IL-2 4th Generation Future Titles

[Avimimus]

9 hours ago, 356thFS_Drewm3i-VR said:

It also seems silly to go from Korea back to Pacific WW2 when the new engine will have no other WW2 theaters or planes. Who will want to fly WW2 after tasting jets with guns? 

 

This isn't entirely correct. There are a number of WWII propeller aircraft - such as the F4-U, the F-51, the Yak-9P etc. There are also 1946 types such as the Sea Fury, La-11, and AD-2 which could be added and which would fly a lot like WWII aircraft (as they were essentially WWII designs). We might also see the Tu-2 and A-26/B-26 (possibly as AI).

 

The second generation jets are... a bit difficult. They have unparalleled speed and climb, but their handling leaves a lot to be desired - so dogfighting in them is more of an acquired taste and not everyone will like it. So, I expect that the better turning and handling propeller aircraft will still get attention.

 

I do agree that there is a bit of a tendency of people to just pick 'meta' aircraft from the late war, and never learn to appreciate the early war aircraft. I bet a lot of people bought BoS after BoBP and never really experienced the LaGG-3... even though they would've enjoyed the LaGG more than some of the late war aircraft. But I don't think that dynamic applies here. Also, if they then decide to do Carrier battles as the first Pacific instalment - those aircraft are much slower and also have lower wing loadings - so they should feel quite distinct and dogfight even better than the Korea era propeller aircraft...

[354thFG_Leifr]

I can't wait for Korea, a breath of fresh air! The theatre concerns me less than the promises 1C have made with regards to technological development, and if it all leads back to the Pacific - even better.

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, 356thFS_Leifr said:

I can't wait for Korea, a breath of fresh air! The theatre concerns me less than the promises 1C have made with regards to technological development, and if it all leads back to the Pacific - even better.

 

Worried that they are over-reaching with their ambitions?

[Trooper117]

13 hours ago, 356thFS_Drewm3i-VR said:

Time will tell who's right, but I don't know about the future of IL-2. For now, I'll keep enjoying GB

 

Of course, they could stop producing any more content right now and there is still years of flying left in the GB series with current content.

 

11 hours ago, 356thFS_Drewm3i-VR said:

I don't think think Korea will be the commercial success they believe it will be.

 

I think you will be totally wrong on that account...

 

11 hours ago, 356thFS_Drewm3i-VR said:

Even diehards like me are very lukewarm

 

I'm a total GB diehard, but I can't wait to see Korea come to fruition... once it's released, there will be at least another couple of years of development on dlc's and collector aircraft. They have already talked about Korean carrier warfare.

Another thing to remember, is the fact that many flight simmers don't just like the WWII era... there are many like me that like WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam air warfare, and will buy anything connected to it.

[Robli]

6 hours ago, Aapje said:

The MSFS 2020 platform is now getting abandoned after just 4 years.

 

I think this could not be further from the truth. Not only will MSFS2020 still be supported separately, most of the stuff from there will be compatible with MSFS2024, which is exactly what Drewm3i hoped for GB.

 

The very first statement on MSFS2024 FAQ page:

"Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 is a standalone simulator and the next-generation sequel to Microsoft Flight Simulator that launched in 2020. Current aircraft and airports that are in Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020), as well as virtually all Marketplace add-ons, will be supported in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024."

 

Second statement:

"We will continue to support Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020) post the Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 launch."

 

Third statement:

"With very few exceptions, virtually all add-ons that work in Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020) today will function in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024. Add-ons that were purchased from the in-simulator Marketplace will not need to be re-purchased in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024."

[LukeFF]

17 hours ago, 356thFS_Drewm3i-VR said:

I think the devs have made a big mistake abandoning GB instead of revamping it and bringing it up to a 2024 standard while maintaining backwards compatibility. 

 

The problem with that is it just can't be revamped like people want, for a number of reasons. Remember, the engine at this point is built upon one made for WWI air combat, so it was never designed to handle radio comms and all the AI responses that go along with that. 

