Great Battles Future

[Jackfraser24]

6 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

The engine wasn't built with radio commands in mind, since of course the original title was set in World War I. 

 

The overhaul in radio commands is going to come in the new series starting with Korea. 

Thank you for replying. About the new series, if they really wanted to redo  everything that is in Great Battles (all the modules and the collector planes and collector vehicles), could they with great ease? Or no? 

[LukeFF]

31 minutes ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Thank you for replying. About the new series, if they really wanted to redo  everything that is in Great Battles (all the modules and the collector planes and collector vehicles), could they with great ease? Or no? 

 

No. This will be discussed a bit in the next video. 

[kraut1]

21 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

I see. I also wish we could give more commands for our wingmen to do, like we could in IL-2 1946. I also really want to be able to contact ground control as well. What is stopping them from doing this?

Here you can see some additional subtitle warnings by wingmen and enemy plane sightings by Tower and Radar (Freya).

(switch to 1080p if required)

 

Edited October 6, 2024 by kraut1

[Jackfraser24]

On 9/28/2024 at 10:58 AM, LukeFF said:

Jack, we are moving on from the GB series development. Any map like that would have to be made by a third party.

Hypothetically though, if a third party module were to make a Burma map, would the IL-2 dev team be happy to make the planes? 

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Hypothetically though, if a third party module were to make a Burma map, would the IL-2 dev team be happy to make the planes? 

 

No, because all official development of original content is being shifted to the new series. 

[Jackfraser24]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

No, because all official development of original content is being shifted to the new series. 

Ok. Thanks for your insight.

[Jackfraser24]

On 10/7/2024 at 8:18 PM, LukeFF said:

 

No, because all official development of original content is being shifted to the new series. 

I am happy to see whatever IL-2 makes in the future though, even if it is all effort is going into the new series after Odessa and Karelia.

[Jackfraser24]

On 10/7/2024 at 8:18 PM, LukeFF said:

 

No, because all official development of original content is being shifted to the new series. 

I heard from somewhere that the same crew who is doing the Karelia map have another two maps planned. Is this true?

[LukeFF]

I have heard nothing like that.

[Jackfraser24]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

I have heard nothing like that.

Thanks for the clarification. It must have been some guy on the forum somewhere saying something without any source to back it up.

[Aapje]

Kanttori said that they may do maps for other fronts if they get enough funding:

 

"If the player community wants to continue KarttaKompania's Patreon funding in the future, then I already have a couple of very interesting (also for the players)  WWII fronts that we plan to make after this map."

 

 

[Jackfraser24]

4 hours ago, Aapje said:

Kanttori said that they may do maps for other fronts if they get enough funding:

 

"If the player community wants to continue KarttaKompania's Patreon funding in the future, then I already have a couple of very interesting (also for the players)  WWII fronts that we plan to make after this map."

 

 

I stand corrected. I apologise. 

[LLv44_Kanttori]

On 10/17/2024 at 2:37 PM, Aapje said:

Kanttori said that they may do maps for other fronts if they get enough funding:

 

"If the player community wants to continue KarttaKompania's Patreon funding in the future, then I already have a couple of very interesting (also for the players)  WWII fronts that we plan to make after this map."

 

 

Yes Aapje, I'm serious, because I like map making. But we must at first finish the Karelia and Leningrad front...

[Jackfraser24]

2 hours ago, LLv44_Kanttori said:

Yes Aapje, I'm serious, because I like map making. But we must at first finish the Karelia and Leningrad front...

What kind of maps do you have in mind? Have you thought about Courland?

[Enceladus828]

22 minutes ago, Jackfraser24 said:

What kind of maps do you have in mind? Have you thought about Courland?

It would be nice if they added the Gulf of Venice map for FC.

[Jackfraser24]

Just now, Enceladus828 said:

It would be nice if they added the Gulf of Venice map for FC.

I agree with you. I'd like to see some Austro-Hungarian aircrat come with it as well as some Italian ones. Sorry for getting slightly off topic.

[LLv44_Kanttori]

On 10/19/2024 at 12:19 AM, Jackfraser24 said:

What kind of maps do you have in mind? Have you thought about Courland?

