Korea. IL-2 Series Dev Blog #6

[CzechTexan]

54 minutes ago, Rjel said:

As to the mobile pilot, will that mean animated ground crew too? Along with more visible “life” beyond the airbase and target areas. This series has always begged for some sign of life on the ground. 

I'd also prefer more work on ground crew animations than work on one pilot whose 99% of the time will be spent in the plane.

[Talisman]

17 hours ago, LuftManu said:

Really awesome! this open up many things that I think could be great!

Imagine being shot down and rescued by a chopper. Or even, starting a mission from the barracks or in a jeep on your way to your Sabre.

😁

 

There is a very interesting account here (link below) of a daring rescue by helicopter of a downed Mustang pilot:  

 

Sikorsky H-5 Combat Rescue in Korea | Defense Media Network

 

Also, here is a link (below) to an account of the first chopper pilot to earn the Medal of Honor:

 

Korean War Aviator Was First Helicopter Pilot to Earn Medal of Honor > U.S. Department of Defense > Story

 

Choppers, you know it makes sense.  

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2024 by Talisman

[Talisman]

4 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

Highly unlikely as I doubt any helicopters will see the light of day in the game...

 

Not interested in anything like that... nice gimmick for half a dozen times, but then people will just get bored with it and press the 'start in cockpit' button.

These kind of things do not make a great flight sim... it's the realism in the flying and fighting that counts. The only gimmick I would endorse would be a first person bailout, and that's it.

 

Come on Trooper117, lighten up a bit there.  🙂  Bet you would be glad to see me pick you up in a search and rescue chopper if you got shot down behind enemy lines and give you a chance of a lift home.  Bet you would love to climb aboard my rickety old chopper then, lol. 

 

 

Choppers, you know it makes sense.  

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

  

[BlitzPig_EL]

I have a button that negates all that non essential to a combat flight sim ground stuff...

 

[IRRE_Axurit]

We see headless pilot skins, does this mean that the head will be a separate object controlled by the track IR or VR??

[LukeFF]

41 minutes ago, IRRE_Axurit said:

We see headless pilot skins, does this mean that the head will be a separate object controlled by the track IR or VR??

 

That's already the case with the GB pilot models.

[IRRE_Axurit]

Currently the heads are not controlled in real time?

[Rjel]

18 minutes ago, IRRE_Axurit said:

Currently the heads are not controlled in real time?

I’m not certain about real time but I can move my pilots head with Trackr to look in the camera’s direction when I’m taking a screen shot.

 

edit: make that I can move the direction he’s looking with my mouse. 

Edited August 3, 2024 by Rjel
Correction

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, IRRE_Axurit said:

Currently the heads are not controlled in real time?

 

Yes, they are - look left with TrackIR, the 3D model of the head looks left, etc.

[LF_Mark_Krieger]

On 8/2/2024 at 7:00 PM, Airborne2001 said:

The arcade air combat kid in me wants to recreate aircraft captures from Secret Weapons Over Normandy and Heroes of the Pacific with this.

- Hey! This man is stealing our Corsair!
- No way! I'm collectivizing it for North Korea!

[Avimimus]

11 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

I'm lulled into a state of deep relaxation by the satisfying sound of mozzies bein' fried by the mozzie zapper, serenity, and think to myself I should make another FC vid.

 

I rather enjoyed your story. A bit of potentially useful information though: Mosquitoes hunt by smell (mainly Co2, but also other smells) and aren't actually attracted by lights. So, when you hear bugs being killed by electric bug zappers they are almost always harmless insects - and you aren't actually getting any protection.

Some types of mosquitoes will fly into campfires - However, they aren't being aren't being attracted by the light itself, but rather they are following the smell of the fire which they mistake for the carbon dioxide we exhale when we breathe. Electric bug-zappers don't produce these gasses.

 

Anyway, visual decoys do work against some biting flies, but they tend to be attracted by motion, rather than light - hence the use of fringes on jackets or corks on hats. But mosquitoes aren't one of these.

 

P.S. We spent millions on a very effective system when the Pope visited Canada, with four giant gas generators clearing a couple square kilometres of mosquitoes.

