.

[HazMatt]

.

Edited August 22, 2024 by HazMatt
.

[Trooper117]

it may pick up again once the new project has been released in, well, no one knows exactly yet.

GB is slowly winding down, although there is a bit more content yet to come... I'm sure it will all pick up once Korea eventually turns up.

[HazMatt]

.

Edited August 22, 2024 by HazMatt

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

The game is too far behind 2024 standards for legions of reasons, and people know its not getting big changes. The game needs a 2.0 version, and that's exactly what 1C is doing. Just gotta wait for Korea, and there's plenty of other genres that can steal people during the wait. On the bright side if you look at the hardware companies, you'll see them investing big money in new products, so it looks like they are expecting a revival. The present is dark, but the future is bright, just gotta hope 1C is investing its time and resources wisely and making the right changes. 

[Trooper117]

32 minutes ago, HazMatt said:

I'm curious as to where all those players from all those games went.

 

Flight sims are not really main stream gaming... they are a niche product. People move on for hundreds of reasons, and they don't have to move into other flight sims either as there are lots of other types of games that are simply excellent to play.

People into flight sims statistically are older and with more disposable income, to afford the cost of everything needed to fully enjoy the experience... and don't forget, we are also a dying breed of players. (literally)... 💀⚰️ lol!

All good games eventually die off and something better or newer replace them... such is life!

 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

The history aspect won't bring in the young people, but the plane combat side of the game could do it. 

[Gunfreak]

Myriad of reasons.

The game engine itself is old now. And honestly doing stuff like ground attack in IL2 just doesn't do it for me. The ground graphics and weapons effects/sounds look so unreal it pulls me out of my vr immersion. And as someone who makes vidoes it really doesn't look good when you put the camera down low to show of bomb/rocket/strafe attacks. Given that another combat flight sim not only gets probably what is worth millions in free advisement on YouTube from content creators with several channels big enough to be the main income for the content creator.

But the games graphics and other thing is so entertaining many watch thr vidoes for entertainment without playing the game. 

 

Il2 doesn't do that. And it's not just because it's ww2 and not also jets. The presentation just isn't there. I hope Korea improves this. Especially ground textures/effects and such need a modern upgrade both for the free publicity on YouTube but also just to draw in new people that expect a certain graphical quality.

 

You can also argue after years of being successful (the nr 1 ww2 sim for a decade now) this got lazy. We never got the external tanks(that does effects gameplay with maps like Normandy) we never got those 4 engine bomber. The AI while being very resource heavy, is not really any better than the AI found with the competitors. And Flying Circus was sadly very under used. The aircraft models were not up to the standard of later IL2 models. The choice to not improving aircraft properly, but copy paste from rise of flight and the horrible AI. Limits how much you can get out of that. 

 

The engine was good enough for small scale tactical combat in the eatern front but Bodenplatte and Normandy were really projects the engine just wasn't made to handle.

 

And then we have the competition. Luckily for IL2, DCS treats its ww2 project as an unwanted step child. So never really threatened IL2 even if DCS has all the ability to do so with some serous focused ww2 work. But ED doesn't work like that.

 

However WarThunder that's a big one. It's very arcady, but made to be an addictive online game. Those with a cursory interest, especially the younger people might choose this. They want to fly the zero or 109. And don't really care that the zero and 109 really are just 3d models with very little commonality with the real aircraft.

I do think WarThunder has taken a large chunk of player from all the combat flight sims. 

Edited August 15, 2024 by Gunfreak

[HazMatt]

.

Edited August 22, 2024 by HazMatt

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

You can also argue after years of being successful (the nr 1 ww2 sim for a decade now) this got lazy. We never got the external tanks(that does effects gameplay with maps like Normandy) we never got those 4 engine bomber. The AI while being very resource heavy, is not really any better than the AI found with the competitors. And Flying Circus was sadly very under used. The aircraft models were not up to the standard of later IL2 models. The choice to not improving aircraft properly, but copy paste from rise of flight and the horrible AI. Limits how much you can get out of that. 

 

I'm just going to point out that comments like this are unfounded - decisions were made for various reasons but certainly not because of "laziness". 

 

The "copy-paste" argument was also debunked long ago, so let's not go there. 

 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

1 hour ago, HazMatt said:

My point is that I've always gone to another game that had a WW2 flight component to it and I figured there were others like me. Those were the people that I'm curious as to where they went. While writing this I found this on the internet: "As of Dec. 28, 2023, War Thunder boasts an average of 63,039 daily players, according to Steam Charts"

That shows that there are players out there. Maybe I need to check out WT? /cough

Ignorance is bliss, if your not playing other games, you won't know what you're missing.

