Great Battles Future

[DragonDaddy]

I love your optimism but do not share it. 

[Bonnot]

22 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Look, I maybe dead wrong and you maybe 100% right but this is why I believe they are not moving on to something completely different yet.

Well, we have Planes (plenty 109 and Spit), we have tanks (plenty RedStar big guns), now what about Ships and Subs like "GB of the Black Sea" with all the splendid Naval forces on the Kuban Map .........☹️

[Jackfraser24]

You never know they might be trying to throw us off. And then next thing you know Midway or something you least expect is finally announced.

[Bonnot]

9 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Midway or something you least expect is finally announced.

Tarawa  : small map , lots of Amphibious Amtracks  and Sherman (3), USMC wading ashore covered by  Corsairs and Big Guns of the Navy ..............?

[Jackfraser24]

Perhaps the development team isn’t working on another module right now, but instead they are revamping the game with the new technologies they have acquired, so it would improve the game’s performance, such as the damage model, flight model or being able to fly over large cities or other highly detailed landscapes and won’t cause the game to lag on you. I might be wrong, but that might be why we have heard nothing about what is going to happen after Flying Circus Vol.II is released. Because nothing will be for a while.

[BMA_FlyingShark]

3 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Perhaps the development team isn’t working on another module right now, but instead they are revamping the game with the new technologies they have acquired, so it would improve the game’s performance, such as the damage model, flight model or being able to fly over large cities or other highly detailed landscapes and won’t cause the game to lag on you. I might be wrong, but that might be why we have heard nothing about what is going to happen after Flying Circus Vol.II is released. Because nothing will be for a while.

Maybe but I would count out the large cities, they said in the interview a few months ago that they would avoid large urban areas.

Further on, I hope you're right about revamping the game rather than starting a completely new project that wouldn't be mergeable with BoX series.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[Jackfraser24]

How well do you think a Falkland Islands would do? Yes, there would be quite a limited career mode, but it would be fun to do QMBs and AQMBs and multiplayer.

 

British

• Sea Harrier FRS.1
• Harrier GR.3
• Westland Lynx
• Hercules C.1
• Canberra PR.9

Argentinians

• A-4B/C
• IA-58 Pucara 
• IAI Nesher 
• Mirage III
• Super Etendard 

[CountZero]

yes if they set their aim on knocking down DCS dominance in late jet flying sims, then it would be great idea to do Falklands

[Jackfraser24]

On 3/11/2023 at 8:26 PM, FlyingShark said:

Maybe but I would count out the large cities, they said in the interview a few months ago that they would avoid large urban areas.

Further on, I hope you're right about revamping the game rather than starting a completely new project that wouldn't be mergeable with BoX series.

 

Have a nice day.

 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

[Jackfraser24]

Before they finish Great Battles they should have a Flying Circus Vol.III (since there would be a huge un-developed section of the Western Front map left where Vol.III was supposed to be set and it wasn’t made), a couple more Tank Crew modules (otherwise it wouldn’t be a series (just a special)), a couple of 1944-45 Eastern Front modules (to commemorate the gigantic battles  and losses in Operation Bagration, and the Vistula Oder offensive), and Kursk is a must because this battle was where it saw the most IL-2 sorties (sorry about going on and on about Kursk).

Edited March 18, 2023 by Jackfraser24

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Fingers crossed for FC3.  ?

[BMA_FlyingShark]

Yeah, me too I hope they'll make FC Vol.III, together with some engine variants like the aü for the DVII.

Also, some more extra planes like the N24 (Bis) would be interesting.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

N24 would be a fine addition imo.

