Briefing Room Episode 4: Project Korea

[DD_Arthur]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

It doesn't really do anyone any good to debate whether this feature is going to be a success or failure given people have seen just a single screenshot of it so far and it was mentioned in brief detail in our only video released to date. 

?

This is a discussion thread about a briefing given by the devs. 
If we’re not supposed to discuss what they said….what are we supposed to be discussing?

[CzechTexan]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

If you ever need any more exact details I can provide it, since I researched the locations and aircraft types for every UN squadron in career mode - and wrote all the relevant unit histories. 

That would definitely be helpful if you could post that in the Historical forum or available as a PDF.  It's good that you did all the homework and can share it with us so that we don't have to research it.

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, CzechTexan said:

That would definitely be helpful if you could post that in the Historical forum or available as a PDF.  It's good that you did all the homework and can share it with us so that we don't have to research it.

 

I'll have to remember that, sure - probably once we are closer to release. 

 

4 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

?

This is a discussion thread about a briefing given by the devs. 
If we’re not supposed to discuss what they said….what are we supposed to be discussing?

 

People are drawing some very negative conclusions in various topics about how this is going to be worthless, garbage, etc., all based on a single screenshot and some cursory comments. It's fine to be curious about what this feature will entail, but to start panning it right now and saying it's the exact same thing that doomed Falcon 4, etc., is both highly uninformed and premature. 

 

All I am asking is for people to wait until more information about the new features come out before making a conclusion about what they think about it. 

[Juri_JS]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

If you ever need any more exact details I can provide it, since I researched the locations and aircraft types for every UN squadron in career mode - and wrote all the relevant unit histories. 

Are you also doing the research on Soviet, Chinese and North Korean units? I wonder which sources are used.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Juri_JS said:

Are you also doing the research on Soviet, Chinese and North Korean units? I wonder which sources are used.

 

@BlackSix has been doing the research into that. From my proofreading of those unit histories, the information is quite good, but he'd have to fill you in on that.

[LuftManu]

9 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

The resources deployed in the F16 sim you mentioned hastened the demise of the company that produced it.  The reason it's still going is thanks to dedicated volunteers continueing to develop it.

Would this be a 'good' outcome for 1CGS?

Hi, Arthur! 

Thanks for your comment.

I think my comment was not understood or I did not explain myself correctly.

What I meant is that a solid singeplayer experience is something really important for a sim, so resources on improving it, be Management, AI, Radios etc. Everything that can add to a mix, it's in my oppinion, well expent resources.
 

Many people enjoy playing on Singeplayer too! Sometimes the MP crowd is the most vocal, but there is also plenty people who enjoy both.

Now that there is a time for "changes" then the foundation of the main game mode needs to be even more solid and I think it can become really fun to play!

[Blitzen]

On 7/7/2024 at 3:14 AM, LuftManu said:

Hi, Arthur! 

Thanks for your comment.

I think my comment was not understood or I did not explain myself correctly.

What I meant is that a solid singeplayer experience is something really important for a sim, so resources on improving it, be Management, AI, Radios etc. Everything that can add to a mix, it's in my oppinion, well expent resources.
 

Many people enjoy playing on Singeplayer too! Sometimes the MP crowd is the most vocal, but there is also plenty people who enjoy both.

Now that there is a time for "changes" then the foundation of the main game mode needs to be even more solid and I think it can become really fun to play!

 

[IckyATLAS]

It seems the map is 450x450 with a border zone of 50km to allow for a continuity of the map in terms of visibility.

Despite new sim technologies, more powerful hardware I am a little surprised that we do not have larger maps so as to have the whole peninsula or more.

After all in the Korean war there have been various phases and the North Koreans went down the whole peninsula and then allied entered the conflict and started to regain territory. There were aircraft carriers down in the south from which Skyraiders where launched, and Corsairs too if I am not wrong. I would love to fly the Skyraider.

One question is: will there be carriers in this new BOKorea.