 

Trigger Warning!

 

I mean it!

 

If you look at war thunder players talking about the game, a lot of them wish they were playing a game that had more realistic guts then that game provides. Im sure Korea could pick up the ones who want something more from that 63k if it was closer to modern standards, with more modern features. Obviously don't copy war thunder with external views and the grind, etc. but they want a step up. Its not a bad thing, theyre looking for something more realistic, and where else would you expect people to come from?

[Dr1falcon500]

The planes from Volume 1 and 2 aren't much better detail wise than their Rise of Flight counterparts. Volume 3 planes were such a big improvement. Will the older planes be upgraded? Objectively graphics in FC and GB are only marginally better than RoF. Trees and water are poor in GB. Trees in winter should be bare, not have leaves. It's 2024 not 2010, gamers want something better whether SP or MP.

[HazMatt]

On 8/15/2024 at 12:55 PM, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Ignorance is bliss, if your not playing other games, you won't know what you're missing.

 

Trigger Warning!

 

I mean it!

 

If you look at war thunder players talking about the game, a lot of them wish they were playing a game that had more realistic guts then that game provides. Im sure Korea could pick up the ones who want something more from that 63k if it was closer to modern standards, with more modern features. Obviously don't copy war thunder with external views and the grind, etc. but they want a step up. Its not a bad thing, theyre looking for something more realistic, and where else would you expect people to come from?

 

Edited August 22, 2024 by HazMatt

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

The trigger warning was a joke aimed at anyone reading it, hating war thunder like its the boogey man is a common meme, so they're players coming here would be triggering.

 

Ignorance is bliss was meant as you said you only play flight sims, so your not as bothered by IL2s or others out of datedness as others who play other genres.

 

 

 

[HazMatt]

Ah. I see. Thanks for clarifying. I play WoW with my kids at times if that counts as "other genres" I'm guessing it's not.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

10 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

The game is too far behind 2024 standards for legions of reasons, and people know its not getting big changes. The game needs a 2.0 version, and that's exactly what 1C is doing. Just gotta wait for Korea, and there's plenty of other genres that can steal people during the wait. On the bright side if you look at the hardware companies, you'll see them investing big money in new products, so it looks like they are expecting a revival. The present is dark, but the future is bright, just gotta hope 1C is investing its time and resources wisely and making the right changes. 

Korea isn't 2.0...it's a completely different product. I'm excited for the release, but not really interested in jets or the scenario. Same with Combat Pilot...Midway just seems kinda boring and lame. It's basically all carriers and one map featuring only water and a small spit of land. 

 

DCS WWII is also terrible quite frankly. Nice graphics, horrible planesets (hey lets put a 1943 Spitfire IXc with no 150 vs. a 1945 109 K4 with MW-50), questionable fms on certain planes (Spitfire and A8), no 150 octane, few assets, ugly map textures, and only one server running the same mishmash of a scenario scenario 24/7/365 ad nauseam. When there is something better, I'll play it. Until then, GB is what is best. CLoD? LOL

Edited August 16, 2024 by 356thFS_Drewm3i-VR

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

1 hour ago, HazMatt said:

Ah. I see. Thanks for clarifying. I play WoW with my kids at times if that counts as "other genres" I'm guessing it's not.

It is a different genre, but its not a modern game, but it doesn't need to be for what its goals are.

 

1 hour ago, 356thFS_Drewm3i-VR said:

Korea isn't 2.0...it's a completely different product. I'm excited for the release, but not really interested in jets or the scenario. Same with Combat Pilot...Midway just seems kinda boring and lame. It's basically all carriers and one map featuring only water and a small spit of land. 

 

DCS WWII is also terrible quite frankly. Nice graphics, horrible planesets (hey lets put a 1943 Spitfire IXc with no 150 vs. a 1945 109 K4 with MW-50), questionable fms on certain planes (Spitfire and A8), no 150 octane, few assets, ugly map textures, and only one server running the same mishmash of a scenario scenario 24/7/365 ad nauseam. When there is something better, I'll play it. Until then, GB is what is best. CLoD? LOL

I didn't know CP was that limited. That's kinda funny. In here there's lots of people asking for carriers, and CPs like "heres only carriers". I guess we'll see what kind of depth can be mined from that.

