pre-WWI... well, given the lower cost of development, I suspect it is possible that releasing one or two aircraft (possibly as a by-products of training new modellers) would be able to turn a profit - especially as some of them are exotic and would be a lot of fun to fly around the airfield with. But I'd agree that there is plenty of room for speculation regarding this! Same goes for the SG-38 training glider (another cheaper to make aircraft that lacks a cockpit).

 

  

Just now, Trooper117 said:

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...

 

Yeah, but if you are doing that you might as well do a B.E.2 (or Caudron G.IV or Morane-Saulnier L)... as you end up having to do multiple cockpits and multiple weapon variants etc. One could also do a Roland D.VI, Airco D.H.5, Rumpler C.IV or something like that! The effort is basically the same. A Bristol Boxkite on the other hand requires no cockpit - just an engine, some wheels, a representation of bamboo, silk, and wires... and that is it really! Oh, and a propeller and fuel tank for the engine! Can't forget those!

[Trooper117]

I'll say it again, make the Avro and you have one aeroplane with 3 different roles... instead of a string bag that you can swan around the drome with...

[BraveSirRobin]

2 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

This might have been a little bit unfair of me, maybe it was - I'm tired of people claiming things about the market without any evidence (or making claims without evidence generally)... it gets exhausting... so I have this urge to say 'where is the evidence?', especially when there is evidence on the other side of the argument.

 

You do this all the time, except that you’re arguing that there is a market for obscure stuff without evidence that such a market exists.

[Avimimus]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

You do this all the time, except that you’re arguing that there is a market for obscure stuff without evidence that such a market exists.

 

There is an important distinction:

 

I'm saying there might be a market for something vs. saying there is definitely no market for something.

 

Saying that something might be possible until we have evidence otherwise is very different from saying it definitely is possible or it definitely is impossible.

 

We know in the past that two WWII Eastern European sim series were successful, we also know that several WWI sims were successful (including Rise of Flight), and we know that some very obscure stuff is getting made for DCS... but I wouldn't say that I know that making a glider, or Italy in WWI, or Korea is definitely viable. I'd avoid speculating about Korea (out of politeness to the developers), I'm optimistic about Isonzo/Venice in WWI (which might well be a reason for me to not be a developer - something I recognise)... and I'm a bit sceptical that the effort to add helicopters to Korea should be a priority (but I don't really want to rain on anyone's parade)... but I wouldn't say I know any of these things, or that I'm right.

 

The only exception is the observation that Rise of Flight was a successful product that was successful enough to allow continued development of the game engine... and I'd say that because I have evidence for that... as for how well a 1916 module would sell or a Rumpler C.IV... the devs might have some idea, but I don't think anyone knows. I do know that Rise of Flight was essentially built off of a slow pace of building and releasing individual aircraft (similar to Collector Planes) - I have evidence for that - and I hope such a thing could still be viable to make a slightly more complete Flying Circus... but I'm not going around saying something is definitely possible or impossible without any evidence. I'm not claiming my opinions or preferences are facts.

 

  

11 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

I'll say it again, make the Avro and you have one aeroplane with 3 different roles... instead of a string bag that you can swan around the drome with...

 

Your big mistake was saying 'swan around the drome'! Dude, now you've gone and made it all romantic and Edwardian... you guys'll never stop hearing me talk about the Boxkite now...!

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, Avimimus said:

 

There is an important distinction:

 

I'm saying there might be a market for something vs. saying there is definitely no market for something.

 

Saying that something might be possible until we have evidence otherwise is very different from saying it definitely is possible or it definitely is impossible.

 

lol.  It’s the exact same thing.  You’re trying to convince people that something could be a financial success and you have decided that it’s ok to do that while providing absolutely no evidence.
 

Do you know how we find out for sure that there is no market?  A developer tries to produce something, fails, and goes out of business.  And since we’ve only a few companies doing stuff like this, you really need more than “it might not fail miserably “ to argue that something should be produced.

[Avimimus]

2 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

lol.  It’s the exact same thing.  You’re trying to convince people that something could be a financial success and you have decided that it’s ok to do that while providing absolutely no evidence.

 

There is a significant difference in that I'm not stating something is a fact or claiming to know something I don't have any evidence to support. I'm not making things up to pretend my opinion is a fact. I think that is a huge difference.