 

 

[Aapje]

I think that an issue is that they do not have better mapping tools, so any increase in size would mean more work.

[Avimimus]

5 hours ago, Aapje said:

I think that an issue is that they do not have better mapping tools, so any increase in size would mean more work.

 

Please avoid groundless speculation like this.

 

The map they announced is already considerably larger than any previous map the team has released, and reportedly has about four times the topographical detail. There are also always trade-offs between map detail, map size, and map performance.

 

Any map that has to be back-dated by half-a-century is going to be very labour intensive to produce. However, I suspect that a desire to allow people to run the map on reasonably affordable computers while significantly increasing map topographic detail is likely the main reason to limit size.

 

P.S. It is worth noting that DCS maps - for example Sinai - tend to use modern satellite map data and are not very suitable for historical conflicts.

 

6 hours ago, IckyATLAS said:

It seems the map is 450x450 with a border zone of 50km to allow for a continuity of the map in terms of visibility.

Despite new sim technologies, more powerful hardware I am a little surprised that we do not have larger maps so as to have the whole peninsula or more.

After all in the Korean war there have been various phases and the North Koreans went down the whole peninsula and then allied entered the conflict and started to regain territory. There were aircraft carriers down in the south from which Skyraiders where launched, and Corsairs too if I am not wrong. I would love to fly the Skyraider.

One question is: will there be carriers in this new BOKorea.

 

Initial indications are that carriers won't be in the initial release. IMHO, this makes a lot of sense as they are revamping many parts of the sim's engine, and they need to limit development risk and make predictable timelines. That said, it is also pretty clear that they are interested - and they've decided that, if they do carriers, they want to do them right.

 

However, if the sim does well it isn't impossible that Carriers could be developed for both Korea and the Pacific, and even that a map could be created covering more of South Korea is possible... but I don't think anyone knows for sure at this point.

 

Note: Skyraiders and Corsairs (and the F9F) operated from land bases - so those are still potential options.

[FuriousMeow]

9 hours ago, Aapje said:

I think that an issue is that they do not have better mapping tools, so any increase in size would mean more work.

 

Have you played the Prokhorovka map? It uses a much more detailed mesh, which they are going for even more detailed terrain with this map. The performance hit is significant compared to the other maps.

 

There's always a tradeoff, I'm sure they could do a huge map... but its just basic 3d shapes from the Aces Over Europe era.

[IRRE_Axurit]

I admit that this screen shoot scares me a little but also our mission designers.

 

And for the moment nothing has been revealed about the Multiplayer part, I hope that this point will play an important role in this new opus

[Jaegermeister]

1 hour ago, IRRE_Axurit said:

I admit that this screen shoot scares me a little but also our mission designers.

 

It doesn’t scare me at all. It looks like a very similar editor to what we have now, but with some additional tools and categories available like “tunnels”. I would imagine there are other improvements as well. The community has been fairly vocal about what they would like to see fixed, changed or added to the ME, so hopefully some or all of those things have been addressed.

[IckyATLAS]

On 7/10/2024 at 12:42 PM, Avimimus said:

Note: Skyraiders and Corsairs (and the F9F) operated from land bases - so those are still potential options.

Are you sure, only land bases. Some examples here.

 

 

Skyraider launching from USS Princeton during the Korean war

 

Skyraider and Corsair launching during the Korean War

 

1 hour ago, IRRE_Axurit said:

I admit that this screen shoot scares me a little but also our mission designers.

 

And for the moment nothing has been revealed about the Multiplayer part, I hope that this point will play an important role in this new opus

Not only It does not scare me, but I applaud that they use the existing editor with whatever additions they may have. That maybe now a very strong selling point for mission builders. If the new static objects they will add could be used in the BOX maps then I would applaud even more.

[Avimimus]

I meant 'also operated from land bases', not 'only' operated from land bases! 😄 In other words - we shouldn't have to wait for carrier tech to get these three aircraft.

