Great Battles Future

[Aapje]

Yep. First of all it is not realistic to stick with this old engine as the new engine is going to enable a lot of features that were impossible with the old one. Secondly, if they would keep releasing things for the old engine, people would just start to complain that features that are only possible in the Korea engine, are not in the old engine.

 

They'll return to Europe eventually.

[R7-S276]

annoying that Il-2 can’t be upgrade like Post-Scriptum which change engine and became Swat44 just by an update but without changing the application or MSFS 2020 planes and mods which suppose to be compatible in MSFS 2025… it’s not a big surprise that technology in computer change quickly and this evolution should be considerate when a new application is develop… everybody already knows that 2 years after Korea will be release there will be new processor new graphic card new technology… developers should consider that

[Avimimus]

11 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

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.

 

I agree they'll have some modelling of simple radars etc. On the other hand, the fact that they'd already modelled most of the obvious aircraft/variants means that future Great Battles modules would have to get increasingly interesting in their aircraft choices. The Bf-109G8 reconnaissance variant, the Fw-189, Fi-156, Mustang Mk.I, the Pe-3, Do-217E (or Ju-188), Ar-196, British Avenger variants (for D-Day coastal sweeps protecting the beachheads), He-162, Meteor Mk.III, various Battle of France aircraft etc.

 

It may now take them a couple of decade to rebuild the existing content in higher fidelity and they won't be forced to produce the wonderfully weird...

 

Which is why I'm still hoping that third parties will keep the old series going just a little bit longer...

 

  

1 hour ago, R7-S276 said:

annoying that Il-2 can’t be upgrade like Post-Scriptum which change engine and became Swat44 just by an update but without changing the application or MSFS 2020 planes and mods which suppose to be compatible in MSFS 2025… it’s not a big surprise that technology in computer change quickly and this evolution should be considerate when a new application is develop… everybody already knows that 2 years after Korea will be release there will be new processor new graphic card new technology… developers should consider that

 

There's a certain point where underlying structural issues prevent ongoing upgrades without breaking backwards compatibility. They kept the engine in development for twelve years (since the last compatibility break with Rise of Flight)... so they are probably planning on making it so the upgrade engine will be usable in 2035...

 

But, this is getting very off topic. We should be discussing Karelia.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 hours ago, R7-S276 said:

like Post-Scriptum which change engine and became Swat44 just by an update

To be precise they didn't change an engine, it is the same unreal 4.7 , they changed the name and as a mod from Squad were bough by Offworld which developed Squad. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

6 hours ago, R7-S276 said:

developers should consider that

Well, you don't really know what the future holds. That's the problem. The Devs can't consider any future technologies since no-one knows what these technologies will be or what will be necessary to implement them successfully.

Basically, there are two options. You either go for full backward compatibility like MSFS2024 vs MSFS2020 does. But this requires extra effort and furthermore will result in subpar solutions for the affected items since they won't be able to utilise the improvements in technology.

The second option is to start over with a clean slate. That way, you're sure everything in the new title is able to use the latest standards, and furthermore you save a lot of time on not having to deal with backwards compatibility. For relatively small teams like 1CGS's this option is probably the best one.

 

9 hours ago, Aapje said:

They'll return to Europe eventually.

I'm certain of that. One thing that should be noted is that based on the available evidence (notably this picture), Korea maps retain a similar file structure as BoX maps. This in turn means that it should be relatively little effort to convert BoX maps into Korea maps. This might not be something 1CGS is per se interested in (after all, they'd compete with their own title) but it might be worth it for 3rd party maps such as Karelia. Especially if the new aircraft that are being developed for Karelia/Odessa already follow their new design specifications.

[Jackfraser24]

2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I'm certain of that. One thing that should be noted is that based on the available evidence (notably this picture), Korea maps retain a similar file structure as BoX maps. This in turn means that it should be relatively little effort to convert BoX maps into Korea maps. This might not be something 1CGS is per se interested in (after all, they'd compete with their own title) but it might be worth it for 3rd party maps such as Karelia. Especially if the new aircraft that are being developed for Karelia/Odessa already follow their new design specifications.

