Graphic violence in flight simulators

[Zooropa_Fly]

There's plenty I could respond to in some of the above posts, but unfortunately we can't talk freely about very much here.

So I'll park this one.

 

At the end of the day IL2 is effectively about flight combat, and we whizz by so fast at ground level there's not time to get a good look at much.

And obviously little detail can be discerned from any kind of altitude, if you can see much at all.

Maybe it's slightly different for the VR users.

 

I play this game like Space Invaders, like Rogue Squadron.. like throwing darts at a dart board.

It's about accuracy and improving. I think little of any real world events from the past.

At the end of the day it's moving pixels around a computer screen.

 

There is the bonus of being able to fly some beautiful virtual aircraft from the old days, modelled I believe very well.

That's what makes this, and other games of the genre special.

Edited January 1 by Zooropa_Fly

[AEthelraedUnraed]

18 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

The Il-10 has the potential for some interesting scenarios.

Ah yes, I hadn't thought of the IL-10. But I believe it has a seperate cockpit/gunner compartment like the IL-2, hasn't it? If so, it would make this whole discussion a bit moot since you can't see any injuries on crew members anyhow, while you're going way too fast to see injuries on foot soldiers.

 

14 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Rig up an 8” PVC air cannon packed with ball bearings or gravel  - secure it and point it at your face.

[...]

There - now you have your highly tunable  “but this is war” realism and immersion if it’s so important to you.

That's a straw man argument and you know it

 

13 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

What IS scientifically proven is that whether you know it or not consciously, your brain on some level receives it in the same way / doesn't discern between real/simulated violence. (same goes with "adult" imagery etc) That's been demonstrated with brain scans etc, and desensitizing factor is also a matter of record...

Yet what is scientifically debated, is that desensitisation against game violence also desensitises against real-world violence. And even assuming that it does, I concur with @Aapje that that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, if that "in no way makes them more prone to violence or has any other clear negative outcome."

 

12 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I don't need to see brains on the wall.

Wait a minute here - there's no one arguing for exploding brains. Even considering real-world battle injuries, that would be an extremely rare occurrence. All I want is a couple splashes of blood that makes it clear that something bad is going on, that helps you remember that this was an actual war where actual people died.

 

Right now, my attitude towards dead people in this game (if they haven't disappeared) is one of "look mommy, gramps is asleep!" - and I think that's a shame.

 

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

The one consideration I haven't seen in this conversation - one which might be a bit sensitive - is "What is most respectful to the dead?" I'm sure some of us would feel that recreating the brutality of war would help capture the horror of it. Others might feel that depicting violent deaths as part of an entertainment product might lessen them.

 

Depending on our culture and background we might come to very different conclusions.

 

I sort-of come down the middle on this personally:

- I don't want to treat deaths in war as routine or as entertainment (and this makes me want them to not be trivialised in entertainment).

- At the same time, I don't want the reality of war to be obscured... it would seem wrong to cover up the deaths or the fact that war is often horrifying and anything but glorious to those who experience it.

For me, this is exactly the issue. I think it's somewhat disrespectful to both the people who actually fought there as well as the audience, to pretend that war wasn't a nasty business - and they all lived happily ever after.

 

1 hour ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

It's about accuracy and improving. I think little of any real world events from the past.

I disagree completely here. For me, IL-2 is essentially an RPG, where I try to replicate real-world events. I care little about my "score," "K/D ratio" or "improvement." I think of real-world events from the past all the time, when I play IL2.

 

Perhaps this partly explains our different attitudes towards this issue.

Edited January 1 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Trooper117]

16 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

For me, IL-2 is essentially an RPG, where I try to replicate real-world events. I care little about my "score," "K/D ratio" or "improvement." I think of real-world events from the past all the time, when I play IL2.

 

Yes, that's how I approach the combat flight sim scene...

[Avimimus]

54 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I disagree completely here. For me, IL-2 is essentially an RPG, where I try to replicate real-world events. I care little about my "score," "K/D ratio" or "improvement." I think of real-world events from the past all the time, when I play IL2.

 

Perhaps this partly explains our different attitudes towards this issue.

 

I'm closer to AEthelraedUnraed in how I approach things - although probably with more of a focus on just enjoying looking at the aircrat and flying aerobatics... there is a reason why I like the WWI aircraft and why I'm interested in unusual things like gliders being added to the sim.