 

2 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Do you know how we find out for sure that there is no market?  A developer tries to produce something, fails, and goes out of business.  And since we’ve only a few companies doing stuff like this, you really need more than “it might not fail miserably “ to argue that something should be produced.

 

I understand with the anxiety behind this. However, the developers have their own sales data and market research, and I don't think you have to worry about the listening to me. I'm not that persuasive - so it'll all be okay.

 

Even if someone did listen to me - what I'm actually suggesting is:

1. Partner with a third party to produce a collector plane

2. If successful scale up production to two to four collector planes per year

3. If successful consider making a Venice/Isonzo map and planning two packs of four aircraft each to go with it...

 

So, it would be a very cautious approach which allows assessing the market using a number of small investments before making any big investments, and which places most of the risks on a third party... so it wouldn't jeopardise the main developers. For better or worse, I doubt anyone is listening to me... well, at least until ST_Catchov marries into money.... then you can start to get concerned 😄 Even then, the developers could probably talk us out of it.

 

So don't worry.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

There is a significant difference in that I'm not stating something is a fact or claiming to know something I don't have any evidence to support. I'm not making things up to pretend my opinion is a fact. I think that is a huge difference.

Both sides are quite obviously just stating their opinions, so this argument has no validity at all.  
 

 

So when I say “the SCW is so obscure that hardly anyone will buy a combat flight sim designed around that war”, that isn’t a statement of fact.  It’s an opinion. 
 

So the claim that I’m saying it’s a fact is just an excuse to allow your opinion but shut down mine.

[Avimimus]

Just now, BraveSirRobin said:

Both sides are quite obviously just stating their opinions, so this argument has no validity at all.  
 

 

So when I say “the SCW is so obscure that hardly anyone will buy a combat flight sim designed around that war”, that isn’t a statement of fact.  It’s an opinion. 
 

So the claim that I’m saying it’s a fact is just an excuse to allow your opinion but shut down mine.

 

If you say, 'I think the SCW would have a relatively small market' - then that is an opinion (and likely a factual one). Saying that something is 'I know that the SCW is definitely not financially viable' is a stronger statement about facts (one which requires more evidence to be credible).

 

I might get annoyed personally (and I might question whether someone had the evidence to back up the stronger claim). I've too much training as a scientist to not get a little annoyed.

 

Note that we're talking about my personal feelings on this - not my role as a moderator. People won't get into trouble through annoying me, I only step in as a moderator if one of the forum rules has been violated. I'm not trying to silence anyone to support my own opinions here.

 

P.S. There is a separate possible issue: People should not make up false claims about the financial success of an actual product by an actual company (without evidence). If one made claims without evidence about how financially successful a past or future product is - then spreading misinformation could be an actual issue. But if we're just talking about different possible markets and where most of the interest is - then I don't see any issues. If anyone needs clarification on this - feel free to send a direct message.

[BraveSirRobin]

3 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

If you say, 'I think the SCW would have a relatively small market' - then that is an opinion (and likely a factual one). Saying that something is 'I know that the SCW is definitely not financially viable' is a stronger statement about facts (one which requires more evidence to be credible).

 

I might get annoyed personally (and I might question whether someone had the evidence to back up the stronger claim). I've too much training as a scientist to not get a little annoyed.

 

Note that we're talking about my personal feelings on this - not my role as a moderator. People won't get into trouble through annoying me, I only step in as a moderator if one of the forum rules has been violated. I'm not trying to silence anyone to support my own opinions here.

 

P.S. There is a separate possible issue: People should not make up false claims about the financial success of an actual product by an actual company (without evidence). If one made claims without evidence about how financially successful a past or future product is - then spreading misinformation could be an actual issue. But if we're just talking about different possible markets and where most of the interest is - then I don't see any issues. If anyone needs clarification on this - feel free to send a direct message.

So if someone were to say “this company is committing financial suicide by not producing a WW1 Channel map”, would you step in and require them to provide some evidence of said suicidal tendencies?

[Avimimus]

8 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

So if someone were to say “this company is committing financial suicide by not producing a WW1 Channel map”, would you step in and require them to provide some evidence of said suicidal tendencies?