[ST_Catchov]

15 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I rather enjoyed your story.

 

What story?

 

You're quite right about bug zappers and their effectiveness against mozzies. A more effective solution is the use of insect repellent sprays. When the Queen (God rest her soul) first visited Australia in the 1954 Royal Tour, the anarchic Aussie mozzies and flies attacked her person with such ferocity and with such total disregard of her Royal countenance, that Her Majesty and Phil inquired diplomatically as to a possible remedy for the inconvenience. The "Aussie Wave" was not considered a desirable factor in a Royal Tour. And thus, the boffins developed an insect repellent spray suitable for a Queen. And the Royal Tour continued unimpeded by anarchists of the six-legged variety.

 

15 hours ago, Avimimus said:

P.S. We spent millions on a very effective system when the Pope visited Canada, with four giant gas generators clearing a couple square kilometres of mosquitoes.

 

That is quite impressive.

 

However, back on topic, I understand the use of insect repellent sprays were utilised to great effect in theatres of war conducted in sub and/or tropical climes such as Korea.  Probably to the great relief of the troops and airmen involved. The reduction of illness and disease and its effect on the moral fibre and capabilities of a fighting force is not to be underestimated and not often discussed in forums such as this but is an important factor of war nonetheless.

 

I believe early versions of insect repellents were also used in the tropics during WWII.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, ST_Catchov said:

However, back on topic

 

Not back on-topic enough. 🙂

 

You all are free to talk about bug spray, but please do it down in the Free Subject section, thanks.

[ST_Catchov]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Not back on-topic enough. 🙂

 

You're quite right. There's no flies on you Luke. I apologise. I got a bit carried away which is unlike me.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

"Gun crews will be animated and each crew member or vehicle passenger can be killed separately" 

Great news I like to couse mayhem on the battlefield and be able to see believable results is a must have nowadays IMHO. Immersion will be greatly enhanced.

I hope to see nice animation for different type of munitions used, also using  rag doll which obey Newtonian lows of physics would be nice to see in the genre. Blood if any should be optional, nowdays it's a norm and kids rarely plays simulators, average age of sim player is 30+ if I remember correctly from the survey. Minority should not be a reason to limit or cancel majority options.

[Gunfreak]

Hope to have infantry formations too. Honestly it's a pet peeve of mine.

I would have loved if i could strafe infantry in the ww1 trenches. And in 1918 with German spring advances.

They also straffed and bombed German infantry and wagons moving along the road.

[Avimimus]

28 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Hope to have infantry formations too. Honestly it's a pet peeve of mine.

I would have loved if i could strafe infantry in the ww1 trenches. And in 1918 with German spring advances.

They also straffed and bombed German infantry and wagons moving along the road.

 

Yes, I was reading a bunch of first hand accounts - and strafing roads, troops behind the lines, bridges... were very common in WWI... the omission of infantry and horse is probably the biggest omission in Flying Circus. It is unlikely, but it would be wonderful, if the Great Battles engine could be upgraded at some point to receive at least some the new AI infantry tech. It'd also make a big difference for Tank Crew.

[Gunfreak]

12 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

Yes, I was reading a bunch of first hand accounts - and strafing roads, troops behind the lines, bridges... were very common in WWI... the omission of infantry and horse is probably the biggest omission in Flying Circus. It is unlikely, but it would be wonderful, if the Great Battles engine could be upgraded at some point to receive at least some the new AI infantry tech. It'd also make a big difference for Tank Crew.

Yeah. I've done some CAS in ww2 too. And kinda boring dropping bombs on a treeline and just killing 1 machine gun or 1 AT gun. Doesn't feel like you accomplish a lot.

In DCS I can strafe a treeline with guns and rockers and take out dozens of infantry and equipment.  Giving me flashbacks to bridge too far when they call in air support on German in the the woods during the first push by XXX corps.

[Flying_Anchor]

39 минут назад, Avimimus сказал:

It is unlikely, but it would be wonderful, if the Great Battles engine could be upgraded at some point to receive at least some the new AI infantry tech. It'd also make a big difference for Tank Crew.