 

I think the best possible outcome is a sim which accommodates many different ways of using it/approaching it.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

29 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

I think the best possible outcome is a sim which accommodates many different ways of using it/approaching it.

Absolutely - as in so many cases, I think the best solution is to have blood/gore as an option that can be switched on/off at will. Which is how it's implemented in a large number of games anyhow.

[Zooropa_Fly]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I disagree completely here. For me, IL-2 is essentially an RPG, where I try to replicate real-world events. I care little about my "score," "K/D ratio" or "improvement." I think of real-world events from the past all the time, when I play IL2.

 

Perhaps this partly explains our different attitudes towards this issue.

 

It's not really a case of disagreeing or agreeing about anything regards this.

We all pay our money to play the game and experience it however we all want individually.

As it should be.

 

S!

 

[Avimimus]

11 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Absolutely - as in so many cases, I think the best solution is to have blood/gore as an option that can be switched on/off at will. Which is how it's implemented in a large number of games anyhow.

 

My personal priority would be a 'realistic pilot morale' option - which if turned on would cause AI pilots to try to disengage if they weren't near allied aircraft (or sometimes just disengage randomly... or after one pass).

[Aapje]

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

The one consideration I haven't seen in this conversation - one which might be a bit sensitive - is "What is most respectful to the dead?" I'm sure some of us would feel that recreating the brutality of war would help capture the horror of it. Others might feel that depicting violent deaths as part of an entertainment product might lessen them.

 

Of course there is no single point of view or opinion among WW2 combatants, or veterans (who are rapidly declining in number).

 

But the sentiment I've seen a lot by combatants and vets is that the home front doesn't understand the realities of war, and often has a glamorized view of it. Vets often seem to have feelings of isolation as they cannot really convey they experiences, also because the people who talk to have grown up in such easy conditions that extreme human suffering is beyond their comprehension. Vets generally seem quite happy with relatively accurate, gory depictions like Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers, from what I've heard.

But I'm not asking for that level of gore, and to be honest, I don't really understand why people think that having more bodies and a few splashes of red would be the issue, whether it is about respect, or desensitization, in a world where there is so much gore in movies, series and games that goes way, way beyond that. But I guess we have some people here who don't watch those movies and series, and don't play any violent games. So I guess for them even a very low level of gore is very significant.

[Avimimus]

33 minutes ago, Aapje said:

 

Of course there is no single point of view or opinion among WW2 combatants, or veterans (who are rapidly declining in number).

 

But the sentiment I've seen a lot by combatants and vets is that the home front doesn't understand the realities of war, and often has a glamorized view of it. Vets often seem to have feelings of isolation as they cannot really convey they experiences, also because the people who talk to have grown up in such easy conditions that extreme human suffering is beyond their comprehension. Vets generally seem quite happy with relatively accurate, gory depictions like Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers, from what I've heard.

But I'm not asking for that level of gore, and to be honest, I don't really understand why people think that having more bodies and a few splashes of red would be the issue, whether it is about respect, or desensitization, in a world where there is so much gore in movies, series and games that goes way, way beyond that. But I guess we have some people here who don't watch those movies and series, and don't play any violent games. So I guess for them even a very low level of gore is very significant.

 

Some of them value capturing the horror - but they also often can't watch it, as it is too triggering. There is a lot of PTSD. By the time I was around a lot of WWII vets were in their 80s - they'd had decades to process the experience. But my father still remembers school teachers who'd jump (and almost throw themselves prone) if someone slammed a door.

 

P.S. There is also a big difference between realistic gore (which is often either much more graphic or much less) and what we're fed in movies and games. So I'm not sure if those of us who don't like it in media are really missing out on that much realism.

[Aapje]

22 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Some of them value capturing the horror - but they also often can't watch it, as it is too triggering. There is a lot of PTSD.

 

Sure, but I have my doubts that having a little red on the bodies would move the needle much in this regard.

 

22 hours ago, Avimimus said:

P.S. There is also a big difference between realistic gore (which is often either much more graphic or much less) and what we're fed in movies and games.