 

Yes, I would. If you (or anyone else) said that. In fact, if I said that, I'd hope that the other moderators would step in and demand I provide evidence.

[stiboo]

Dev Blog 5 now up on website..

 

[danielprates]

https://il2-korea.com/news/dd_5

[Chief_Mouser]

Nice. Had a little metal toy one as a kid. 👍

[Bell]

It's strange that people on this forum seem to rarely mention the F-84. I think when people mention American jets during the Korean War,if the first thing that comes to mind is the F-86, then the second one should be the F-84.

Edited July 26, 2024 by Bell

[ST_Catchov]

8 hours ago, Avimimus said:

For better or worse, I doubt anyone is listening to me... well, at least until ST_Catchov marries into money.... then you can start to get concerned 😄

 

LOL! Unlikely. Although it's a thought. 😏 Hmm how to dispose the current one? But bring on the early crates anyway. 😃 However, they have to redo WW1 on the new engine first ... with a Bristol Boxkite as trainer for Rise of Flight IV: Early War Edition. And yeah okay, to keep Trooper happy, an Avro 504. It'd be huge.

 

[Enceladus828]

I find it very unfair that FC will suffer the same fate as RoF — left to rot albeit with less content. The devs need to provide a more coherent reason for why the Channel Map at the very least isn’t being added. Without that map it pretty much shows that FC was a wasted effort and the devs were better off just opening up RoF to modders like what happened with IL-2 1946 instead of rebuilding RoF as FC.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

11 minutes ago, Enceladus828 said:

I find it very unfair that FC will suffer the same fate as RoF — left to rot albeit with less content. The devs need to provide a more coherent reason for why the Channel Map at the very least isn’t being added. Without that map it pretty much shows that FC was a wasted effort and the devs were better off just opening up RoF to modders like what happened with IL-2 1946 instead of rebuilding RoF as FC.

 

You don’t have any FC tags under your profile.  Did you buy it?

[Patricks]

13 hours ago, Bell said:

It's strange that people on this forum seem to rarely mention the F-84. I think when people mention American jets during the Korean War, if the first thing that comes to mind is the F-86, then the second one should be the F-84.

 

Yes, especially since if they are following the historical aspect of the Korean was from start to finish, (for jets) starts with the F-80 (and it's Naval cousin the F9F Panther) and later prop planes, then the F84, then the F86. 

 

Tidbit I just read about the F9F - "Neil Armstrong flew the F9F extensively during the Korean conflict, although he ejected from one of the aircraft after it was brought down by a wire strung across a valley in 1951. Future astronaut John Glenn and Boston Red Sox all-star baseball player Ted Williams also flew the F9F as Marine Corps pilots"..

Edited July 27, 2024 by Patricks

[Avimimus]

I think of trench warfare in the mountains, then the F-84, then the F-86 & F-80 come to mind... so that is the order in my head... but yes, it is interesting how little the F-84 comes up... it'll be interesting to see if this changes post-release.

 

I suspect part of it is the rivalry between the F-86 and the Mig-15Bis - there is a certain insecurity about which aircraft was better (during this competitive period in the cold war), and people tend to focus on the F-86 as a result, arguing it was better than the Mig... and deliberately ignoring the F-84, which was clearly somewhat at a disadvantage in a dogfight.

[Trooper117]

F-84's had a major role in Korea in the ground attack role... we should be glad they will be included  🥰

[Avimimus]

46 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

F-84's had a major role in Korea in the ground attack role... we should be glad they will be included  🥰

 

86400 sorties... also, used as an escort fighter and in other roles - without the F-84 the sim would be very incomplete (like excluding the P-47 from Normandy and Bodenplatte)!

[Bell]

Possibility of aerial refueling in the game?The F-84G was the first fighter with built-in aerial refueling capability and the first single-seat aircraft capable of carrying a nuclear bomb.

[Trooper117]

1 hour ago, Bell said:

Possibility of aerial refueling in the game?The F-84G was the first fighter with built-in aerial refueling capability and the first single-seat aircraft capable of carrying a nuclear bomb.

 

Didn't this come about only after the war?

[Bell]

21 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

 

Didn't this come about only after the war?

Nope.https://wavestojets.com/the-f-84-thunderjet/

[LG-1_BARCLAY]

Hello everyone.