They implemented infantry  in Normandy DLC, didnt they? But doing this in WWI mission templates should be so time and power consuming.

[Avimimus]

 

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

Yeah. I've done some CAS in ww2 too. And kinda boring dropping bombs on a treeline and just killing 1 machine gun or 1 AT gun. Doesn't feel like you accomplish a lot.

In DCS I can strafe a treeline with guns and rockers and take out dozens of infantry and equipment.  Giving me flashbacks to bridge too far when they call in air support on German in the the woods during the first push by XXX corps.

 

Well, I think realistically people had a better idea of what they were shooting at often (higher resolution), but also tended to make only one pass (at least later on in the war)... so what you destroyed should largely be guesswork - maybe it was more than you thought, probably it was less.

 

I'm sure there are some infantry out there who would be quite happy to have one less machine-gun nest or some tanks glad not to be ambushed by one more AT gun...

 

One thing I've learned to do is calibrate expectations. I actually like flying COIN in aircraft with less weapons, because destroying two trucks can be doing a lot in some counter insurgency type situations... if one was operating a PIAT as infantry and took out two trucks it would probably feel like one was being pretty dramatic and effective... Having a half dozen Mavericks and some CBU-97 SFWs wiping out an entire tank column causes us to get a bit desensitised  - but, if one thinks about it, one or two targets can be enough.

 

P.S. I also find there is something very satisfying with scoring a direct hit using a single bomb from something like an Ar-234... something more satisfying than doing the same with three bombs.

 

  

1 hour ago, Flying_Anchor said:

They implemented infantry  in Normandy DLC, didnt they? But doing this in WWI mission templates should be so time and power consuming.

Well, even reskinning the Normandy infantry (and giving them lower rates of fire), so that scripted mission builders could use them would be something... It'd add a lot to the realism... (ground attack in WWI wasn't always about making multiple passes attacking the same truck!)

 

It'd be neat if a few of these new features could find their way back into an expansion for existing titles (if they are backwards compatible enough). I agree that it could take a lot more resources than I think (a lot might depend on how much the code-base has changed, whether there are new ways to stream in-and-out assets, and yes, the campaign would have to be updated to make full use of new assets)... 

 

In any case, I'm excited to see the new tech in Korea. I'm definitely increasingly embracing the breaking of backwards compatibility more and more as I see what they're now able to do.

[Aapje]

It also was both highly demoralizing and restrictive for the Germans at the end of the war, to be in danger of being strafed. But to do it properly, the soldiers should scatter, typically leaving their soft-skinned vehicles behind.

 

And I think that it is far more realistic for them to move assets to the new engine, then to expect them to port code back, but it is still not that likely, certainly not in the short term. Perhaps eventually when they go back to Europe with the new engine and have to recreate the airplanes of the European theater anyway.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I think because the limitation of damage model and "health bar" on ground object-  strafing with guns and cannons is not realistic in sims in general, you need to do  serval passes on the same object to destroy it (count it as destroyed in game statistics or objective complete). In real life you would not do that, only in rare occasions - we can see it on guncams during real life strafing runs during the second war. Same with WW1 infranty or horses ,one accurate bullet is enough to do the job and you spray dozen of it.

I don't believe the Korea would be on that ground object level detail to reduce the need of servals passes on one object.

 

BTW looking at multiplayer, I can see how it is taking  pilots life to often - to long on the  target - more chances to be intercepted by enemy fighters or hit by AA , sometimes suicide by nearby tree or house /ground only because health bar and need to do multiple passes on the  same truck 😅

Edited August 6, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Avimimus]

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

It also was both highly demoralizing and restrictive for the Germans at the end of the war, to be in danger of being strafed. But to do it properly, the soldiers should scatter, typically leaving their soft-skinned vehicles behind.

 

They do this in the sim. It isn't necessarily that noticeable, but it happens for some types of vehicles.

 

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

And I think that it is far more realistic for them to move assets to the new engine, then to expect them to port code back, but it is still not that likely, certainly not in the short term. Perhaps eventually when they go back to Europe with the new engine and have to recreate the airplanes of the European theater anyway.