 

The GUI is another - it's using tech that is long outdated and in any case, there is really no one person on the team with the expertise to update it. 

 

At some point, you have to accept that limitations like these are too costly to rectify and instead start with a clean slate that frees you from the limitations of the current code. 

[Jackfraser24]

19 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

The problem with that is it just can't be revamped like people want, for a number of reasons. Remember, the engine at this point is built upon one made for WWI air combat, so it was never designed to handle radio comms and all the AI responses that go along with that. 

So does that mean that the AI will never be able to improve from where it is now? That's a bit of a shame. I was playing the other day, doing an airfield raid mission and I was the only plane out of my squadron that hit anything. I really think that that needs to be fixed because I set my squadron skill on Ace level. 

[LukeFF]

41 minutes ago, Jackfraser24 said:

So does that mean that the AI will never be able to improve from where it is now? That's a bit of a shame. I was playing the other day, doing an airfield raid mission and I was the only plane out of my squadron that hit anything. I really think that that needs to be fixed because I set my squadron skill on Ace level. 

 

If you fly a mission where you see a major problem with the AI, it is best to post the mission and a track file showing what the problem is. 

[Airborne2001]

16 hours ago, 356thFS_Drewm3i-VR said:

I don't think think Korea will be the commercial success they believe it will be. I hope I'm wrong. Moving away from a known and established platform that is very good and has tons of content and ways to make money built in to establish something new and incompatible (and in a forgotten theater to boot) is/was a big risk. Even diehards like me are very lukewarm. Only time will tell. If they were planning to improve and port the existing planes and maps over to the new engines I would feel very differently.

 

15 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Were you this concerned when they dumped the RoF game platform and moved of to GB?

What we need is to get the major air-combat MMO YouTubers to play. I think a big reason why Tobruk from the CLOD series was so front-loaded in success is because YouTubers like PhlyDaily virtually ignored it. Hopefully him and others can give Korea attention, which I think is more likely because of the jet combat.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

11 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

Of course, they could stop producing any more content right now and there is still years of flying left in the GB series with current content.

 

 

I think you will be totally wrong on that account...

 

 

I'm a total GB diehard, but I can't wait to see Korea come to fruition... once it's released, there will be at least another couple of years of development on dlc's and collector aircraft. They have already talked about Korean carrier warfare.

Another thing to remember, is the fact that many flight simmers don't just like the WWII era... there are many like me that like WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam air warfare, and will buy anything connected to it.

I hope I am wrong; I hope I like Korea. I just know that the MP scene which is all I play, will be super jet vs super jet. Planes like the Yak 9, F-51, and Corsair will get shredded and be wholly uncompetitive. It happens now with the Me-262 on certain missions.

[Jackfraser24]

13 minutes ago, 356thFS_Drewm3i-VR said:

I hope I am wrong; I hope I like Korea. I just know that the MP scene which is all I play, will be super jet vs super jet. Planes like the Yak 9, F-51, and Corsair will get shredded and be wholly uncompetitive. It happens now with the Me-262 on certain missions.

I think Korea's going to be fine no matter what aircraft you fly. Remember, it is mostly up to the skill of the pilot that counts!

Edited August 23, 2024 by Jackfraser24

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

27 minutes ago, Jackfraser24 said:

I think Korea's going to be fine no matter what aircraft you fly. Remember, it is mostly up to the skill of the pilot that counts!

Nonsense, when the jets are 100+ MPH faster and can engage and disengage at will, "pilot skill" means very little. Jet to jet? Of course.

[Jackfraser24]

10 minutes ago, 356thFS_Drewm3i-VR said:

Nonsense, when the jets are 100+ MPH faster and can engage and disengage at will, "pilot skill" means very little. Jet to jet? Of course.