 

This is one of the reasons why I appreciate realism (not just gore, but in general), because people tend to be rather uncritical of the media they consume and take it as fact. We even had a high-level politician say that a 9 mm bullet "blows the lung out of the body." There are a lot of people who think they know things, even in the highest positions of power, who in reality have absurd beliefs.

Edited January 2 by Aapje

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

5 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Ah yes, I hadn't thought of the IL-10. But I believe it has a seperate cockpit/gunner compartment like the IL-2, hasn't it? If so, it would make this whole discussion a bit moot since you can't see any injuries on crew members anyhow, while you're going way too fast to see injuries on foot soldiers.

I'm not sure, it's hard to tell from the pictures, but there is the potential for auditory effects some won't want as well, because honestly silent injured people is kind of weird as well. Doesn't have to be too traumatic, just some yelling and moans would do. Eventually the game will likely have a 2+ seater at some point where this is relevant though. Blood/gore on the ground bodies is much less important, but the disappearing bodies does still seem magical.

 

I think arguing the morality of this can go on forever and nothing will change. It's wrong to force the blood on people who don't want it, and it's wrong to nanny the people who do want it. We don't really have to argue though, because a simple on/off gives everyone what they want.

Edited January 1 by =MERCS=JenkemJunkie

[AEthelraedUnraed]

9 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

We all pay our money to play the game and experience it however we all want individually.

As it should be.

Exactly. Do you then also agree that I should be able to see blood, if that is how I individually want to experience it?

 

9 hours ago, Avimimus said:

My personal priority would be a 'realistic pilot morale' option - which if turned on would cause AI pilots to try to disengage if they weren't near allied aircraft (or sometimes just disengage randomly... or after one pass).

That would be fantastic. I agree that blood doesn't have a great priority; there are many more things that I find more important than the issue of whether or not to show blood. But the question here is not if blood/gore should have top priority; the question is if it should be there at all (possibly as an option).

 

8 hours ago, Avimimus said:

There is also a big difference between realistic gore (which is often either much more graphic or much less) and what we're fed in movies and games.

Absolutely. And I'm all for keeping it on the mild side - I personally don't see the need for "brains on the wall," to quote Gambit. But I think it's imperative to show at least some blood if someone close by is heavily injured or dead.

 

5 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

the disappearing bodies does still seem magical.

I think the disappearing bodies is more a technical thing than a deliberate decision not to show them. We can see from other objects that the Devs are not averse to showing dead bodies in general: soldiers have a death animation, and the static horses and cows even have a "destroyed" version that doesn't disappear.

 

The problem is that dead soldiers, being skinned meshes, are relatively expensive to render while they don't add much beyond the first couple of seconds. You might notice them in the aftermath of an attack, but half a minute afterwards you likely won't be able to see them anyway. So technologically, a very good tradeoff is to have them despawn after a while, like they do now.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

That's a good sign, if it's a tech limit rather than a censorship choice.

[Gambit21]

15 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

That's a straw man argument and you know it

Ummm…no.

It’s an intentionally inane, facetious dumb joke argument - learn the difference.

 

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

10 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Exactly. Do you then also agree that I should be able to see blood, if that is how I individually want to experience it?

 

Hell yes.

I think I could just about handle the sight of some red pixels myself.

In fact there's nothing I can't handle when it comes to graphics - if I know it's not real..

(Although we have got to the point where AI and CGI are capable of being practically indistinguishable from real life - not good at all).

 

There are however way too many things I'm seeing in the real world these days that do make me turn away. Every single day.

 

Maybe the Devs will do things different in Korea, but I doubt they'll be doing anything to introduce damage models for virtual humans in GB.

That would be a lot of work, and soldiers on the ground are barely modelled as it is.

 

We got USA and GB Infantry a while back, but thus far they haven't given us the other Nations, which wouldn't take long to do.

A copy / paste, change the uniform colour, chuck it in the editor. That would suffice.

Bosch !

[Aapje]

20 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

I'm not sure, it's hard to tell from the pictures, but there is the potential for auditory effects some won't want as well, because honestly silent injured people is kind of weird as well. Doesn't have to be too traumatic, just some yelling and moans would do.

 

Growling Sidewinder has added some screams (and even some cursing) to his WW I and II videos in the past, when pilots bailed, got shot or were set on fire, and he showed the close up replays.