 

It depends a lot on the structure of the code, how modular it is, how many dependencies there are etc.

 

From what has been said so far there is every indication that aircraft and ground objects use new rendering (e.g. PBR), and a substantially revised damage model... which means that there are enough changes that one can't move assets into the updated engine without rebuilding them from scratch.

 

On the other hand, it might be that some of the programming to support infantry (e.g. more efficient streaming of assets, more efficient AI, animation systems) might be relatively independent of other parts of the code (and might be fairly easy to port considering that the new engine is essentially a recent branch of the existing one). The fact is that we don't know. Without being the core programming team we can't know!  That is the truth. It is just that it'd be cool. Even having the Normandy assets reskinned would be pretty cool.

 

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

I think because the limitation of damage model and "health bar" on ground object-  strafing with guns and cannons is not realistic in sims in general, you need to do  serval passes on the same object to destroy it (count it as destroyed in game statistics or objective complete). In real life you would not do that, only in rare occasions - we can see it on guncams during real life strafing runs during the second war. Same with WW1 infranty or horses ,one accurate bullet is enough to do the job and you spray dozen of it.

I don't believe the Korea would be on that ground object level detail to reduce the need of servals passes on one object.

 

The current damage models in Il-2 Great Battles actually have several hit-boxes with independent hitpoints. So you can disable a truck by hitting the engine, or by taking out a wheel... there are some limitations - radiators aren't modelled separately on trucks, and the drivers of some vehicles are immune... but typically ground objects have two to six different hit boxes. So, it is already a lot better than Il-2 1946 or DCS (DCS allows mission/mobility kills for some tanks, but I gather the DM is actually a bit simpler on average).

 

P.S. I know this because I created an extensive mod to change the vulnerability of all existing trucks, to make anti-aircraft gun crews 'bail out' sooner, and to make ships sink slower. So, I did extensive tests and also know the file structures. I'm not sure if I released all of it though! Maybe I should.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

59 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

The current damage models in Il-2 Great Battles actually have several hit-boxes with independent hitpoints. So you can disable a truck by hitting the engine, or by taking out a wheel... there are some limitations - radiators aren't modelled separately on trucks, and the drivers of some vehicles are immune... but typically ground objects have two to six different hit boxes. So, it is already a lot better than Il-2 1946 or DCS (DCS allows mission/mobility kills for some tanks, but I gather the DM is actually a bit simpler on average).

Only if you're able to fit AI vehicles in your performance budget. Lots of times were stuck with parking lots of static vehicles that are just a shape with a hp bar for performance reasons.

[IckyATLAS]

On 8/2/2024 at 6:10 PM, LukeFF said:

Dev Blog #6 for Korea. IL-2 Series is now available for your reading: https://il2-korea.com/news/dd_6

 

 

What we always asked with the GB series and for years, is to have a pilot in the plane, to have the pilot get out after landing or so, have the pilot float in water when bailing out on the sea etc. 

And now we get this in Korea. Fine but I still would have liked to have such improvement in GB.

That would be a small effort but would also give a boost to the series.

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, Avimimus said:

From what has been said so far there is every indication that aircraft and ground objects use new rendering (e.g. PBR), and a substantially revised damage model... which means that there are enough changes that one can't move assets into the updated engine without rebuilding them from scratch.

 

Aye 🙂

 

Everything is essentially being rebuilt from scratch for reasons like this. Even the F-51, which looks a lot like the one from GB, is essentially an entirely overhauled model with an updated external and internal model. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

4 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

They do this in the sim. It isn't necessarily that noticeable, but it happens for some types of vehicles.

 

 

It depends a lot on the structure of the code, how modular it is, how many dependencies there are etc.

 

From what has been said so far there is every indication that aircraft and ground objects use new rendering (e.g. PBR), and a substantially revised damage model... which means that there are enough changes that one can't move assets into the updated engine without rebuilding them from scratch.

