Aapje Posted April 10 Posted April 10 When talking about the new game engine, 1CGS currently refers to it as Korea, even though this is just going to be the first module. After that, we get at least one Pacific module and then perhaps other regions as well. So it's going to be very confusing if we want to talk about the new game engine (and make it clear that we are not talking about Great Battles), if it still is called Korea. Especially once a Pacific module gets released. So I think that 1CGS needs a separate name for the new game engine. We can give suggestions that will hopefully appeal to them. Some of my suggestions: IL-2: From Deck to Runway IL-2: (Battles over) Land and Sea IL-2: Iron Wings, Salt Spray As you can see, my suggestion center around one of the major new features, carriers, while still being generic enough that they can release pretty much any module and still have it fit the title. But I'm sure others can come up with better titles. What title(s) would you suggest?
Trooper117 Posted April 10 Posted April 10 IL-2: Battles for the Skies, Korea... it would then follow, that future titles only need the theatre or specific battle from any timeframe added, Vietnam, Burma, Okinawa, etc...
=MERCS=JenkemJunkie Posted April 10 Posted April 10 I think they already settled on "IL2 Series", but salt spray would be a good name for the forum, discord, reddit etc. 1
Aapje Posted April 10 Author Posted April 10 1 hour ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said: I think they already settled on "IL2 Series", but salt spray would be a good name for the forum, discord, reddit etc. Oh yes, now you mention it, I see that might be it. It's so bland and awful a name that I didn't notice it.
Dutch2 Posted April 10 Posted April 10 Are we sure it’s a complete new game engine build from scratch and not an improvement from the a previous?
=MERCS=JenkemJunkie Posted April 10 Posted April 10 It looks like it will be a bit of both. Some areas are being rebuilt/built from scratch like the GUI or new graphics technologies, and other areas will be improvements on the previous.
1CGS LukeFF Posted April 10 1CGS Posted April 10 32 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said: It looks like it will be a bit of both. Some areas are being rebuilt/built from scratch like the GUI or new graphics technologies, and other areas will be improvements on the previous. Pretty much this, yes. 1
Avimimus Posted April 10 Posted April 10 I liked the old idea 'Storm of War'. Not sure who has the trademark for that though (it was planned originally for a series of sims on the Cliffs of Dover engine, prior to the series being handed off).
Aapje Posted April 10 Author Posted April 10 2 hours ago, Dutch2 said: Are we sure it’s a complete new game engine build from scratch and not an improvement from the a previous? I would argue that the same rule goes for species, if it can't mate with the old content, then it's a new species engine. 1 2
AEthelraedUnraed Posted April 10 Posted April 10 22 minutes ago, Aapje said: I would argue that the same rule goes for species, if it can't mate with the old content, then it's a new species engine. I just love the analogy 👌 I don't get the obsession that people seem to have with "new game engines". As if anything these days is built from scratch. At the very best, it's copied from StackOverflow. Many of the same reasons why certain technologies aren't used right now in the GB engine will still apply in the Korea engine, regardless of whether or not it was built from scratch. As for a name, I think it'll sort itself out. Officially, the RoF engine was called "Digital Nature" and then the IL2 engine "Digital Warfare". Or something; I can barely remember since no-one ever calls it by its name. There are even different names for the series; officially it's called "Great Battles" (IL2: GB) but you're just as likely to see BoX ("Battle of ..."). As long as everyone understands what's meant, I don't see any problem
CzechTexan Posted April 10 Posted April 10 It's the 3rd generation of IL-2, so, IL-2: Third Generation.
BlitzPig_EL Posted April 10 Posted April 10 Videodisplay der neuen Klasse New Class Video Display or... NKVD 😁 1
Aapje Posted April 11 Author Posted April 11 14 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said: As for a name, I think it'll sort itself out. Officially, the RoF engine was called "Digital Nature" and then the IL2 engine "Digital Warfare". Or something; I can barely remember since no-one ever calls it by its name. They don't seem to be very good at choosing names. That's why I thought that the community might help them with that. And also so @Jackfraser24 would have something more productive to make a list for 😉, but he doesn't seem to be interested. @GOA_Karaya_VR The name should not be Korea-specific, since the game engine will also be used for the Pacific and possibly other regions. 1
=MERCS=JenkemJunkie Posted April 11 Posted April 11 14 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said: I don't get the obsession that people seem to have with "new game engines". As if anything these days is built from scratch. At the very best, it's copied from StackOverflow. Many of the same reasons why certain technologies aren't used right now in the GB engine will still apply in the Korea engine, regardless of whether or not it was built from scratch. Words are clumsy. By saying "built from scratch" people could mean literally build the part from nothing, or dumpster the old and replace it with something built from some kind of base. Using the GUI as an example, as long as the end result is good, I don't care if they literally build the new GUI from nothing or build a new one from some kind of base, but since the old GUI was using the defunct scaleform and was causing problems, I think it was important to dumpster the old version and get something totally new.