[Jackfraser24]

Further Suggestions 

Flying Circus Vol.IV - Channel Map

Flying Circus Vol.V - Tarnopol (Kerensky Offensive) 

Flying Circus Vol.VI - Brusilov Offensive

Flying Circus Vol.VII Italian Alps

Flying Circus Vol.VIII - Macedon Front

[Enceladus828]

16 minutes ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Further Suggestions 

Flying Circus Vol.IV - Channel Map

Flying Circus Vol.V - Tarnopol (Kerensky Offensive) 

Flying Circus Vol.VI - Brusilov Offensive

Flying Circus Vol.VII Italian Alps

Flying Circus Vol.VIII - Macedon Front

With all due respect to Ugra Media, I feel making a map that wasn't in RoF would be too much of a task for them to do with only a little help from the devs. They probably would be able to do only the places I bolded, while the Channel Map would be a maybe, and the rest the devs would have to do a considerable amount of work at the very least to finish it within two years.

[Jackfraser24]

If there is going to be subsequent Tank Crew modules in different sections of the Kursk battlefield should they expand the Prokhorovka into one big map of the Kursk area just like they have done for the Flying Circus series by expanding the Aras map into the wider Western Front?

Edited March 21, 2023 by Jackfraser24

[Jackfraser24]

On 3/18/2023 at 9:10 PM, Jackfraser24 said:

Before they finish Great Battles they should have a Flying Circus Vol.III (since there would be a huge un-developed section of the Western Front map left where Vol.III was supposed to be set and it wasn’t made).

My prayers have been answered!!!!

Edited March 30, 2023 by Jackfraser24

[BMA_FlyingShark]

30 minutes ago, Jackfraser24 said:

My prayers have been answered!!!!

Keep praying, jack, who knows what else we may get.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[Bars-]

My guess is  Operation Bagration.

[ITAF_Rani]

Any hope to have same info about next DLC before summer ar this point??

(... but I suspect we will have to wait 2024)

[Jackfraser24]

On 4/3/2023 at 7:12 AM, Bars- said:

My guess is  Operation Bagration.

I hope you’re right. It would have to be a massive map though. The entirety of Belarus and the Baltic States would have to be included. This might be where the new coding/programming/modelling technologies that the developers have mentioned comes into practice.

Edited April 10, 2023 by Jackfraser24

[ITAF_Rani]

I Know this theatre is already covered by Cliff of Dover..

But if another East DLC is not planned,why don t think to cover North Africa area?

Now that the head of operations of IL2 is changed ,is possible that previous agreements could be changed...

Just my two cents.. 

[Jackfraser24]

15 hours ago, ITAF_Rani said:

I Know this theatre is already covered by Cliff of Dover..

But if another East DLC is not planned,why don t think to cover North Africa area?

Now that the head of operations of IL2 is changed ,is possible that previous agreements could be changed...

Just my two cents.. 

I don’t think so. I guess the reason why is probably due to a long term agreement between 1CGS and Team Fusion saying that  you can’t cover Battle of Britain or North Africa because it will affect the sales of Clod Blitz and Tobruk. If a Battle of Britain/Tobruk/El Alamein/Tunisia was announced for release next year Clod and Desert Wings sales could plummet and become obsolete. Great Battles has state of the Art features like damage modelling, flight modelling, textures, visual effects, ect, while Clod’s traces its roots from IL-2 1946. Would you much rather buy Clod or Tobruk, or a hypothetical IL-2 Battle of Britain or Tobruk?

[BOO]

5 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Great Battles has state of the Art features like damage modelling, flight modelling, textures, visual effects, ect, while Clod’s traces its roots from IL-2 1946. Would you much rather buy Clod or Tobruk, or a hypothetical IL-2 Battle of Britain or Tobruk?

Please stop with the IL2 GB state of the art rubbish. Simply put IL2 GB isnt some next gen paragon of flight simming - its the same gen as Clod in effect. A thread limited bespoke engine unlikley to see much more development in its current iteration. It does some things better, some worse. All of those items you mentioned are either personal views with little of no empirical evdience to support for or against or learned lines trotted out without proper consideration. DCS can technically trace it roots to Flanker. Does that mean its the most inferior product of all three?  Damage and system modelling in paticular is no anywhere near as developed in GB as it is in Clod. Same with net code efficiency from what I can tell.

 

Personally I would rather buy a developed game based on the Clod engine that the GB one if I had the choice. Thats based on about 2500 hours playing each over years on and offline, not what others have told me.