 

On 10/19/2024 at 12:42 AM, Enceladus828 said:

It would be nice if they added the Gulf of Venice map for FC.

 

On 10/19/2024 at 12:45 AM, Jackfraser24 said:

I agree with you. I'd like to see some Austro-Hungarian aircrat come with it as well as some Italian ones. Sorry for getting slightly off topic.

Plans are just plans. Of course, I've been thinking about the Kurland (Courland) map because I made it 20 years ago for the Aces High game, but I'm also thinking about Murmansk and Viena Karelia maps because especially for those we already have the building blocks of the settlement and the groundwork already done. Both would be a continuation of the map of Karelia, i.e. to the north of it, and a real wilderness maps. They would be quick to make because there are only a few cities. But these matters are being negotiated with 1CGS Daniel Tuseev. And let's see first what kind of reception Karelia will get.

[357th_KW]

7 hours ago, LLv44_Kanttori said:

Plans are just plans. Of course, I've been thinking about the Kurland (Courland) map because I made it 20 years ago for the Aces High game, but I'm also thinking about Murmansk and Viena Karelia maps because especially for those we already have the building blocks of the settlement and the groundwork already done. Both would be a continuation of the map of Karelia, i.e. to the north of it, and a real wilderness maps. They would be quick to make because there are only a few cities. But these matters are being negotiated with 1CGS Daniel Tuseev. And let's see first what kind of reception Karelia will get.

 

Murmansk would be a really cool addition!

[Jackfraser24]

7 hours ago, LLv44_Kanttori said:

And let's see first what kind of reception Karelia will get.

I'm sure people will love it.

7 hours ago, LLv44_Kanttori said:

Of course, I've been thinking about the Kurland (Courland) map because I made it 20 years ago for the Aces High game, but I'm also thinking about Murmansk and Viena Karelia maps because especially for those we already have the building blocks of the settlement and the groundwork already done.

Murmansk and White Karelia would be a wise choice. I think that they will do well.

[Jackfraser24]

4 hours ago, LLv44_Kanttori said:

Of course, I've been thinking about the Kurland (Courland) map

I think a Courland map would be a good idea for several reasons.

1. It was a long and bloody campaign (July 1944 - May 1945), so there would be a lot of potential for a decent pilot career mode.
2. Courland hasn't been done by combat flight simulation in a long time. Not even War Thunder has one so it would set Great Battles apart from the competition.
3. Lots of opportunities for naval air combat. Collector planes like the He-115 and the Be-4 would have a place in Great Battles.
4. Could also be an opportunity to add in the East Prussian Offensive, something that has not (to my knowledge) been covered in a really long time.
5. You have experience around making a digital copy of the Courland area.

[Jackfraser24]

On 10/21/2024 at 10:58 AM, LLv44_Kanttori said:

Do you reckon you could make a map covering the entirety of Operation Bagration map covering parts of the Western Russian SSR (Smolensk), the Belarusian SSR, and the Baltics and adjacent parts of the Baltic Sea down to East Prussia by 2030? Or would it be too big of a task? That would be really cool if you guys could.

Edited October 24, 2024 by Jackfraser24

[FTC_ChilliBalls]

On 10/7/2024 at 9:18 AM, LukeFF said:

No, because all official development of original content is being shifted to the new series. 

Are there any discussions around opening up the game for more in depth modding like TFS did for CloD once official first party development has ceased? 

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, FTC_ChilliBalls said:

Are there any discussions around opening up the game for more in depth modding like TFS did for CloD once official first party development has ceased? 

 

Not at this time

[FTC_ChilliBalls]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Not at this time

But could you say whether the devs are open towards it generally?

If not, it would be a bit disheartening, but understandable. 

[Enceladus828]

7 minutes ago, FTC_ChilliBalls said:

But could you say whether the devs are open towards it generally?

If not, it would be a bit disheartening, but understandable. 

Adding onto that, the devs should also say whether or not Ugra is taking up other projects and won't have time to add anymore planes and maps to FC. A much better statement than simply "We have no plans to".