AlexandreCosta Posted April 11 Posted April 11 14 hours ago, CzechTexan said: It's the 3rd generation of IL-2, so, IL-2: Third Generation. Isn't the 4th? Original IL-2, Cliffs of Dover and Great Battles are the three generations we have. 1
=MERCS=JenkemJunkie Posted April 11 Posted April 11 On the topic of names though, they might be stuck with IL-2 because of brand recognition reasons, but I would consider ditching the whole IL-2 label completely. I bought this game as someone with zero knowledge of planes, I didn't even know what a Spitfire or Mustang was, and when I saw the name IL-2 it just felt cheap and bland like someone named their game like a lab specimen Z7 or 123456.
Aapje Posted April 11 Author Posted April 11 5 hours ago, AlexandreCosta said: Isn't the 4th? Original IL-2, Cliffs of Dover and Great Battles are the three generations we have. Great Battles is actually based on the Rise of Flight engine, so it is the third generation. Rise of Flight > Great Battles > the upcoming engine 1
AlexandreCosta Posted April 11 Posted April 11 2 hours ago, Aapje said: Great Battles is actually based on the Rise of Flight engine, so it is the third generation. Rise of Flight > Great Battles > the upcoming engine I understood he was talking about 3rd generation of IL-2. Not the engine.
ST_Catchov Posted April 11 Posted April 11 IL-2: Vietnam Vengeance - The Great Patriotic Victory. And then .... Rise of Flight II - Rising from the Ashes. 1 1 1
BlitzPig_EL Posted April 12 Posted April 12 We are talking about the game engine, not new chapters of the game itself.
AlexandreCosta Posted April 12 Posted April 12 2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said: We are talking about the game engine, not new chapters of the game itself. Still, the guy I quoted stated generation of IL-2... but nevermind.
Bell Posted April 13 Posted April 13 (edited) I don't think it's very necessary. Just like before the name IL-2 GB appeared, we often used IL-2 BOS to refer to it, even though there were already BOM and BOK at that time. Edited April 13 by Bell
MajorMagee Posted April 13 Posted April 13 Since we're starting with a Police Action how about "Warlike Things". It covers Police Actions like Korea and Vietnam, and even flight operations during the Cold War. WW2 in the Pacific would fall under the double meaning of Warlike referencing general hostilities.
Bell Posted April 13 Posted April 13 My ideas: IL-2 Pacific IL-2 Asia IL-2 CBI IL-2 Wars related to the United States IL-2 Great Operations IL-2 Great Campaigns IL-2 theatres of operations
Zooropa_Fly Posted April 14 Posted April 14 15 hours ago, Bell said: IL-2 Wars related to the United States I like it ! Snappy as anything.
[CPT]Crunch Posted April 15 Posted April 15 The Last Gas Piston, Last Gasp for the shortened version.
Dragon1-1 Posted April 21 Posted April 21 On 4/10/2025 at 9:36 PM, AEthelraedUnraed said: I don't get the obsession that people seem to have with "new game engines". As if anything these days is built from scratch. At the very best, it's copied from StackOverflow. Many of the same reasons why certain technologies aren't used right now in the GB engine will still apply in the Korea engine, regardless of whether or not it was built from scratch. It's really a simple reason: technical debt. With an existing codebase, you might run into a variety of walls, ones that either you built yourself, or your predecessors did. Tradeoffs that made sense when the engine was being built, but which are nowadays obsolete. Assumption such as "memory capacity is the primary limiting factor" (invalid since x64), "CPU does everything in sequence" (invalid since multicore CPUs), "DirectX is the only game in town" (invalid since Vulkan), "there's only one render camera" (invalid since VR). Those assumptions, and others equally determinal ones, might be weaved into the very core of the engine, and make it difficult to take advantage of tech that relies on those not being true anymore. The point of building the engine from scratch is not to be bound by the reasons why certain technologies aren't used on the old engine. When you start with a clean slate in modern era, anything goes, as long as you're willing and able to implement it (which is a common limitation, but one seldom admitted by the devs). DCS had only recently got a partial multithreading implementation, and it's also worth remembering ArmA3, after which its devs finally chucked the ancient (early 2000s) RV codebase and built something new with all the new tech. Meanwhile, modern engines support those features right from the start, and they also employ a modular architecture to make implementing future improvements less painful. Of course, that's to a point (and today's new tech will become obsolete in the future), but when you've already got 20 years' worth of technology development ahead of you, sometimes a slash and burn approach to old code is the right one.