[Jackfraser24]

38 minutes ago, BOO said:

Please stop with the IL2 GB state of the art rubbish. Simply put IL2 GB isnt some next gen paragon of flight simming - its the same gen as Clod in effect. A thread limited bespoke engine unlikley to see much more development in its current iteration. It does some things better, some worse. All of those items you mentioned are either personal views with little of no empirical evdience to support for or against or learned lines trotted out without proper consideration. DCS can technically trace it roots to Flanker. Does that mean its the most inferior product of all three?  Damage and system modelling in paticular is no anywhere near as developed in GB as it is in Clod. Same with net code efficiency from what I can tell.

 

Personally I would rather buy a developed game based on the Clod engine that the GB one if I had the choice. Thats based on about 2500 hours playing each over years on and offline, not what others have told me.

Well there you go then.

[Jackfraser24]

Can anyone remind me again why an entire Eastern Front map is not feasible again please? Aside from the immense cost?

[AEthelraedUnraed]

11 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Can anyone remind me again why an entire Eastern Front map is not feasible again please? Aside from the immense cost?

The most important part is the fact that much of it needs to be done manually; e.g. the placement of roads, villages and other objects needs to be done by hand at this point in time. This is what leads to the immense cost and development time. 

 

The second reason is that the engine was created for single, relatively small maps. The heighmap, forest map, water map and surface decals are all stored as single files. I don't think they implemented any streaming algorithm, which means that they need to have all those maps in memory at all times. Not a problem for small maps like we have now, but not feasible for huge "entire front" maps.

 

Games like the Microsoft Flight Simulator series that have the entire globe use a different setup where the world is divided into several small parts that are loaded on demand. MSFS doesn't even store very many of those offline - that's why you need an active and relatively fast internet connection. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

3 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

The second reason is that the engine was created for single, relatively small maps. The heighmap, forest map, water map and surface decals are all stored as single files. I don't think they implemented any streaming algorithm, which means that they need to have all those maps in memory at all times. Not a problem for small maps like we have now, but not feasible for huge "entire front" maps.

 

That's why they said that technical limitation prohibit adding hedges on Normandy map or autobahns on Richland maps, because it's all goes into RAM? When others stuff like cities blocks do disappear when you move head out of view and reaper when you look again at them. Those block are  unloaded from ram and somehow do not affect the gameplay much  as would disappearing forest etc. did? For sure this game need new engine.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

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

That's why they said that technical limitation prohibit adding hedges on Normandy map or autobahns on Richland maps, because it's all goes into RAM?

Nope, that's completely unrelated. In fact the current map engine supports bocage-style hedgerows just fine. It's how these are then rendered that's the problem.

 

Note that they included a separate map for the rock debris at the bottom of the various cliffs of the Normandy map. If they can put some RAM aside for something as unimportant as a debris map, they can put RAM aside for a hedgerow map

 

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

When others stuff like cities blocks do disappear when you move head out of view and reaper when you look again at them. Those block are  unloaded from ram and somehow do not affect the gameplay much  as would disappearing forest etc. did?

Also unrelated, as well as incorrect. The buildings actually do remain in RAM, even if their 3D models and/or textures may not.

 

Also note that there are different "levels" of storage including RAM, VRAM and several caches, as well as optimisations like distance and view frustum culling.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

6 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Also unrelated, as well as incorrect. The buildings actually do remain in RAM, even if their 3D models and/or textures may not.

 

Why they do disappear, my game is stored in fast SSD?

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Why they do disappear, my game is stored in fast SSD?

My guess is some sort of object-level view frustum culling.

 

Edit: meaning that objects that aren't in view are not rendered. Given the delay between looking at them and them showing up, possibly combined with removing said objects from the cache or VRAM altogether. The object data itself would almost certainly remain in RAM however.

Edited April 17, 2023 by AEthelraedUnraed

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

4 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

ope, that's completely unrelated. In fact the current map engine supports bocage-style hedgerows just fine. It's how these are then rendered that's the problem.

What is the problem with render?

[AEthelraedUnraed]

4 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

What is the problem with render?