[Aapje]

3 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

Adding onto that, the devs should also say whether or not Ugra is taking up other projects and won't have time to add anymore planes and maps to FC. A much better statement than simply "We have no plans to".

 

I think that they've made it pretty clear that Ugra hasn't shown any interest so far, but that they would be perfectly willing to deal with them if they do show interest.

 

I don't think it is helpful for us if they paint Ugra as the boogeyman, as that will just reduce the chance that Ugra will come knocking.

[Jackfraser24]

I think that it would be a good idea that if IL-2 would work closely with third party development teams in order to keep pumping out new content, even if the third party teams had to do 75-80% of the work. Doing this would keep Great Battles relevant to the present day and help give the IL-2 dev team more money to fund their future projects. I think that modules like Courland, Crimea, Kiev, Korsun, Kursk, Kharkov, Minsk and Smolensk should be done, maybe not by the IL-2 development team themselves but by third party developers. Doing these places should (from my understanding of map building) should be relatively easy for the Eastern Front as the settlements (towns and cities) were sporadic and not gigantic, there was a lot of rural land and the building were simple in design, which should be almost effortless for 2030s computers to run. I know that it would take years to do but I think that it would be worth the hassle for them and worth the buy for us. 

Edited October 29, 2024 by Jackfraser24

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

5 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

I think that it would be a good idea that if IL-2 would work closely with third party development teams in order to keep pumping out new content, even if the third party teams had to do 75-80% of the work. Doing this would keep Great Battles relevant to the present day and help give the IL-2 dev team more money to fund their future projects. I think that modules like Courland, Crimea, Kiev, Korsun, Kursk, Kharkov, Minsk and Smolensk should be done, maybe not by the IL-2 development team themselves but by third party developers. Doing these places should (from my understanding of map building) should be relatively easy for the Eastern Front as the settlements (towns and cities) were sporadic and not gigantic, there was a lot of rural land and the building were simple in design, which should be almost effortless for 2030s computers to run. I know that it would take years to do but I think that it would be worth the hassle for them and worth the buy for us. 

Why not doing this in new content in Korea game engine.  Buying some or similar planes again but with enhanced models, textures and FM/DM.

[LukeFF]

20 hours ago, FTC_ChilliBalls said:

But could you say whether the devs are open towards it generally?

If not, it would be a bit disheartening, but understandable. 

 

Considering that we are still using the same core engine for Korea as we are for Great Battles, don't count on it. 

[LukeFF]

16 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

I think that it would be a good idea that if IL-2 would work closely with third party development teams in order to keep pumping out new content, even if the third party teams had to do 75-80% of the work. Doing this would keep Great Battles relevant to the present day and help give the IL-2 dev team more money to fund their future projects. I think that modules like Courland, Crimea, Kiev, Korsun, Kursk, Kharkov, Minsk and Smolensk should be done, maybe not by the IL-2 development team themselves but by third party developers. Doing these places should (from my understanding of map building) should be relatively easy for the Eastern Front as the settlements (towns and cities) were sporadic and not gigantic, there was a lot of rural land and the building were simple in design, which should be almost effortless for 2030s computers to run. I know that it would take years to do but I think that it would be worth the hassle for them and worth the buy for us. 

 

You are greatly oversimplifying how much time and effort it takes to train up third-parties to work with our software, plus there is the fact that in general, people want to work with the latest and greatest tech, not code that is based on technology that is outdated at best and obsolete at the worst (speaking of things like the GUI). 

 

We are also competing with other sims like DCS, World of Tanks/Warships, etc when it comes to contracting with third parties. Ugra Media for instance does a lot of map work for DCS. It's not as simple as just snapping our fingers and telling these companies to start making content for us. 

 

Plus, given the amount of time it takes to develop new content, test it, and then release it, we will probably be well on our way into WWII in the new IL-2 Series line. At that point, it's going to make the most sense to start training up interested third parties in the tech for the new series rather than Great Battles. 

 

So that said, as of right now, the only new content planned for GB after FC Volume 4 are the 8 WWII planes and the Karelia and Odessa maps. Unless plans somehow change, just expect right now that's it for the GB series. 