I know that this would not be a very popular opinion but I think that once they are done with the Korean War and the Pacific Theatre I really think that they should extensively cover the Eastern Front because so much happened in the war between the Soviet Union and the Axis powers. I really think that they should give Moscow and Stalingrad another try. For Moscow, they should include the entirety of the city of Moscow instead of just doing the environs west of it, otherwise they might disappoint  I know that they discovered that Great Battles had limitations when they were continuing development on it, but now I wonder if this new game building technologies can actually allow for large metropolises on future maps. As for Stalingrad, I also wonder if the map could be big enough for them to include the entirety of Case Blue. Other battles of interest might be Kursk/Kharkov, Bagration, and Berlin while leaving third party developers to do other battles like Kiev, Crimea, Odessa (again) and Leningrad.

[Trooper117]

I agree they should go back to the Eastern Front... but only after 20 yrs have passed!

[BraveSirRobin]

3 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

I agree they should go back to the Eastern Front... but only after 20 yrs have passed!

I might still be alive in 20 years.  How about 25?

[Enceladus828]

8 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

I really think that they should give Moscow and Stalingrad another try.

No thank you. I’d rather see the Tunisia Campaign or Invasion of Sicily, March Up Italy, and Battle of Berlin before redoing installments.

[Aapje]

8 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I might still be alive in 20 years.  How about 25?

 

Perhaps they should just release a collector plane for the older players:

 

[ITAF_Rani]

7 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

No thank you. I’d rather see the Tunisia Campaign or Invasion of Sicily, March Up Italy,

We have to call 3d modellers friends 😉, if anyone has the possibility, should start to think to bring them in a collaboration with IL2 GB 

Edited November 1, 2024 by ITAF_Rani

[Enceladus828]

4 hours ago, ITAF_Rani said:

We have to call 3d modellers friends 😉, if anyone has the possibility, should start to think to bring them in a collaboration with IL2 GB 

I hope so too but given the time it takes to get these teams acquainted with making maps and such, and then the time it takes to make the map it may be better to make it in the Korea sim. Of course if they started right now we could get a Sicily map in the coming years, plus this is the right game for it currently with all the aircraft from previous installments.

[ITAF_Rani]

1 hour ago, Enceladus828 said:

I hope so too but given the time it takes to get these teams acquainted with making maps and such, and then the time it takes to make the map it may be better to make it in the Korea sim. Of course if they started right now we could get a Sicily map in the coming years, plus this is the right game for it currently with all the aircraft from previous installments.

The problem is after Korea the Devs will go stright to Pacific, so a 3rd development could be considered after no less than the next  3/4 years...in my opinion a Med/ Sicily could be easily developed in the current IL2 GB in the next 2 years if we are luky enough to create a passionate 3rd maps team...so share the voice😉

[Jackfraser24]

2 hours ago, ITAF_Rani said:

 Sicily could be easily developed in the current IL2 GB in the next 2 years if we are luky enough to create a passionate 3rd maps team...so share the voice😉

I think that at this stage the most logical step would be for 1CGS to focus on making modules based on the greater more pivotal battles of WWII that they haven't done like Midway, Okinawa, Britain, Kursk,  Berlin, Tunisia, Sicily and the Gustav Line (to name a few), while other third party developers would cover lesser known battles like the ones that occurred in each of Stalin's ten blows, as well as recreate the modules done in Great Battles - Stalingrad, Moscow, Kuban, Bodenplatte, Normandy, Odessa and Karelia. I think it would be a good idea of 1CGS to share the workload. 

[danielprates]

On 10/30/2024 at 10:51 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

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.

 

Why people enjoy so much this kind of "emphatic discussion" tone with the affectations and such around here, I will never understand. "You must realize".... Jeez. Last I checked we were just talking, like this wasnt the most important thing in the world.

 

Yeah sure I indeed do realize. Wont change the fact that the previous freaking posts were lighthearted sentences about stuff we wished we've seen in the old thing.

 

Btw since you brought it up, where we disagree, is I actually am kinda sure we wont see any of that in Korea either. Screencap this and get back to me in 10 years or so.

Edited November 1, 2024 by danielprates

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, danielprates said:

Btw since you brought it up, where we disagree, is I actually am kinda sure we wont see any of that in Korea either. Screencap this and get back to me in 10 years or so.

 

You won't have to wait 10 years for that stuff, because it's all in the plans for Korea.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I guess you missed my point entirely.  I'm not saying you "must" like giving an order, my point is how can you not see that BoX is woefully outdated and will not 

not be developed after after the currently announced additions are released?  The developers certainly see this, hence they are switching to a new engine and new game.