 

9 minutes ago, IckyATLAS said:

 If the new static objects they will add could be used in the BOX maps then I would applaud even more.

 

I suspect that PBR textures may be a barrier there.

 

It'd be really great if they could work with a 3rd party to implement better infantry for the existing Great Battle (and Flying Circus and Tank Crew) series though! I'd pay for a patch that transferred back even a small number of improvements.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

So the mission editor being similar means it would be worth learning the current one right? I didn't see learning it being worth it for a product at the end of its life, but if it's carrying into the next one then I guess its better to embrace the pain now.

[Gambit21]

8 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

So the mission editor being similar means it would be worth learning the current one right? I didn't see learning it being worth it for a product at the end of its life, but if it's carrying into the next one then I guess its better to embrace the pain now.

Yep

Once you get over the hump and realize how the editor “thinks” you’re in business.  

[Jaegermeister]

5 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

So the mission editor being similar means it would be worth learning the current one right? I didn't see learning it being worth it for a product at the end of its life, but if it's carrying into the next one then I guess its better to embrace the pain now.

 

Correct. From what I hear pain is God's way of telling you that you are still alive, haha.

[Avimimus]

If you read the 3rd party tutorial/manual it actually isn't that hard.

[Gambit21]

...and...once you learn the editor, and lay down logic...most of the time it remains rock solid.

There's a lot to be said for that...trust me.

 

 

[Jaegermeister]

32 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

If you read the 3rd party tutorial/manual it actually isn't that hard.

 

True. Once you understand how the building blocks fit together, it's a lot of repetitive action with a small number of variables.

[BraveSirRobin]

On 7/11/2024 at 6:43 AM, IckyATLAS said:

Are you sure, only land bases. Some examples here.

He did not say “ONLY air bases”.  

 

On 7/10/2024 at 3:42 AM, Avimimus said:

Note: Skyraiders and Corsairs (and the F9F) operated from land bases - so those are still potential options.

 

[Trooper117]

18 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

its better to embrace the pain now.

 

As I used to tell all my recruits... ''pain is a sensation... and sensations are there to be enjoyed''

[MajorMagee]

31 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

 

As I used to tell all my recruits... ''pain is a sensation... and sensations are there to be enjoyed''

 

This was my approach when I commanded an OSUT Company at Ft. Benning.

 

We taught them that suffering was not an inevitable part of our soldierly existence that we simply had to live with, but was something that professionals knew how to mitigate effectively. We also focused on learning how to deliver pain to the enemy that could not be enjoyed no matter what their attitude about it was.

 

p.s. The picture on the poster was of my oldest daughter throwing a tantrum.

[LukeFF]

Alright, guys, back on topic, please. 🙂

[DD_Arthur]

22 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Alright, guys, back on topic, please. 🙂

So; have we established that the Mission Editor won’t be a new, user friendly product but a development of the thing that is currently in GBS that only a relative handful of people have taken the enormous amount of time to master?

Great news!

[Trooper117]

On 7/11/2024 at 10:42 PM, Avimimus said:

If you read the 3rd party tutorial/manual it actually isn't that hard

 

How long did it take you to master it and produce missions and campaigns?

[Lusekofte]

On 7/11/2024 at 8:54 AM, Gambit21 said:

Yep

Once you get over the hump and realize how the editor “thinks” you’re in business.  

I am not interested in how it thinks. I want ME available in game with an intuitive way to make simple missions or change existing ones. As of now I think it will not be like that and that is a bummer. 
When I say it is a bummer, it is not like it is devastating heartbreaking or disappointing. 
I see myself looking into this when next build is in production. So I feel no urge to be dramatic about it. 
But it would be a major advantage if you could

[AEthelraedUnraed]

21 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

So; have we established that the Mission Editor won’t be a new, user friendly product but a development of the thing that is currently in GBS that only a relative handful of people have taken the enormous amount of time to master?

Great news!