 

On the other hand, it might be that some of the programming to support infantry (e.g. more efficient streaming of assets, more efficient AI, animation systems) might be relatively independent of other parts of the code (and might be fairly easy to port considering that the new engine is essentially a recent branch of the existing one). The fact is that we don't know. Without being the core programming team we can't know!  That is the truth. It is just that it'd be cool. Even having the Normandy assets reskinned would be pretty cool.

 

 

The current damage models in Il-2 Great Battles actually have several hit-boxes with independent hitpoints. So you can disable a truck by hitting the engine, or by taking out a wheel... there are some limitations - radiators aren't modelled separately on trucks, and the drivers of some vehicles are immune... but typically ground objects have two to six different hit boxes. So, it is already a lot better than Il-2 1946 or DCS (DCS allows mission/mobility kills for some tanks, but I gather the DM is actually a bit simpler on average).

 

P.S. I know this because I created an extensive mod to change the vulnerability of all existing trucks, to make anti-aircraft gun crews 'bail out' sooner, and to make ships sink slower. So, I did extensive tests and also know the file structures. I'm not sure if I released all of it though! Maybe I should.

Hi. Yes, I'm aware that there are parts of a truck that can disable  it but you need a few passes to destroy it if you use machine gun rounds  or 50 cals.  

[migmadmarine]

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

Hi. Yes, I'm aware that there are parts of a truck that can disable  it but you need a few passes to destroy it if you use machine gun rounds  or 50 cals.  

Destroy meaning catastrophic explosion or having the game tally it as a kill? I've noticed that there is often a delay in the game credit a kill, so the truck may be dead after a single pass, but the score board doesn't show it for a minute to or two.

[Aapje]

@Avimimus

 

I think that reimplementing the plane is a huge amount of work, but migrating the map should be relatively easy. At least, if they don't upgrade the map with the new map features.

 

So I can see them having to redo a lot of the European theater planes anyway in the future, and then perhaps release the old maps again with those, for a reduced price.

[A-E-Hartmann]

 

Hello,
Will we have the chance to see these features in GB later?
(Integrated pilot and forced landing shutdown).

Edited August 6, 2024 by A-E-Hartmann

[LuftManu]

14 minutes ago, A-E-Hartmann said:

 

Hello,
Will we have the chance to see these features in GB later?
(Integrated pilot and forced landing shutdown).

I think these features are in part possible with the newer engine, so my guess is not.

But fear not, as we are going to see WW2 again on this saga

 

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, A-E-Hartmann said:

 

Hello,
Will we have the chance to see these features in GB later?
(Integrated pilot and forced landing shutdown).

 

My guess: It would require working every existing aircraft with new animations (to do a proper job of adding the pilot in the cockpit), so I'm pretty sure it won't happen. Some features which don't interact with other features and which don't require reworking existing objects or don't require the new terrain engine (etc.) could theoretically stand a chance of being brought into Great Battles.

 

So, I think LuftManu is right that we won't see features like this in WWII until they create new WWII modules in the updated engine.

 

2 hours ago, Aapje said:

@Avimimus

 

I think that reimplementing the plane is a huge amount of work, but migrating the map should be relatively easy. At least, if they don't upgrade the map with the new map features.

 

So I can see them having to redo a lot of the European theater planes anyway in the future, and then perhaps release the old maps again with those, for a reduced price.

 

I suspect that they've redone the terrain engine in a number of areas which could lead to compatibility issues (e.g. the new trees, textures suited to the new lighting engine), and I also suspect that they would probably want to release new WWII maps using the updated terrain features (e.g. four times the heightmap resolution)... so I don't think it is likely. Even with Flying Circus (where there were a lot less changes), they decided to make the maps from scratch rather than try to import them from Rise of Flight. Anyway, that is my best guess.

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, Aapje said:

@Avimimus

 

I think that reimplementing the plane is a huge amount of work, but migrating the map should be relatively easy. At least, if they don't upgrade the map with the new map features.

 

So I can see them having to redo a lot of the European theater planes anyway in the future, and then perhaps release the old maps again with those, for a reduced price.