But bullets and shells fly faster than jets. 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

2 minutes ago, Jackfraser24 said:

But bullets and shells fly faster than jets. 

Good luck trying to shoot down a jet in a prop plane online against pilots as good as you. A few bursts of .50 won't do it...even if you can get the nose aimed perfectly and land hits after getting plastered by cannons. It's nearly impossible to hit a small target quickly diving away going 100+ mph faster than you. My comment was talking about online. In SP, I have no doubt a skilled pilot could manage a jet, even in a mid-war plane like the Spit IX.

[Jackfraser24]

11 minutes ago, 356thFS_Drewm3i-VR said:

Good luck trying to shoot down a jet in a prop plane online against pilots as good as you. A few bursts of .50 won't do it...even if you can get the nose aimed perfectly and land hits after getting plastered by cannons. It's nearly impossible to hit a small target quickly diving away going 100+ mph faster than you. My comment was talking about online. In SP, I have no doubt a skilled pilot could manage a jet, even in a mid-war plane like the Spit IX.

I see your point. You're right, it would be really hard in multiplayer to shoot down a jet fighter in a piston fighter. But at slower speeds you'd have a better advantage because you are more maneuverable and they are less agile. 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

1 minute ago, Jackfraser24 said:

I see your point. You're right, it would be really hard in multiplayer to shoot down a jet fighter in a piston fighter. But at slower speeds you'd have a better advantage because you are more maneuverable and they are less agile. 

Yes, which would take an undisciplined and overzealous pilot which will happen but will be rare. I think what we'll eventually see is very restrictive missions, some prop vs prop but mostly jet vs. jet. Even now, it's mostly late-war super props and jets. Just the way people are, including me: we all want the best tool for the job we can get and multiplayer is about being competitive and rising to the challenge of facing off vs. the best of the best--that's why it's rewarding though. I just hope to see WW2 Western Front, MTO, and PTO content in an improved engine again someday.

[Jackfraser24]

4 minutes ago, 356thFS_Drewm3i-VR said:

 I just hope to see WW2 Western Front, MTO, and PTO content in an improved engine again someday.

I hope so too. I'd also like to see the Eastern Front, China and Burma done as well. Not much has been done with China or Burma for a while in flight combat simulation. 

Edited August 23, 2024 by Jackfraser24

[BlitzPig_EL]

It all depends on mission scenario.  I shot down a 262 while flying a Brewster in old IL2.  Anything is possible.

[Jackfraser24]

35 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

It all depends on mission scenario.  I shot down a 262 while flying a Brewster in old IL2.  Anything is possible.

Good job!

[BraveSirRobin]

2 hours ago, 356thFS_Drewm3i-VR said:

Nonsense, when the jets are 100+ MPH faster and can engage and disengage at will, "pilot skill" means very little. Jet to jet? Of course.

 You know that mission builders can create missions with no jets, right?  Or design missions so that jets are distracted by high flying B-29s while props are low and slow over ground targets.  Korea will be just fine.  It’s unique.  It’s got the best prop planes ever made.  It’s got iconic jets.  It’s got great scenery.  What is the downside?

[BlitzPig_EL]

49 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

  What is the downside?

 

For a subset of players it's no German aircraft.  There is no accounting for taste I guess.  I look forward to not seeing 109s and FW 190s for a long while.

[Jackfraser24]

28 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

For a subset of players it's no German aircraft.  There is no accounting for taste I guess.  I look forward to not seeing 109s and FW 190s for a long while.

Hey, don't knock it till you try it.

[BraveSirRobin]

37 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

For a subset of players it's no German aircraft.  There is no accounting for taste I guess.  I look forward to not seeing 109s and FW 190s for a long while.

 They’re really not going to be happy when the series moves on to Vietnam.  (jk I don’t think this is happening).