[Panzerlang]

A wee bit disconcerting but in the comments below the YT IL2 channel on the Yak-9 video, somebody from IL2 said:

" @il2_sturmovik

11 hours ago

itis an upgrade of the engine on which Great Battles is based, so naturally some things are going to look similar."

I'm hopefully assuming he/she got it wrong and it IS an entirely new engine?

[LukeFF]

It's an overhaul/upgrade/further refinement (pick your term 🙂) of the current engine being used for Great Battles, i.e., it isn't something completely different, like what happened when going from CloD to GB. 

[the_emperor]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

It's an overhaul/upgrade/further refinement (pick your term 🙂) of the current engine being used for Great Battles, i.e., it isn't something completely different

 

Will it inherit the engine timer mechanic?

[Panzerlang]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

It's an overhaul/upgrade/further refinement (pick your term 🙂) of the current engine being used for Great Battles, i.e., it isn't something completely different, like what happened when going from CloD to GB. 

Oh. So...same AI and etc etc etc?

I guess I'll still buy it (curiosity and hope) but my enthusiasm just got a big boot in the nuts. 😢

[Avimimus]

6 hours ago, Panzerlang said:

I'm hopefully assuming he/she got it wrong and it IS an entirely new engine?

17 minutes ago, Panzerlang said:

Oh. So...same AI and etc etc etc?

I guess I'll still buy it (curiosity and hope) but my enthusiasm just got a big boot in the nuts. 😢

 

So, I think you need to clarify what you are asking.

 

We need to clarify what a 'new engine' means:

- You aren't suggesting that the developers producing a new computer programming language, or a new renderer (i.e. their own alternative to DirectX or Vulcan), right?

- You also aren't suggesting that they throw out existing approaches for programming physics or try to program flight models in a completely new way that hasn't been tried before?

 

When people talk about new engines, they are typically talking about switch between existing game engines (and licensing an engine from someone else). Obviously, this is much easier to do with a relatively simple first person shooter than it is to do for a high fidelity flight simulator. So, I wonder - how new does it need to be?  Exactly how much of the existing fifteen years of work are they supposed to throw out for you to consider it a 'new engine'?

[Panzerlang]

59 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

So, I think you need to clarify what you are asking.

 

We need to clarify what a 'new engine' means:

- You aren't suggesting that the developers producing a new computer programming language, or a new renderer (i.e. their own alternative to DirectX or Vulcan), right?

- You also aren't suggesting that they throw out existing approaches for programming physics or try to program flight models in a completely new way that hasn't been tried before?

 

When people talk about new engines, they are typically talking about switch between existing game engines (and licensing an engine from someone else). Obviously, this is much easier to do with a relatively simple first person shooter than it is to do for a high fidelity flight simulator. So, I wonder - how new does it need to be?  Exactly how much of the existing fifteen years of work are they supposed to throw out for you to consider it a 'new engine'?

Well, I guess UE1 to UE5 were/are improvements upon each previous one, so you have a point. But I guess I'd assumed everything would be 'new', as in no carry-overs of the current AI etc. And I guess that's the white elephant in the room now...clearly the graphics process is a huge upgrade but will the same go for the AI or will it be effectively the same as now? How about plane components and DM thereof? All new (significantly upgraded)? If I recall correctly there were always huge difficulties finding good AI devs for BoX, which was previously given as the explanation for why so many shortcomings in the AI couldn't be addressed.

If Korea is going to be more of the same, just much shinier, I think most people will be at least a little disappointed. Maybe some words from those in the know will help, even if only to stop us folk setting our hopes too high.

Edited November 2, 2024 by Panzerlang

[LukeFF]

Everything is being revised to take advantage of new advances in technology and the fact we have a larger development team than before. It is definitely not going to be just a graphic upgrade. 🙂

[AEthelraedUnraed]

8 hours ago, Panzerlang said:

But I guess I'd assumed everything would be 'new', as in no carry-overs of the current AI etc. And I guess that's the white elephant in the room now...clearly the graphics process is a huge upgrade but will the same go for the AI or will it be effectively the same as now? How about plane components and DM thereof? All new (significantly upgraded)? If I recall correctly there were always huge difficulties finding good AI devs for BoX, which was previously given as the explanation for why so many shortcomings in the AI couldn't be addressed.

I've said it before and I say it again. People usually have a completely wrong view of what an "engine" is.