 

But why would we re-release a map without any new features? 🙂

[Gunfreak]

On 8/5/2024 at 3:35 PM, Avimimus said:

Well, I think realistically people had a better idea of what they were shooting at often (higher resolution), but also tended to make only one pass (at least later on in the war)... so what you destroyed should largely be guesswork - maybe it was more than you thought, probably it was less.

 

I'm sure there are some infantry out there who would be quite happy to have one less machine-gun nest or some tanks glad not to be ambushed by one more AT gun...

 

One thing I've learned to do is calibrate expectations. I actually like flying COIN in aircraft with less weapons, because destroying two trucks can be doing a lot in some counter insurgency type situations... if one was operating a PIAT as infantry and took out two trucks it would probably feel like one was being pretty dramatic and effective... Having a half dozen Mavericks and some CBU-97 SFWs wiping out an entire tank column causes us to get a bit desensitised  - but, if one thinks about it, one or two targets can be enough.

 

P.S. I also find there is something very satisfying with scoring a direct hit using a single bomb from something like an Ar-234... something more satisfying than doing the same with three bombs.

 

Well of course if you fire into a tree line with guns, rockets or bombs, you're not gonna know if you hit anything unless you see secondary explosives.  Or somehow the guys on the ground tell you later.

 

There's an interesting book called tail end Charlie about late war P47s doing ground attack in Italy and Germany.

For some time. They could pretend the cars and trucks they shot and bombed were just material. Until one day the author shot up a car with 2 German soldier hiding behind and the jig was up. Couldn't pretend any more. They saw exactly what those 8 .50 did to a human body.

 

There is a similar description in Ken Burns' the war about a P47 pilot in Normandy.

 

And in ww1 with the altitude and speed those Camel had. You saw everything. Men, wagons and horses.

[Aapje]

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I suspect that they've redone the terrain engine in a number of areas which could lead to compatibility issues (e.g. the new trees, textures suited to the new lighting engine)

 

The storage format doesn't have to be compatible, as long as the old format can be converted to the new format. Judging by them using the same (but expanded) software for the mapping, I expect the mapping format to be fundamentally very similar.

 

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

and I also suspect that they would probably want to release new WWII maps using the updated terrain features (e.g. four times the heightmap resolution)... so I don't think it is likely.

 

Luke suggests so much above, and I don't know how much work it would be to remaster the old maps.

 

I any case, my expectation is that none of this will happen within 5 years at the least.

[Tonester]

On 8/3/2024 at 5:49 AM, Trooper117 said:

lol!... not me mate, I'm 68 and fit as you like for a man of my age. My BMI is in the normal range, I do a 5 miler each and every day, never had a beard or a goatee (UGH), can still do 20 press ups without a problem, and saw off a 25 year old who had a go at me whilst I was walking my dog last week! 

Youre my hero 🙄

On 8/3/2024 at 3:40 PM, LukeFF said:

 

Yes, they are - look left with TrackIR, the 3D model of the head looks left, etc.

Does this mean that when i use the neck saver app in VR to check my six my head does a ‘Linda Blair’ and spins right around 180 degrees without my body moving?…that would be cool to see

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, Tonester said:

Does this mean that when i use the neck saver app in VR to check my six my head does a ‘Linda Blair’ and spins right around 180 degrees without my body moving?…that would be cool to see

 

No, there are animation limits to how far the 3D pilot will move his head when you move your head. 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

On 8/3/2024 at 8:44 PM, IRRE_Axurit said:

We see headless pilot skins

 

 

You already got Luke's response. Please know, too, that there's the same thing in DCS.

 

 

Edited August 7, 2024 by 343KKT_Kintaro
part of message properly quoted now

[IRRE_Axurit]

On 04/08/2024 at 00:40, LukeFF said:

 

Oui, ils le sont - regardez à gauche avec TrackIR, le modèle 3D de la tête regarde à gauche, etc.

I checked, and the head in game is far from being synchronized with mine in real life, even at reduced angles. Is there an option to check?

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, IRRE_Axurit said:

I checked, and the head in game is far from being synchronized with mine in real life, even at reduced angles. Is there an option to check?

 

No, it's as I said above - there are animation limitations with how far his head will move.