[Jackfraser24]

Indo Pakistani War of 1965

 

Why they should consider covering the air war

• Hundreds of planes from both the Indian and Pakistani sides were involved. There were between 80-85 air to air combat losses during the course of that war.
• From my understanding it is a largely forgotten war, especially the air aspect of it. It would be good to commemorate it in combat flight simulation like Korea will have been.
• No game has ever covered the Indo Pakistani air wars, or at least not to the same level of detail as what a game like IL-2 would. 
• The map would be large and the environment would be varied ranging from deserts and grassy plains to mountainous environments.
• It would appeal to the Indian and Pakistani virtual pilot market, especially to those whose ancestors fought in the Indo Pakistani War of 1965.
• There would be an interesting plane combination such as the Hawker Hunter, Folland Gnat, deHavilland Vampires and Dassault Mystere IV, and the F-104 Star Fighter.
• The F-86F (if that variant is chosen for Korea) will serve another purpose in the game besides just fighting in Korea. They were formidable ground attack aircraft.
• There would be a decent pilot career. The Indians flew 3,937 sorties and the Pakistanis flew 2,364 sorties. The war lasted for one and a half months.

Plane List

 

Indian Planes

• Canberra T.4 (Collector)
• Gnat F.1
• Hunter F.56
• Mysterie IVa
• Vampire Mk.58

Pakistani Planes

• F-4A Starfighter
• F-86F (if it is not in IL-2 Korea)

[Aapje]

7 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

• It would appeal to the Indian and Pakistani virtual pilot market, especially to those whose ancestors fought in the Indo Pakistani War of 1965.

 

Yes, I'm sure those three people will be happy.

 

Seriously, though, I get the impression that flight simming is not all that popular in those places.

[Avimimus]

57 minutes ago, Aapje said:

Yes, I'm sure those three people will be happy.

 

Seriously, though, I get the impression that flight simming is not all that popular in those places.

 

You're saying that the population of India and Pakistan is three people? If this keeps up, I'm going to find it increasingly hard to take you seriously.

[Trooper117]

8 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Indo Pakistani War of 1965

 

I wouldn't be interested...

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

13 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

It all depends on mission scenario.  I shot down a 262 while flying a Brewster in old IL2.  Anything is possible.

Possible and probable are 2 different critters.  Sure it can happen, but how often?

[Aapje]

4 hours ago, Avimimus said:

You're saying that the population of India and Pakistan is three people? If this keeps up, I'm going to find it increasingly hard to take you seriously.

 

No, of course not. I'm saying that there are very few flight sim enthusiasts in those countries.

[Avimimus]

2 minutes ago, Aapje said:

No, of course not. I'm saying that there are very few flight sim enthusiasts in those countries.

 

Oh, perhaps I'm taking you too literally then!

 

The number of gamers in India is estimated to be over 450 million as of last year - and by the time the second Pacific module is out it should be well over 730 million by most estimates. Of course, not all of those will be interested in flight sims, a lot of that number are mobile gamers - but I can't help to think that there will be a market eventually (considering that similar statistics give only a bit over 210 million gamers in the U.S.)

[Aapje]

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Oh, perhaps I'm taking you too literally then!

 

I'd sooner think that you should do the opposite, since the person I responded to was talking about the "Indian and Pakistani virtual pilot market". 

 

This is very different to the PC gamer market and very different still to the generic gaming market. The popularity of certain types of games obviously differs substantially by region, in part due to cultural factors and in part due to practical issues. For example, I don't think that it is a coincidence that Russia is overrepresented in flight simming companies, which surely reflects a higher interest in Russian gamers as well. On the other hand, I've seen pretty much no interest from India and Pakistan in flight simming in forums, on Youtube, on Reddit, etc. I've seen way more interest from the Philippines, even though they have 14 times fewer people than India.

 

And India has very high customs fees, which both limits their PC gaming market, but is an extra issue for flight (and race) simmers, since things like a HOTAS are also very expensive there. So I expect a far higher percentage of gaming in India to be mobile, and among the PC gamers, relatively low interest in flight simming, if only due to the cost aspect.