 

The current engine of BoX is just a vastly upgraded version of  the RoF engine. The Korean engine will be a vastly upgraded version of the BoX engine. But that doesn't mean that there are any limits to what they can or can't do in the new engine. There is nothing about an engine that inherently cannot be updated, including all of the things you mention. Hell, there's nothing that keeps them from programming their own version of Nanites if they'd want to. Sure, they may need to update or rewrite various other parts of their engine to do so and it will anyhow be a humongous job, but given enough time and money it is possible.

 

Furthermore, a game engine is nothing but the framework in which everything else runs. Much of what the user sees is not necessarily part of the engine. For instance, the way aircraft/terrain/objects look is mostly defined by their shaders. An engine might give limitations on for instance what data a shader has access to, but a Phong shader in the old RoF engine will look identical to a Phong shader in UE5, and a PBR shader in UE5 should look similar to a PBR shader in IL2 (there are many possible implementations of PBR so there will be small differences). That doesn't mean the visual quality of the new IL2 engine will necessarily be the same as that of an AAA UE5 title - the visual quality depends on many other things such as the textures, as well as design choices related to the nature of the game (e.g. IL2 needs to render many objects across vast distances, whereas an FPS typically only needs to render 100m or so in any direction).

 

So why then call it a "new engine" if most of an engine can be updated without any practical limits besides time and money, and much of what the player sees is not even directly dependent on the engine? Well, on one hand it's often the case that when you update an engine, it loses compatibility with content developed for the old version. The new planes are an excellent example: because the new engine demands PBR textures for the aircraft, the old planes cannot be imported into the new game without massive work from the Devs or a significant loss in visual quality. Calling it a "new engine" signifies this loss in backward compatibility.

 

Furthermore, it's largely a marketing decision. People generally barely understand how game technology works. If you call it a "new engine", they think it's gonna have updated AI, updated graphics, updated physics and whatnot. If you call it an "updated engine", they think it's gonna be more of the same with perhaps one or two small changes, like it seems you did . While really there is no difference between the two terms whatsoever. You very rarely see developers switch to a completely different engine, and when they do it's not necessarily an improvement right away.

 

One developer that has mastered the art of upgrading a few things and then calling it something "new" is Microsoft. Windows 11 is nothing but a severely upgraded version of Windows NT which was released 31 years ago. With that in mind, IL2's engine still has a couple of good years ahead

[Aapje]

It's also much easier to upgrade/replace part of an existing engine than to start from scratch, because the other parts are in place and working. 

[dryheat94]

Starting from scratch would make no sense.

 

If buying an engine, then you start from scratch.

 

If you already have an engine, you update it to latest standards.

 

[dgiatr]

14 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Everything is being revised to take advantage of new advances in technology and the fact we have a larger development team than before. It is definitely not going to be just a graphic upgrade. 🙂

I hope at least you should fix that unacceptable stuttering and time dilation/slow motion issue when many AI units appear at the same region or else anything new would have been for nothing.....

[the_emperor]

18 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Everything is being revised to take advantage of new advances in technology and the fact we have a larger development team than before. It is definitely not going to be just a graphic upgrade. 🙂

 

will the new game  inherit the engine timer mechanic for prop planes?

[LukeFF]

That's not for me to answer at this time.

[Rei-sen]

4 hours ago, the_emperor said:

 

will the new game  inherit the engine timer mechanic for prop planes?

I really hope it will not. Or at least there'll be an option in the difficulty setting to switch the timers off, leaving overheating and everything else engine related enabled. 

Edited November 3, 2024 by Rei-sen

[the_emperor]

19 minutes ago, Rei-sen said:

I really hope it will not. Or at least there'll be an option in the difficulty setting to switch the timers off, leaving overheating and everything else engine related enabled. 

 

I really hope so, as heat is what kills the engine (eg. detonation due to too high cylinder head temps (intake outtake valve failure)  or bearing/piston failure due to insufficient oil lubrication e.g. oil to thin and looses cohesiveness).

Built the limits on what you can model in the game, and that is heat.

 

 

[Avimimus]

 

  

On 10/31/2024 at 7:01 PM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I'm certain of that. One thing that should be noted is that based on the available evidence (notably this picture), Korea maps retain a similar file structure as BoX maps. This in turn means that it should be relatively little effort to convert BoX maps into Korea maps. This might not be something 1CGS is per se interested in (after all, they'd compete with their own title) but it might be worth it for 3rd party maps such as Karelia. Especially if the new aircraft that are being developed for Karelia/Odessa already follow their new design specifications.