[LukeFF]

Discussion about CloD, WT, and DCS goes elsewhere, not here. 

[HazMatt]

.

Edited August 22, 2024 by HazMatt

[LF_Mark_Krieger]

I'm playing IL-2 games since the first one, more than 20 years ago and I think the quiestion isn't so much as where old players went, but where new players go. First of all, we must remember that the vast majority of players plays only Single Player mode. That's what even myself did until I joined a squadron about 3 years ago (and my experience improved a lot). But it's true that in multiplayer there are less players than some years ago. Except the fanatics of WWII plane sims like us, most players can stop playing and play other games. The key is were do the new young players go. Althought it is a very diferent game, I think they go to that famous arcade "free to play" game. The have many more resources in marketing and as has been said, most of thos players ignore the lack of quality of the flight models in that arcade game. It's a new generation that probably doesn't even give value to that. Anyway I think that if we can reach them with the new project with higher standards of graphic quality, we can attract part of them and make them discover the wolrd of combat flight simulation.

 

Edited August 22, 2024 by LF_Mark_Krieger

[BlitzPig_Bill_Kelso]

IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad Price history · SteamDB

I fly offline occasionally; I would fly much more if the AI was worth a damn... I used to fly online, but most everyone I flew with regularly has either moved on or died. Sure, I could try and meet new people, except it is the same people for the most part since 2001.

[Trooper117]

1 hour ago, LF_Mark_Krieger said:

I'm playing IL-2 games since the first one, more than 20 years ago

 

Same!... 

 

2 hours ago, LF_Mark_Krieger said:

Anyway I think that if we can reach them with the new project with higher standards of graphic quality, we can attract part of them and make them discoverd the wolrd of combat flight simulation.

 

Those people already have WT with just about any type of aircraft, plus most theatres of war. Another plus for them is the game is free, and if they aren't worried about the quality of the fm's and can play in an arcade style that they like, then there is no real reason for them to even think about this new project... plus Korean war aircraft can be flown right now in that game...

[LF_Mark_Krieger]

18 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

Same!... 

 

 

Those people already have WT with just about any type of aircraft, plus most theatres of war. Another plus for them is the game is free, and if they aren't worried about the quality of the fm's and can play in an arcade style that they like, then there is no real reason for them to even think about this new project... plus Korean war aircraft can be flown right now in that game...

Of course. I'm talking about only a minority of the players of that game. But there are a lot of players in that game, so anyway that minority of players that want to go a step further (or quite steps I would say) can be an important number.

Edited August 23, 2024 by LF_Mark_Krieger

[Trooper117]

19 minutes ago, LF_Mark_Krieger said:

players that want to go a step (ar quite steps I would say) further can be an important number.

 

Good point!

[HazMatt]

7 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

Same!... 

 

 

Those people already have WT with just about any type of aircraft, plus most theatres of war. Another plus for them is the game is free, and if they aren't worried about the quality of the fm's and can play in an arcade style that they like, then there is no real reason for them to even think about this new project... plus Korean war aircraft can be flown right now in that game...

 

Edited August 22, 2024 by HazMatt

[LukeFF]

Guys, again, this is not a discussion topic about WT. 

[HazMatt]

I was talking about it in relation to IL2. I didn't realize that if it was mentioned in a post relating to il2 that it was a problem. I guess someone talking about playing  Air Warrior in relation to IL2 is a big no no too even though it Air Warrior doesn't exist anymore.

 

My goal was to bring more players to IL2 online servers and discussing where they went and how to bring them back. I deleted my posts so there shouldn't be any more problems.

Edited August 22, 2024 by HazMatt

[BOO]

21 hours ago, LF_Mark_Krieger said:

I'm playing IL-2 games since the first one, more than 20 years ago and I think the quiestion isn't so much as where old players went, but where new players go. First of all, we must remember that the vast majority of players plays only Single Player mode. That's what even myself did until I joined a squadron about 3 years ago (and my experience improved a lot). But it's true that in multiplayer there are less players than some years ago. Except the fanatics of WWII plane sims like us, most players can stop playing and play other games. The key is were do the new young players go. Althought it is a very diferent game, I think they go to that famous arcade "free to play" game. The have many more resources in marketing and as has been said, most of thos players ignore the lack of quality of the flight models in that arcade game. It's a new generation that probably doesn't even give value to that. Anyway I think that if we can reach them with the new project with higher standards of graphic quality, we can attract part of them and make them discover the wolrd of combat flight simulation.