[Jackfraser24]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

You are greatly oversimplifying how much time and effort it takes to train up third-parties to work with our software, plus there is the fact that in general, people want to work with the latest and greatest tech, not code that is based on technology that is outdated at best and obsolete at the worst (speaking of things like the GUI). 

 

We are also competing with other sims like DCS, World of Tanks/Warships, etc when it comes to contracting with third parties. Ugra Media for instance does a lot of map work for DCS. It's not as simple as just snapping out fingers and telling these companies to start making content for us. 

 

Plus, given the amount of time it takes to develop new content, test it, and then release it, we will probably be well on our way into WWII in the new IL-2 Series line. At that point, it's going to make the most sense to start training up interested third parties in the tech for the new series rather than Great Battles. 

 

So that said, as of right now, the only new content planned for GB after FC Volume 4 are the 8 WWII planes and the Karelia and Odessa maps. Unless plans somehow change, just expect right now that's it for the GB series. 

My apologies. 

[LukeFF]

No need to apologize, just wanted to explain where things are at. 🙂

[Jackfraser24]

9 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

No need to apologize, just wanted to explain where things are at. 🙂

I understand. I really wanted to see Great Battles recreate the entirety of IL-2 1946 and Rise of Flight, but I know that that would have been an unrealistic task for them to do, especially with the outdated technologies that they were using. Hopefully we could get more out of the new series than we did with Great Battles. I have received word that the development team is bigger and has better map building and plane building digital technologies. Maybe they could work on several Pacific modules (e.g. Midway*, New Guinea and Marianas) at once so they could cover more in less time. I understand that if they can't, but could they? If they could and worked on the new series for 20 years they could have 18 or 19 titles done. But again I know that with heightened expectations of realism and detail among the community a lot more time, resources and money will be needed and spent to meet these expectations. So I'm, not actually expecting them to do this.

 

*They never said a definite no to Midway and in one of their briefing videos they mentioned something about an aircraft carrier like maybe the Akagi or Kaga, something like that. I know that it doesn't confirm anything about a Midway title, but I thought that I should bring it up.

[FTC_ChilliBalls]

20 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Plus, given the amount of time it takes to develop new content, test it, and then release it, we will probably be well on our way into WWII in the new IL-2 Series line.

Given the excellent quality of the devs' work presented outside of the game‘s renderer (I.e. in Dev Blog #363), has there been talks about whether transferring these to the new engine is worth it? Perhaps in a new title (let‘s tentatively call it IL2 Great Battles 2: WW2 harder)?

 

I assume the F 51 D-30 in Korea will be a good indicator of how much is transferable and how much effort an individual plane or a family of planes would be to transfer over.

 

Honestly, I‘d be happy to pay full price on getting a PBR WW2 experience with the updated engine and fully plan around starting my Korea experience in a war bird.

[LukeFF]

Anything built for WWII is going to be rebuilt from scratch with the implementation of the new texturing process. Our lead texture artist talks about it in this video (including why we won't just pull models over from GB and apply PBR, etc):

 

 

[Mysticpuma]

From YouTube:

[Avimimus]

12 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

From YouTube:

 

 

This has been known for many months. The next generation Korea module will have a number of graphical features that will break backwards compatibility (e.g. PBR), not to mention other improvements which might break backwards compatibility.

 

Great Battles will continue to be supported with the Odessa/Karelia module, but it is no longer the focus of development. This has been clear for a while now.

[danielprates]

Lots of cool ideas for a wishlist, I myself kept hope for some time that we could eventually see nightfighters, night bombing.... too bad some of these more interesting, novel thing would require better radio nav, better vectoring from ground control, airborne radars etc.... by now that train, that kind of new interrsting stuff have hopelessly "left the station" because of the priority shift towards Korea.

[BlitzPig_EL]

You must realize that the new game probably will make those things you want possible, yes?  

BoX was, and in some ways is still, a good game, but it's old, and it NEVER was capable of doing many things that a lot of us wanted from it.

It's time to move on to something better.

[Gambit21]

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

It's time to move on to something better.

☝️