 

14 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

The problem is that dead soldiers, being skinned meshes, are relatively expensive to render while they don't add much beyond the first couple of seconds. You might notice them in the aftermath of an attack, but half a minute afterwards you likely won't be able to see them anyway. So technologically, a very good tradeoff is to have them despawn after a while, like they do now.

 

The dead crewmen do despawn already while the plane is still crashing, or even still being flown (if the person who died was not the pilot). That can be rather unrealistic and noticeable, at least in close-up replays.

 

An alternative to reduce rendering costs, for both alive or dead crewmen, is to have a reduced LOD for objects at distance. I get the impression that IL-2 has a rather primitive LOD system (the LOD switch for the ground is very noticeable and crude), and that there is a lot that could be done on this front.

[[CPT]Crunch]

Yeah, and he also blasts Emil's and Fredrich's by the dozens in a Tempest, talk about graphic violence.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I would prefer to see individual infranty objects react to explosion and bullets with physical force applied (direction and strength). I don't have in mind blood or torn apart body, just force which make infranty objects to be blown away or fall realistically and stay in place for some reasonable time. Aka ragdoll but not as much complex - computational tasking as in modern FPS games. 

 

 

Edited January 3 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

It also a fact that majority of players do enjoy/ are ok with gore in "realistic"  war simulators on foot.

 

Edited January 3 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

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

Aka ragdoll but not as much complex - computational tasking as in modern FPS games. 

 

Thats true, I dont think we need this stuff modeled to sim standards with real-time forensic level blood/gore splatter analysis calculations being done based on entry and exit wounds. This is more about creating atmosphere. I don't need a blood splatter sim, but I do need blood splatter atmosphere. Just has to look believable.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

I guess there's also the question of the pilots own blood, which is relevant to single seaters. If our own pilot is injured shouldn't their be blood in the cockpit?

 

There was a vid posted earlier with blood seen from the outside of the cockpit, but it should be seen from the inside as well.

Edited January 3 by =MERCS=JenkemJunkie

[Avimimus]

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

I would prefer to see individual infranty objects react to explosion and bullets with physical force applied (direction and strength). I don't have in mind blood or torn apart body, just force which make infranty objects to be blown away or fall realistically and stay in place for some reasonable time. Aka ragdoll but not as much complex - computational tasking as in modern FPS games. 

 

Goreless kinetic displacement? Interesting. I could see that as a decent compromise.

 

Earlier on, listening to this conversation, I imagined having the rear-gunner ragdolling the whole way back (even without any visible damage - and it seemed pretty traumatising tbh.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

It hasn't been clearly identified yet, but if we're speaking of compromise is the issue more of a tech/time and money barrier, or is the issue a cultural barrier at 1C to including blood/gore even with an on/off option.

[MajorMagee]

Given the option, I'll always turn blood effects off. I've just seen too much of it in real life to want to bring those memories up again.

 

p.s. When it's not an option to turn them off I've been known to go through the related textures and desaturate them down to neutral grey.

 

US Army Ordnance Corps

Service To The Line,

On The Line,

On Time!

 

Edited January 3 by MajorMagee

[Gambit21]

6 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

It hasn't been clearly identified yet, but if we're speaking of compromise is the issue more of a tech/time and money barrier, or is the issue a cultural barrier at 1C to including blood/gore even with an on/off option.

 

Neither describes the situation accurately really.

 

 

More like combat flight sim culture. 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

It's fair not to want it your own game, but what's the rationale for wanting to block grown men from seeing blood in their own individual game? There was blood in flight sims before, cultures change all the time.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

12 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

More like combat flight sim culture. 

I don't think "flight sim culture" has got anything to do with it, if such a "culture" even exists. For one thing, as this thread shows the community is divided on the issue.

Furthermore, IL2 1946 did at one time have blood, as JFM shows.

 

What is true, is that in combat flight sims you're fighting against machines, usually 100s of meters away and with the pilot largely hidden from view. While infantry are not usually obscured from view, you're even further away and going 300kph. These facts make any gore relatively unimportant, compared to e.g. an FPS where killing people is basically the whole point of the game.

 

19 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

It hasn't been clearly identified yet, but if we're speaking of compromise is the issue more of a tech/time and money barrier, or is the issue a cultural barrier at 1C to including blood/gore even with an on/off option.