 

 

Im sure the "free to play" (which of course isnt but equally isnt an inital lump sum either) has something to do with it. As does peripheral purchases such as sticks and throttles not to mention a PC (and a relatively decent one at that given the "higher standard of graphic quality" alluded to). You cant run GB on decent graphic settings on a potato and id imagine Korea will only raise that performance limit.

 

Gettng into PC based simming from a console and a general family/student spec'd laptop isnt as simple as hitting the "purchase" button in Steam (and how many households even have a PC knocking about these days). 

 

 

[PB0_Roll]

Game is taking dust until career missions get some love. I can't play multiplayer on a sim if I don't also have fun in single player first.

 

And I don't in this sim, sadly.

 

I'll check again in a few months to see if AI can fly something else than echelon right, if 2 hours of empty sky missions are a thing of the past  that and if time multiplier finally works with more than 10 planes in the air. I stopped dreaming of AI interaction with ATC or wingman (when I'm not squadron commander), we'll see what next game brings in this department.

 

 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

6 hours ago, BOO said:

 

Im sure the "free to play" (which of course isnt but equally isnt an inital lump sum either) has something to do with it. As does peripheral purchases such as sticks and throttles not to mention a PC (and a relatively decent one at that given the "higher standard of graphic quality" alluded to). You cant run GB on decent graphic settings on a potato and id imagine Korea will only raise that performance limit.

 

Gettng into PC based simming from a console and a general family/student spec'd laptop isnt as simple as hitting the "purchase" button in Steam (and how many households even have a PC knocking about these days). 

 

 

I doubt they're realistically aiming and budgeting to reach the mass market with 100,000+ people online at once, so they don't need to be reaching that market en masse. I'm sure they are hoping to expand though (who wouldn't?),  and young people with disposable income for video games do exist.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, PB0_Roll said:

2 hours of empty sky missions are a thing of the past

 

I don't know when is the last time you booted up an SP mission but that's not been a thing for a long time now. 

 

1 hour ago, PB0_Roll said:

AI can fly something else than echelon right

 

Fighter cover is now split into two groups, a high and a low cover and will split up accordingly when the enemy is engaged. 

 

Otherwise, don't expect dramatic improvements in this area for GB, since most of the effort is going into Korea. 

[PB0_Roll]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

I don't know when is the last time you booted up an SP mission but that's not been a thing for a long time now. 

 

 

Fighter cover is now split into two groups, a high and a low cover and will split up accordingly when the enemy is engaged. 

 

Otherwise, don't expect dramatic improvements in this area for GB, since most of the effort is going into Korea. 

 Been a few months I guess. Thanks for heads up, I'll have another go at it then and see if I can bear with lack of comms.

 

If there is a  much improved ATC/friendly AI/player relationship, ability to have historical plane numbers in battles with a decent framerate, and a user friendly mission editor in Korea , I'll buy it.

[BOO]

3 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

  and young people with disposable income for video games do exist.

 

No doubt, but they always have just not in the numbers to make much of an inroad into mortality rate of us old sods.

 

 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

In the past yes, and without any major changes I'd assume that trend would continue, but I'm optimistic that the changes Korea is making, combined with the technological changes like VR will see more people in their 20s and 30s come into the game. Well see.

[PB0_Roll]

On 8/23/2024 at 6:48 PM, LukeFF said:

 

I don't know when is the last time you booted up an SP mission but that's not been a thing for a long time now. 

 

 

Fighter cover is now split into two groups, a high and a low cover and will split up accordingly when the enemy is engaged. 

 

Otherwise, don't expect dramatic improvements in this area for GB, since most of the effort is going into Korea. 

 

I played two missions in a Typhoon from France beaches and indeed there were ennemies in both indeed, thanks for fixing this.

 

I couldn't check what formation my escort was flying, they were too far to be seen from the cockpit. My squadron was flying the usual echelon right though.

 

 

It didn't stop two of our planes from colliding while diving on the distant bridge we had to bomb (instead of flying CAS or BAI as expected for a Typhoon after DDAY). Afterwise our 6 remaining bombers + 8 escorts were engaged by two FW190s, they shot one of ours and I had to shoot them both down, since AI wouldn't be bothered to defend itself, nor bombers nor escort.

 

I was then separated from the squadron, next time I heard of them was when nearing our homebase, they were once again engaged by FWs, and this time (maybe because I wasn't there) they tried to fight back. 10 of ours vs 4 of them and yet we lost more planes, and I had to shoot two FWs down myself when I finally rejoined.