Edited August 24, 2024 by Aapje

[Avimimus]

I agree that they are under-represented, but I also think that it'd be foolish to disregard such a large and growing market over the next few years. If flight sims could be made more popular in this region, it could have a tremendous positive benefit to the genre as a whole. We shouldn't let our stereotypes, or our lack of personal interest, bias us too much when discussing possibilities.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

On 8/23/2024 at 4:23 PM, Robli said:

 

I think this could not be further from the truth. Not only will MSFS2020 still be supported separately, most of the stuff from there will be compatible with MSFS2024, which is exactly what Drewm3i hoped for GB.

 

The very first statement on MSFS2024 FAQ page:

"Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 is a standalone simulator and the next-generation sequel to Microsoft Flight Simulator that launched in 2020. Current aircraft and airports that are in Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020), as well as virtually all Marketplace add-ons, will be supported in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024."

 

Second statement:

"We will continue to support Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020) post the Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 launch."

 

Third statement:

"With very few exceptions, virtually all add-ons that work in Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020) today will function in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024. Add-ons that were purchased from the in-simulator Marketplace will not need to be re-purchased in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024."

Most MSFS2020 content will be compatible with MSFS2024, yes, but it doesn't necessarily go the other way as well. So that essentially invalidates your 1st and 3rd statements.

 

As for "supporting 2020 beyond 2024", IIRC they only announced one or two updates for 2020 after its successor's release. I won't discount the possibility that there will be a couple more, but updates to 2020 will become increasingly rare as time progresses, eventually stopping altogether. Believing MS will continue to actively develop 2020 for years to come is just unrealistic. For all intents and purposes, Aapje is correct when he states that MS is abandoning 2020.

 

15 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I agree that they are under-represented, but I also think that it'd be foolish to disregard such a large and growing market over the next few years. If flight sims could be made more popular in this region, it could have a tremendous positive benefit to the genre as a whole. We shouldn't let our stereotypes, or our lack of personal interest, bias us too much when discussing possibilities.

Problem is, who'se going to make flight sims more popular there? I don't see a small studio like 1CGS start a major marketing campaign.

 

Furthermore, India has a relatively poor population with massive income inequality. If you look at the amount of people who would be able to comfortably afford such a game as well as flight gear and a gaming PC to boot, you're looking at a similarly sized market as one of the large European countries.

 

 

Don't get me wrong; I do hope that India is able to fix their wealth distribution and that flight simming becomes massively popular there, but expecting either of these to happen within the next decade or so to such an extent that an "IL2: Indian-Pakistani war" becomes economically attractive, is completely disconnected from reality.

Edited August 25, 2024 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Aapje]

16 hours ago, Avimimus said:

but I also think that it'd be foolish to disregard such a large and growing market over the next few years.

 

What is your evidence that this is a large and growing market? And I'm not talking about the number of people living in these regions in general, but specifically about people who actually buy/play more serious (combat) flight sims (not just WT with a mouse).

 

16 hours ago, Avimimus said:

If flight sims could be made more popular in this region, it could have a tremendous positive benefit to the genre as a whole.

 

It's beyond naive to think that a niche sim that even has difficulty getting noticed in fairly receptive markets, will somehow manage to convert a not very receptive market. Do you think that 1CGS will do mass marketing campaigns in Hindi, when they don't even do that in English?

 

And as @AEthelraedUnraed showed, it's even very questionable how big the benefit there is going to be in the short term, given that the vast majority of the population of these regions is quite poor, often living in very primitive circumstances. If only around 4 million people in India are rich enough for serious flight simming to be a real option, then that is way less than many other countries. A Battle of France would logically make a lot more sense, since while France has fewer residents than India, the number of people with enough income to be able to afford flight simming is a lot higher. Also, I'm pretty sure that that conflict will get more interest from people in other countries, than the Indian-Pakistani war has interest outside of those countries.