Given this diminished importance of gore compared to other gaming genres, I think it is in fact a tech/money issue rather than a cultural barrier, where priority is given to other things that are more visible or deemed more important, and a couple of free FPS are preferred to realistic and/or graphic dying scenes.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

On 1/2/2025 at 4:02 AM, Gambit21 said:

Ummm…no.

It’s an intentionally inane, facetious dumb joke argument - learn the difference.

One doesn't exclude the other

You're arguing as if we want complete and unbounded realism, while that's not at all what any of us are saying. That by definition makes it a straw man, even if it's also dumb and facetious

[CzechTexan]

I don't really care to see blood and gore but I don't really like how dead soldiers disappear like magic.  I don't like it when I destroy AAA guns and then they disappear.

I want to be able see the destruction I wreak.  It would be nice to have an ON/OFF switch for that - if my computer can handle the extra pixels, then it'll be ON.

 

In airplanes, the dead or wounded human is not really noticeable.  However, ground troops can easily be seen when strafing and they get killed.  

 

In Korea, the main North Korean/Chinese target would be soldiers on the ground.  There was not a lot of mechanized vehicles and practically no tanks for the North (only in the summer 1950).  It's not like WWII east front where there are lots of vehicle/tank targets on both sides.  In Korea the battles were all-infantry with human wave tactics.  Will the human waves be simulated?  They need to be.  If not, then there will be very few targets for UN ground attack a/c.  It will be very difficult to re-create a battle.  Recreating the battles in Great Battles are more easily accomplished because more vehicles/tanks were involved - and those are the targets for ground attack a/c.

Ground troops need to be simulated.  No need for blood, though.

 

 

 

 

[[CPT]Crunch]

My opinion is we've gone too far in the opposite extreme, you get pilot killed most of the time hearing no sounds, nor seeing the flak or tracers, or even hear them make the fatal hit.  Mostly your jolted immediately out of the plane having the immersion ripped right out of you without any clue of what just happened.  In a fight it's to the point most experienced players know to stop shooting and break off the moment a pilot dies, they can see it instantly in the canned death aircraft behaviors, its always the exact same act. 

 

This is an area that could see some improvements, it's a real immersion breaker and quite maddening when your absorbed in the moment.  I'd rather have some kind of closure, some last fleeting milliseconds where we could still hear and see whats happening, a sort of rapid fade out even if it involves a little mist all over the pit.  Our brains needs a few micro seconds to comprehend whats happening, mine doesn't enjoy being ripped straight out of the plane in an instant without feedback of any kind, that's worse than any gory game death sequence experience.   

[SCG_motoadve]

5 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

My opinion is we've gone too far in the opposite extreme, you get pilot killed most of the time hearing no sounds, nor seeing the flak or tracers, or even hear them make the fatal hit.  Mostly your jolted immediately out of the plane having the immersion ripped right out of you without any clue of what just happened.  In a fight it's to the point most experienced players know to stop shooting and break off the moment a pilot dies, they can see it instantly in the canned death aircraft behaviors, its always the exact same act. 

 

This is an area that could see some improvements, it's a real immersion breaker and quite maddening when your absorbed in the moment.  I'd rather have some kind of closure, some last fleeting milliseconds where we could still hear and see whats happening, a sort of rapid fade out even if it involves a little mist all over the pit.  Our brains needs a few micro seconds to comprehend whats happening, mine doesn't enjoy being ripped straight out of the plane in an instant without feedback of any kind, that's worse than any gory game death sequence experience.   

IMHO this is the most immersion killer in IL2

[migmadmarine]

My two cents is that, while I wouldn't be upset by the absence or presence of visible blood, or some level of dismemberment, there does need to be something at least, just to acknowledge what we are simulating taking part in. I think a sanitized warzone is to some extent flawed in the other direction, allowing us to pretend that we are engaging in some kind of clean fun sport rather than a devastating conflict. Granted, you won't see much much of the time, but I think it has the potential to be suitably impactful when the situation does arise. 

 

It just needs to strike the balance of not reveling in it, something like the level that Gunner, Heat, PC is going for in it's recent infantry patches. 