 

There's a loooooooooong list of things to improve for next game, that haven't been fixed in almost a decade on current serie,  giving up on it will hurt next game's sales.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, PB0_Roll said:

It didn't stop two of our planes from colliding while diving on the distant bridge we had to bomb (instead of flying CAS or BAI as expected for a Typhoon after DDAY). Afterwise our 6 remaining bombers + 8 escorts were engaged by two FW190s, they shot one of ours and I had to shoot them both down, since AI wouldn't be bothered to defend itself, nor bombers nor escort.

 

I was then separated from the squadron, next time I heard of them was when nearing our homebase, they were once again engaged by FWs, and this time (maybe because I wasn't there) they tried to fight back. 10 of ours vs 4 of them and yet we lost more planes, and I had to shoot two FWs down myself when I finally rejoined.

 

There's a loooooooooong list of things to improve for next game, that haven't been fixed in almost a decade on current serie,  giving up on it will hurt next game's sales.

 

As I keep telling people, if you see a problem, upload the mission file for the team to take a look at. They do look at these files and several fixes in this area are planned for the next update.

 

As for bombing bridges after D-Day, yes, Typhoons did that, and in fact it's all based on each individual squadron's real mission record.

[PB0_Roll]

Here's a mission

 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1m5ekh9lf2bizagy5y663/Missions.zip?rlkey=ms8u1u19bw0k065let0nf2fe0&st=b5542zqz&dl=0

 

Issues:

 

1/RCAF typhoons taking off from a british airfield (B9 Lantheuil), but all static aircraft are US (P-51Ds and B-25s mostly)

 

2/Target is a railway junction on the US side. RCAF Typhoon squadrons were mostly engaged on british side, and at the date Caen battle was still raging. Target is also too far, mostly at this date missions were on the nearest front line are close behind it. Also, attacking a railway junction that is about to get captured by the US ground forces makes no sense imho. Typhoons did operate on the US side, but only on specific occasions (Mortain counter attack, Falaise pocket) and later.

 

3/My Typhoon suqadron is flying echelon right, escort is flying echelon right AFAIK, this was never used in operations.

If I'm wrong I'd like to know the source.

 

4/Escort is unseen after we cross its path, they report engaging at some point but not in sight.

 

That's about it. In earlier missions there were too many bridge attacks, and too far from take off, but it was a few months ago so it may have changed. I had one pretty far on the US side, one pretty far on the east, burt I didn't keep the missions so...

 

Most of what I know (or think I know) comes from pilot memoirs written in french and/or magazines, so that would be a pain to search and quote.

 

However, there's this , in english, that backs at least some of my points , I think :

 

https://www.project44.ca/intelblog/2021/5/25/revisiting-canadian-air-power-in-the-normandy-campaign

 

 

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2171&context=cmh

 

 

 

Now I know this is missions generation and not historical campaign, but applying some filters on targets may be possible ?

[LukeFF]

22 hours ago, PB0_Roll said:

Now I know this is missions generation and not historical campaign, but applying some filters on targets may be possible ?

 

Missions are assigned based on how common they were to the squadron in question. If you can tell me what squadron you're flying I can tell you how common it was for them to fly a particular mission type.

Will pass along the report, thanks. 🙂

[PB0_Roll]

440th RCAF

 

When I suggest filters I mean not so much the type of mission (I iknow there's been huge work on this, and indeed 440 did many bridge attacks at some point, plus now in late july I have more variety) but more the place where they occur, ie mostly in support of brits south and east of Caen, and not so much in support of US, until Mortain and Falaise, or in the far east of the map as I had at some point.

 

Thanks for passing the report on the other issues !

[LukeFF]

16 minutes ago, PB0_Roll said:

440th RCAF

 

When I suggest filters I mean not so much the type of mission (I iknow there's been huge work on this, and indeed 440 did many bridge attacks at some point, plus now in late july I have more variety) but more the place where they occur, ie mostly in support of brits south and east of Caen, and not so much in support of US, until Mortain and Falaise, or in the far east of the map as I had at some point.

 

Thanks for passing the report on the other issues !

 

Okay, gotcha. Yes, that could be done but I don't know how soon.

 

Yes, from June 15 to the end of the month 440 Squadron flew 13 bridge bombing sorties. This dropped to six in July and 2 in August.

[PB0_Roll]

Thanks for passing the idea.