My opinion on the decision to go to Korea is a mixed blessing.

 

I am well aware that it is primarily a game that you want/want/need to make money with.

 

There are certainly many who want to fly more detailed, modern aircraft, as the previous IL-2 GB series has shown.

As a huge fan of IL 2 (Sturmovik and GB), I am concerned that the WW2 part has now been neglected or even ended.

 

Although there are certainly still so many possibilities for aircraft and battlefields that have not even been touched upon or considered. I think it would be appropriate to exploit all the possibilities for the GB series. Look at the long loyalty of many to the previous version and the interest/approval/involvement/support for the IL2 GB series!

 

You could also simply add/complete the series with Spain via Poland,
France/England, (Russia is already there), Africa, Italy. There are also additional planes (especially German ones), just for the existing period.

 

(e.g. bombers -
Yermolajew Yer-2, Die TB-3, Ilyushin Il-4, Tupolev Tu-2, Petlyakov Pe-8
Ju 177, Ju 188, Do 217,
B 17, B24,
Handley Page Halifax, Short Stirling, Avro 683 "Lancaster", Bristol Beaufighter.

 

For the aircraft that are available so far, there would certainly be some (depending on the year)
adapted extensions possible (e.g. He 111H-11 / H-20),
also used weapons (torpedoes, Fritz-X, Hs 293, Fi-103).

All of this applies to reconnaissance aircraft, fighters or special aircraft. They were also in use!!!

 

I'm a fan of variety in a game, especially if you know and appreciate it from the predecessor has. What I would like to see for IL-2 GB over time!

 

Especially if you create or want to create your own maps/campaigns or careers from time to time.

 

 

 

(translated by Google / Sorry)

 

[Bell]

I think I understand what they are thinking. They want to prove their ability. As they did before, they did TC to prove that they can make ground vehicles. They made Me 262 to prove that they can make jets. Then they said their engine had no problem doing the Vietnam War. I think they wanted to do the Vietnam War more than Korean War, but finally they chose to do the Korean War first to test everyone's reaction.

[Avimimus]

31 minutes ago, Bell said:

I think I understand what they are thinking. They want to prove their ability. As they did before, they did TC to prove that they can make ground vehicles. They made Me 262 to prove that they can make jets. Then they said their engine had no problem doing the Vietnam War. I think they wanted to do the Vietnam War more than Korean War, but finally they chose to do the Korean War first to test everyone's reaction.

 

I think you are making a lot of assumptions  It is true that they want to constantly expand what is possible, achieve higher levels of realism and detail.

 

I'm not sure they have anything to prove though. I'd describe it more as excitement about getting to do something new - and sometimes something which has never been done before.

[Talisman]

40 minutes ago, Bell said:

I think I understand what they are thinking. They want to prove their ability. As they did before, they did TC to prove that they can make ground vehicles. They made Me 262 to prove that they can make jets. Then they said their engine had no problem doing the Vietnam War. I think they wanted to do the Vietnam War more than Korean War, but finally they chose to do the Korean War first to test everyone's reaction.

 

And also the Korean War to prove they can do helicopters!   

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited July 28, 2024 by Talisman

[Avimimus]

20 minutes ago, Talisman said:

 

And also the Korean War to prove they can do helicopters!   

 

 

Yeah, if we do get helicopters in an expansion I'm pretty sure it will be because one of their engineers was like... 'but, I bet we can... I bet we can do it really well in fact!'

[BlitzPig_EL]

They devs have said that they want to go to the Pacific, so I wouldn't say they have abandoned WW2, unless you are one who thinks WW2 only took place in and around Europe and the Atlantic.

[Bell]

I really can't figure out why they jump to Korea and then go back to do PTO,why can't they do PTO now.

[Chief_Mouser]

1 hour ago, Bell said:

I really can't figure out why they jump to Korea and then go back to do PTO,why can't they do PTO now.

 

Have you noticed the distinct lack of carriers in the first Korea module? It appears to be something that they haven't cracked yet. Once they appear in Korea then you can hope for a solid commitment to the Pacific.

[Bell]

4 hours ago, Chief_Mouser said:

 

Have you noticed the distinct lack of carriers in the first Korea module? It appears to be something that they haven't cracked yet. Once they appear in Korea then you can hope for a solid commitment to the Pacific.