[Gambit21]

12 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I don't think "flight sim culture" has got anything to do with it, if such a "culture" even exists. For one thing, as this thread shows the community is divided on the issue.

Furthermore, IL2 1946 did at one time have blood, as JFM shows.

 

What is true, is that in combat flight sims you're fighting against machines, usually 100s of meters away and with the pilot largely hidden from view. While infantry are not usually obscured from view, you're even further away and going 300kph. These facts make any gore relatively unimportant, compared to e.g. an FPS where killing people is basically the whole point of the game.

 

Given this diminished importance of gore compared to other gaming genres, I think it is in fact a tech/money issue rather than a cultural barrier, where priority is given to other things that are more visible or deemed more important, and a couple of free FPS are preferred to realistic and/or graphic dying scenes.

We’ll agree to disagree - this conversation has popped up many, many times in the past - most often related to “gore” in the cockpit. Also in the context of blood already  being shown…in other words “more gore” and some red patches arguably isn’t “gore” anyway thus those past conversations.

 

That said I used the term “ culture” loosely and stand by my statement. 
 

In the context of high fidelity combat sims anyway, “divided” is probably another “loose” term.

I didn’t just roll off the potatoe truck - been here a minute.
 

12 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

One doesn't exclude the other

You're arguing as if we want complete and unbounded realism, while that's not at all what any of us are saying. That by definition makes it a straw man, even if it's also dumb and facetious

Fair enough, it was a deliberately silly tongue-in-cheek straw man crack. You know this, I know this this…I know that you know that I know this…and it’s pretty obvious on the surface to everyone else which is why you’re the only one carrying on about it.

[Mainstay]

If I strafe ground targets I wanna see blood and bodies. 
 

why? Because that’s what is being simulated. If you don’t like that ask for option to be able to turn it off in the settings or play msfs

Edited January 5 by Mainstay

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, Mainstay said:

 If you don’t like that ask for option to be able to turn it off in the settings or play msfs

The actual reality is, if you want that then go play CoD etc. 

 

 

Because it won’t be happening here.

 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

If it's a tech issue it's just a matter of time, but if it's a culture issue then no ones given me an answer yet to:

 

"It's fair not to want it your own game, but what's the rationale for wanting to block grown men from seeing blood in their own individual game?"

 

One could also say it's just a matter of time culture wise as well, as I'd imagine younger generations would trend towards including it with an on/off option.

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

If it's a tech issue it's just a matter of time, but if it's a culture issue then no ones given me an answer yet to:

 

Most fighter pilots probably never saw a drop of blood unless it was their own.  Most bomber crews only saw the blood of wounded comrades.  And in those cases it was probably so awful that it haunted them for the rest of their lives.  Why do you want to see blood?  

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Because family friendly war zones seem magical to me, and takes away from my experience. I know pilots didn't see blood at the levels the infantry would, but it's still odd not to see it in the conditions it should be there. I don't have any desire to force the blood on people who don't want to see it, so what's the rationale for wanting to block grown men from seeing blood in their own individual game?

[Zooropa_Fly]

I don't think anyone 'wants' to block anything for anyone else.

It's simply not a part of the game.

 

IL2 GB has been developed for a long time now, so I'd assume that if the Devs had wanted to do something like this they'd have done it a long time ago.

How likely are they to introduce it at this point in development ?

[AEthelraedUnraed]

15 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

We’ll agree to disagree - this conversation has popped up many, many times in the past - most often related to “gore” in the cockpit. Also in the context of blood already  being shown…in other words “more gore” and some red patches arguably isn’t “gore” anyway thus those past conversations.

 

That said I used the term “ culture” loosely and stand by my statement. 
 

In the context of high fidelity combat sims anyway, “divided” is probably another “loose” term.

I didn’t just roll off the potatoe truck - been here a minute.

So do I understand correctly that you think the Devs actively do not want to have blood, rather than it being related to external factors such as time, money and perhaps PEGI ratings? And if so, what would be their rationale for that? It's clear that there's a (probably significant) proportion of players who would prefer some amount of blood to the bloodless bodies we have now.

 

7 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

If it's a tech issue it's just a matter of time

Not necessarily - since the rationale why they don't do it right now will likely still apply in the future.

 

5 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Why do you want to see blood?  

Why do you not want others to see blood?