The current system works by placing trees every couple of metres according to a pre-defined pattern. You can define the tree types (3d models), pattern and concentration of those trees. The tree map then defines where wooded areas are placed according to which pre-defined pattern.

 

So technically it's possible to create hedgerows by generating a 3d pattern  consisting of bushes at a very dense concentration - let's say 1 bush of 6x6 metres every 4 or 5 metres or so.

 

The problem is that that creates a huge amount of objects, which isn't very efficient. For one stretch of 100x5m hedge, you'd need 20-ish tree objects. Each needs to have their own object space transformation, z-buffer writes, you name it. While half of all the faces are obscured by the other bushes. It would be much more efficient if you could combine all that in a specifically designed hedgerow object that's 100x5m and only contains only the faces on the outside of the hedgerow.

 

And before we go there, creating a different system is a huge job no matter which engine you use.

[Hanu]

I'd say they should try to announce something. This forum has grown awfully quiet since departure of Jason who understood that community needs continuous flow of bones to chew. That "don't worry" video released some time after that does not reassure too much as there was practically nothing to grab on to.

[ITAF_Rani]

1 hour ago, Hanu said:

I'd say they should try to announce something. This forum has grown awfully quiet since departure of Jason who understood that community needs continuous flow of bones to chew. That "don't worry" video released some time after that does not reassure too much as there was practically nothing to grab on to.

Yep I totally agree...It they cannot or want say all what they are planning...at least they could provide same input..

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, Hanu said:

I'd say they should try to announce something. This forum has grown awfully quiet since departure of Jason who understood that community needs continuous flow of bones to chew. That "don't worry" video released some time after that does not reassure too much as there was practically nothing to grab on to.

Agreed. They don't even need to tell us any details about the upcoming game; just telling us what we should expect with IL2 would be enough. Its it a new module in the same series? An engine upgrade that will be backported to the current modules? A new game but the current assets will be transferred? Completely new and incompatible with IL2?

[Jackfraser24]

I may have raised this subject several times. But don’t worry. This will be the last time.

 

Would the developers making a quadrilateral map of the entire Caucasus Region (which would include both the current Stalingrad and Kuban maps) be a bad idea? I know it would be very expensive and time consuming to do, and it would have to include parts of Eastern Ukraine, (it would be frowned upon, yes, I get it) but it could cover the much larger Case Blue and the Battle of the Caucasus.

 

(Really sorry if I have offended anyone).

Edited April 19, 2023 by Jackfraser24

[AEthelraedUnraed]

7 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Would the developers making a quadrilateral map of the entire Caucasus Region (which would include both the current Stalingrad and Kuban maps) be a bad idea? I know it would be very expensive and time consuming to do, and it would have to include parts of Eastern Ukraine, (it would be frowned upon, yes, I get it) but it could cover the much larger Case Blue and the Battle of the Caucasus.

It wouldn't be the greatest idea since:

1) The major areas are already covered in the Stalingrad and Kuban maps; much of the area in between except for eastern Ukraine was mostly the scene of a lightning-fast German advance in the summer of 1942, and then an even lightning-faster retreat in late 1942/1943. The major battles are mostly covered with the existing maps.

2) Most of the Battle of the Caucasus had pretty low-intensity air combat; the Soviets had relatively few aircraft in the area compared to other places, and the Germans likewise as well as very major supply issues. The major areas of air combat are, once again, already covered with Kuban and Stalingrad.

3) Any such map would need to be positively huge; let's say at least 4x the surface area of Normandy or Bodenplatte. Even though it has a much smaller population density (and hence less and smaller cities/villages you'd need to create), I don't think this is quite feasible.

[[CPT]Crunch]

The reason Combat Box is the single most packed server hinges a lot on it turning most of the map off except a small portion.  The game can't possibly run with every object on a map that size, not in its present form.  May as well building a mission with 500 aircraft in it, never going to happen in this software on the hardware we have, waste of time and energy.

 

Your going to need a new version of the game rebuilt for this.

[CountZero]

and even in new game its more likely maps will get smaller then bigger