 

The Korea map is known to have:

- 4 times the detail in terms of elevation

- A new system for making more organic cities

- A new system for terrain deformations (e.g. trenches)

 

I have a feeling that, if/when they return to Europe, they'll want to rebuild the maps from scratch so that they can meet the new standards.

 

P.S. I also suspect that the new aircraft being built for Karelia/Odessa will be to the old specifications. I believe that, in one of the Briefing Rooms, the developers mentioned how the new specifications aren't yet ready for distribution.

 

  

5 hours ago, the_emperor said:

will the new game  inherit the engine timer mechanic for prop planes?

 

This was already discussed in one of the Briefing Room episodes.

[Aapje]

5 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I also suspect that the new aircraft being built for Karelia/Odessa will be to the old specifications. I believe that, in one of the Briefing Rooms, the developers mentioned how the new specifications aren't yet ready for distribution.

 

Yes, the Karelia/Odessa module will be part of the GB series, so the old engine.

[Jackfraser24]

On 11/3/2024 at 8:53 PM, Aapje said:

 

Yes, the Karelia/Odessa module will be part of the GB series, so the old engine.

They will have to make the Fokker D.XXI, Morko Morane, Blenheim Mk.I or Blenheim Mk.IV, and Curtis Hawk. Because Karelia would be incomplete without them.

Edited November 5, 2024 by Jackfraser24

[Trooper117]

2 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

They will have to make the Fokker D.XXI, Morko Morane, Blenheim Mk.I or Blenheim Mk.IV, and Curtis Hawk. Because Karelia would be incomplete without them.

 

Taking your statement at face value will not mean a hoot I'm afraid... they just don't work to your logic. Take FC for example, there are a shed load of aircraft that are needed for the western front, but I'll doubt we will ever see them.

[LLv44_Damixu]

On 11/3/2024 at 10:53 PM, Aapje said:

 

Yes, the Karelia/Odessa module will be part of the GB series, so the old engine.

The level of quality of Karelia map will carry on to the new game engine specs (I've been told).
 

[Aapje]

43 minutes ago, LLv44_Damixu said:

The level of quality of Karelia map will carry on to the new game engine specs (I've been told).

 

The new engine will allow map features that are not possible with the GB engine.

[Jackfraser24]

2 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

Taking your statement at face value will not mean a hoot I'm afraid... they just don't work to your logic. Take FC for example, there are a shed load of aircraft that are needed for the western front, but I'll doubt we will ever see them.

I understand what you are saying. And I know development on Great Battles is reaching its twilight phase so I don’t think that we will see many more planes for Great Battles. But I do have to argue that the Morko Morane and Fokker D.XXI were very important planes in the Finnish Air Force and I think that it would be unwise for them to leave out these important aircraft. Also worthy to note is that the D.21 and Morane were featured in the original IL-2 1946 series, and the latter was made flyable in mods for 1946, so having a Karelia map without the D.21 and Morane would not make the map (IMO) as worthy of a successor to 1946 Karelia as it should be. If they have  these planes in Great Battles for Karelia, this would make the combat flight experience that more authentic to everyone, and especially appeal to the Finnish players in the IL-2 community.

Edited November 5, 2024 by Jackfraser24

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

1 hour ago, Jackfraser24 said:

I understand what you are saying. And I know development on Great Battles is reaching its twilight phase so I don’t think that we will see many more planes for Great Battles. But I do have to argue that the Morko Morane and Fokker D.XXI were very important planes in the Finnish Air Force and I think that it would be unwise for them to leave out these important aircraft. Also worthy to note is that the D.21 and Morane were featured in the original IL-2 1946 series, and the latter was made flyable in mods for 1946, so having a Karelia map without the D.21 and Morane would not make the map (IMO) as worthy of a successor to 1946 Karelia as it should be. If they have  these planes in Great Battles for Karelia, this would Brewster 239 , Fiat G.50,  Curtiss Hawk 75A , Fokker D.XXI, and Blenheim Mk. IVmake the combat flight experience that more authentic to everyone, and especially appeal to the Finnish players in the IL-2 community.

Karelia will have Brewster 239 , Fiat G.50, Curtiss Hawk 75A , Fokker D.XXI, and Blenheim Mk. IV , this is not enough?