They can't make carrier now but they are sure they can make carrier after Korea?Don't you think it's strange?And if they can't make carrier,why they choose to make F4U?If it were me, I would avoid it.And I found that Marines did use F4U-4 but they seem to take off from carrier.

[Avimimus]

5 hours ago, Chief_Mouser said:

 

Have you noticed the distinct lack of carriers in the first Korea module? It appears to be something that they haven't cracked yet. Once they appear in Korea then you can hope for a solid commitment to the Pacific.

 

46 minutes ago, Bell said:

They can't make carrier now but they are sure they can make carrier after Korea?Don't you think it's strange?And if they can't make carrier,why they choose to make F4U?If it were me, I would avoid it.And I found that Marines did use F4U-4 but they seem to take off from carrier.

 

They definitely could make a carrier now. But doing carrier operations well requires a lot of additional programming work. It would be a bad idea to undertake that additional work while their programmers are busy creating a new terrain system, new damage models, drop tanks, new terrain, new lighting etc.

 

It should be obvious: Just because something is doable, that doesn't mean you can do everything that can be done simultaneously with everything else you could be doing. Sometimes you have to do things one after another, and some things have to wait their turn if you want to compl anything (especially on time).

 

Also, the F4U was the airplane that was shot down the most in Korea - it was extensively used and very important - there is no surprise there. Also, it was extensively flown from land bases.

 

I would suggest reading some of the books in the recommended reading thread!

[Bell]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

Also, the F4U was the airplane that was shot down the most in Korea - it was extensively used and very important - there is no surprise there. Also, it was extensively flown from land bases.

 

I would suggest reading some of the books in the recommended reading thread!

You didn't read my words carefully.The F4U they make is F4U-4 or more specifically,F4U-4E.Marines did use F4U-5 on land bases but I think F4U-4 didn't.

[migmadmarine]

As I've said in other threads, it makes sense to not do a carrier as phase one along with a new engine and new theater. Developing a new engine, with new rendering and functionality is a huge undertaking. Developing a whole new region/theater/era is a huge undertaking. Developing the objects, context and functionality for carriers, is also a huge undertaking. By not tackling carriers straight out of the gate, they can get the first two hurdles cleared before tackling the third. I am a wee bit surprised that a Corsair is in the core plane set for phase one, (and more surprised that there might be a Panther as well), but between the USN, USMC and FAA there is certainly enough to make for a solid follow on package if they do decide to do carriers as a part of Korea before heading to the pacific. Otherwise carriers can come with the pacific, and hopefully be brought forward to Korea as well. 

Also, it has been known that Han(?) has been very keen on going to Korea for years. 

[LukeFF]

5 hours ago, Bell said:

You didn't read my words carefully.The F4U they make is F4U-4 or more specifically,F4U-4E.Marines did use F4U-5 on land bases but I think F4U-4 didn't.

 

They absolutely used the -4 from land bases. 

[Bell]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

They absolutely used the -4 from land bases. 

I said that because I saw many photos of Marines F4U-4 on the deck.Now I have known that Marines use F4U-4 on land bases too.

[Aapje]

5 hours ago, migmadmarine said:

Developing a new engine, with new rendering and functionality is a huge undertaking.

 

Indeed. And this new engine is intended to allow all kinds of new features, where they ran into limitations of the old engine.

 

So presumably, the new engine can support things like moving landing platforms, tail hooks and drop tanks.

[Avimimus]

10 hours ago, migmadmarine said:

Also, it has been known that Han(?) has been very keen on going to Korea for years. 

 

An interesting fact - but when Il-2 Cliffs of Dover was in development, it was planned to simultaneously develop two new products. One would have been either a Mediterranean expansion or Stalingrad (if I recall correctly). The other would have been Korea... work on several 3d models had already begun and been shown to the public when the Storm of War series was cancelled.

 

So, it isn't just Han or just this team. Luthier1/Ilya Sevchenko was going there with Oleg Maddox's support.

 

  

6 hours ago, Bell said:

I said that because I saw many photos of Marines F4U-4 on the deck.Now I have known that Marines use F4U-4 on land bases too.

 

Most libraries support requests for books via interlibrary loan (often for free). So, I might suggest looking up some of the recommended books in the recommended reading thread.