 

16 hours ago, Avimimus said:

We shouldn't let our stereotypes, or our lack of personal interest, bias us too much when discussing possibilities.

 

Scientific research has actually shown that on the whole, stereotypes tend to reflect real world differences, which is logical, because they are abstracted extrapolations from detailed information, and thus not inherently different than surveys or such, although not necessarily as rigorous (although surveys can be very non-rigorous as well).

 

So that means relatively high uncertainty, so you can only recognize relatively large differences. But as far as I can see, the difference in actual interest from these countries is very large.

 

Your arguments are eerily similar to the craze that is gripping Hollywood right now, where they also imagine that they can make great profits by appealing to 'modern audiences™'. This imagined audience consists of groups that have shown relatively little interest in certain genres until now, but will supposedly become interested if they get pandered to enough. That's not working out so well so far.

 

And Hollywood has a marketing machine that they dump billions of dollars into. A company like 1CGS doesn't have the money to do that kind of thing.

Edited August 25, 2024 by Aapje

[Avimimus]

47 minutes ago, Aapje said:

What is your evidence that this is a large and growing market? And I'm not talking about the number of people living in these regions in general, but specifically about people who actually buy/play more serious (combat) flight sims (not just WT with a mouse).

 

Flight sims are such a niche market that only flight sim companies would have that type of data (and maybe publishing platforms like Steam). But, we're talking about 450 million people spending money each year on gaming in Indian (based on current statistics)...

 

We also shouldn't underestimate the expansion of infrastructure which has taken place. Today 1.4 billion people have Internet in India, for instance.

 

47 minutes ago, Aapje said:

And as @AEthelraedUnraed showed, it's even very questionable how big the benefit there is going to be in the short term, given that the vast majority of the population of these regions is quite poor, often living in very primitive circumstances. If only around 4 million people in India are rich enough for serious flight simming to be a real option, then that is way less than many other countries. 

 

According to AEthelraedUnraed's data it is more than 64 million people who could afford flight sims. One has to remember that flight simulators offer a lot more replayability than other games, so the main costs are the videocard, the joystick, and the electricity. I've known people with relatively limited net wealth (more like 10,000 USD) who will invest in them.

 

I'll grant though, that flight sims are less accessible, especially as one has to make the decision to get a joystick before actually getting to experience the benefits it brings (etc.) - so the market for flight sims is smaller than it is for gaming in general. As, I said earlier - by 2032 the situation may have changed so we shouldn't make too many assumptions.

 

47 minutes ago, Aapje said:

Scientific research has actually shown that on the whole, stereotypes tend to reflect real world differences, which is logical, because they are abstracted extrapolations from detailed information, and thus not inherently different than surveys or such, although not necessarily as rigorous (although surveys can be very non-rigorous as well).

 

Well, I believe the research shows that there are different types of stereotypes. Generally speaking, stereotypes represent oversimplifications - oversimplifications which can be based on real world differences. Having more contact with another group of people tends to undermine our stereotypes because we discover that the stereotypes were too simplistic and doesn't capture the diversity of people in the other group.

 

There is another type of stereotypes - those which are misleading because they are derived from propaganda... (rather than being misleading because they are oversimplifications). In these cases there may be no basis of truth at all.

 

In both cases they can be misleading though - especially when they are stereotypes from a half century ago, and the world has changed substantially.

[Robli]

8 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Most MSFS2020 content will be compatible with MSFS2024, yes, but it doesn't necessarily go the other way as well. So that essentially invalidates your 1st and 3rd statements.

 

First of all, these are not my statements, but direct quotes from MSFS2024 FAQ website. Second of all, not being compatible "the other way as well" does not invalidate their statements in any way. 

 

8 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

For all intents and purposes, Aapje is correct when he states that MS is abandoning 2020.