Well, first of all the fact that the Mission Editor is a development of the current one doesn't mean it won't have any changes in the UI or mission coding system that makes it easier to use. Secondly, it doesn't mean that there won't be another, simpler, way to create missions. Even if it's something like an AQMB.

 

15 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

I am not interested in how it thinks. I want ME available in game with an intuitive way to make simple missions or change existing ones. As of now I think it will not be like that and that is a bummer. 
When I say it is a bummer, it is not like it is devastating heartbreaking or disappointing. 
I see myself looking into this when next build is in production. So I feel no urge to be dramatic about it. 
But it would be a major advantage if you could

I for one am glad that the new Editor seems to have much of the functionality of the old one. Missions can only be as complex as the Editor allows, and it's a simple fact that a very basic Editor only allows very basic missions. Right now, in 2024, I would not be satisfied anymore with "IL-2 1946" missions.

 

And frankly, as far as coding goes, the current Editor is at a beginner level, with a system that isn't far from those "coding for kids" building blocks stuff you see for 10 year olds. Anyone who has a beginner level of experience with any form of coding should be able to create simple missions within an hour or two of opening the Editor.

 

I'm not saying that there isn't anything that could be improved or simplified (in fact, I could come up with a dozen improvements without even trying), but it isn't unreasonable to demand at least a little bit of effort to learn the mission coding system, from those who want to create missions.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I learned how to use the ME with help from one of the better scripted mission makers here. (Thanks again, you know who you are!)  I do not work in IT, nor have any education in programming, so for me it was a deep dive into totally unknown waters.  There was nothing easy about it.  That said I did figure it out enough to make some good multiplayer DF missions, one of which has become a standard for the BlitzPigs on the rare day when we still fly together.

 

That said, an easier to use option for the ME would be welcome.  It would help bring more people into the craft of making missions, and hopefully would help them progress to a more complex version of the editor later.

Edited July 14, 2024 by BlitzPig_EL

[AEthelraedUnraed]

7 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I learned how to use the ME with help from one of the better scripted mission makers here. (Thanks again, you know who you are!)  I do not work in IT, nor have any education in programming, so for me it was a deep dive into totally unknown waters.  There was nothing easy about it.

Yes, I guess when you don't have experience in IT, it isn't easy at all since essentially you have to learn programming/scripting as well in addition to the IL2 specific stuff.

 

But since you're *scripting* a mission, there isn't really any way around it that doesn't also limit what you can achieve with said mission scripting. If you make a mission editor that a 5 year old can understand, you're only gonna get missions that a 5 year old can write. That's the gist of what I'm saying

 

7 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

That said, an easier to use option for the ME would be welcome.  It would help bring more people into the craft of making missions, and hopefully would help them progress to a more complex version of the editor later.

I agree with that, definitely. I'm all for a simpler editor, as long as the "full" one is still available for those with the knowhow. 

Edited July 14, 2024 by AEthelraedUnraed

[MajorMagee]

Someday AI will build missions for us from simple plain language descriptions just like we can already do for writing, and graphic art projects.

[PhilthySpud]

G'day @LukeFF, it's getting a bit confusing having Korea threads duplicated in both the 'Korea. Il2 series - General Discussion' forum and also the 'Il2 Sturmovik Great Battles - General Discussion' forum. Particularly Brief Room and Dev Blog threads. Any chance we could please stick to one or the other?

 

Thanks, Philthy

[LukeFF]

13 hours ago, PhilthySpud said:

G'day @LukeFF, it's getting a bit confusing having Korea threads duplicated in both the 'Korea. Il2 series - General Discussion' forum and also the 'Il2 Sturmovik Great Battles - General Discussion' forum. Particularly Brief Room and Dev Blog threads. Any chance we could please stick to one or the other?

 

Thanks, Philthy

 

Yes, we are gradually transitioning to doing that. This was the first video in the series for Korea so I wanted to make sure it had maximum exposure.