For all intents and purposes, your statement is even more absurd than Aapje's original statement, because he might have honestly assumed that MSFS2020 stuff was not compatible with MSFS2024, but you don't even seem to understand what the discussion was about.

[Avimimus]

There is another thread to discuss MSFS. We should move any further discussion to that thread.

[Jackfraser24]

IL-2 Stalingrad (revamped in the new series) 

 

8 Reasons Why

1. The Battle of Stalingrad's significance cannot be ignored. It was the largest battle between the Soviet and the Axis forces, and a very important one with that in terms of it being a strategic location and moral booster for the Soviets and the turning point of the war on the Eastern Front. 
2. IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad is starting to show it's age. Don't get me wrong, it is a great game but if they were ever to return to the Eastern Front with their new simulator a module concerning the Battle of Stalingrad would really benefit from improvements from the new technologies. 
3. I believe that with the new game, this Stalingrad module I am suggesting will have many improvements over IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad such as better graphics and textures, artificial intelligence, and independently moving human pilots, etc...
4. The new technologies will also help make the maps look better in terms of looking more realistic, and I assume it will allow for bigger maps to be made. If that last part is true, then maybe the entirety of Case Blue could be made as well as other battles could be covered on the same map such as Kharkov and Kursk.
5. The planes with this new technology would look way better than what they do now. They would have better graphics and textures, and individual working components in the engines.  
6. If they did a Stalingrad module they will not be starting totally from scratch. They have plenty of information on the maps, planes, and the aircraft sorties that took place during the battle. 
7. This would also give them the chance to improve their plane list over last time. For example the Fw-190 A-3 never flew sorties at Stalingrad, so maybe they should have an I.A.R.80/81 instead, just for an example. 
8. A Stalingrad module would appeal to virtual combat pilots whose ancestors fought in the battle whether being on the ground, in tanks or in the air as fighter pilots or bomber crew members. 

 

 

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, Jackfraser24 said:

IL-2 Stalingrad (revamped in the new series) 

 

8 Reasons Why

1. The Battle of Stalingrad's significance cannot be ignored. It was the largest battle between the Soviet and the Axis forces, and a very important one with that in terms of it being a strategic location and moral booster for the Soviets and the turning point of the war on the Eastern Front. 
2. IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad is starting to show it's age. Don't get me wrong, it is a great game but if they were ever to return to the Eastern Front with their new simulator a module concerning the Battle of Stalingrad would really benefit from improvements from the new technologies. 
3. I believe that with the new game, this Stalingrad module I am suggesting will have many improvements over IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad such as better graphics and textures, artificial intelligence, and independently moving human pilots, etc...
4. The new technologies will also help make the maps look better in terms of looking more realistic, and I assume it will allow for bigger maps to be made. If that last part is true, then maybe the entirety of Case Blue could be made as well as other battles could be covered on the same map such as Kharkov and Kursk.
5. The planes with this new technology would look way better than what they do now. They would have better graphics and textures, and individual working components in the engines.  
6. If they did a Stalingrad module they will not be starting totally from scratch. They have plenty of information on the maps, planes, and the aircraft sorties that took place during the battle. 
7. This would also give them the chance to improve their plane list over last time. For example the Fw-190 A-3 never flew sorties at Stalingrad, so maybe they should have an I.A.R.80/81 instead, just for an example. 
8. A Stalingrad module would appeal to virtual combat pilots whose ancestors fought in the battle whether being on the ground, in tanks or in the air as fighter pilots or bomber crew members. 

 

 

They’re working to enable the game engine to handle large formations of bombers.  They’re not doing that to go back to Stalingrad.  Eventually (after PTO, apparently) they’re going to do the Battle of Britain.  Be sure.

[Jackfraser24]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

They’re working to enable the game engine to handle large formations of bombers.  They’re not doing that to go back to Stalingrad.  Eventually (after PTO, apparently) they’re going to do the Battle of Britain.  Be sure.

Really? Battle of Britain?