Aapje Posted April 21 Author Posted April 21 17 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said: When you start with a clean slate in modern era, anything goes, as long as you're willing and able to implement it But this is a major limitation, since money and the number of capable developers is not infinite. So in reality, starting from scratch can mean that you lose features.
Dragon1-1 Posted April 21 Posted April 21 (edited) Yes, but people are calling for a new engine because the devs always say "oh, we can't implement that because our previous decisions (sensible at the time, we swear!) are now biting us" and they never say "we can't implement that because we don't know how and can't afford to learn how", which I imagine is often closer to truth. Worth noting, DCS devs did eventually decide to implement both multithreading and Vulkan, at great cost of time and labor, and the former is already paying dividends. OTOH, sometimes it really is the engine, ArmA3 had plenty of talented devs, but there's only so much you can do with a codebase from 2001. ArmA:Reforger did eliminate several longstanding limitations. And yes, while starting from scratch does sometimes mean sacrificing a feature that was there, after enough dev time has been spent, the capability should come back, especially since the research and the assets don't go anywhere (though the assets might need updating for new tech). This is a small price to pay for the ability to grow beyond inherent limitations of the old codebase, if that is really what's holding you back. Of course, if the problem is with the devs instead, the right course of action is to identify the skill deficiency and correct it, either by hiring new staff or training people already employed. If you just kludge around the issues or ignore them, the technical debt will only get worse. Edited April 21 by Dragon1-1
simfan1998 Posted April 21 Posted April 21 On 4/10/2025 at 8:50 PM, Avimimus said: I liked the old idea 'Storm of War'. Not sure who has the trademark for that though (it was planned originally for a series of sims on the Cliffs of Dover engine, prior to the series being handed off). Trademarked, by Ubisoft, still active, expires 19Dec2025 for both Eu and UK registration. On 4/11/2025 at 10:38 PM, XQ_Lothar29 said: IL-2 Sturmovik: Mig Alley This trademark is free actually, so useable. 1
Mysticpuma Posted April 21 Posted April 21 (edited) IL2: Jets of Korea (JoK) Edited April 21 by Mysticpuma 1
AEthelraedUnraed Posted April 22 Posted April 22 (edited) 14 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said: It's really a simple reason: technical debt. With an existing codebase, you might run into a variety of walls, ones that either you built yourself, or your predecessors did. Tradeoffs that made sense when the engine was being built, but which are nowadays obsolete. Assumption such as "memory capacity is the primary limiting factor" (invalid since x64), "CPU does everything in sequence" (invalid since multicore CPUs), "DirectX is the only game in town" (invalid since Vulkan), "there's only one render camera" (invalid since VR). Those assumptions, and others equally determinal ones, might be weaved into the very core of the engine, and make it difficult to take advantage of tech that relies on those not being true anymore. The point of building the engine from scratch is not to be bound by the reasons why certain technologies aren't used on the old engine. When you start with a clean slate in modern era, anything goes, as long as you're willing and able to implement it (which is a common limitation, but one seldom admitted by the devs). DCS had only recently got a partial multithreading implementation, and it's also worth remembering ArmA3, after which its devs finally chucked the ancient (early 2000s) RV codebase and built something new with all the new tech. Meanwhile, modern engines support those features right from the start, and they also employ a modular architecture to make implementing future improvements less painful. Of course, that's to a point (and today's new tech will become obsolete in the future), but when you've already got 20 years' worth of technology development ahead of you, sometimes a slash and burn approach to old code is the right one. That's true; yet there are also some necessary conditions for it to actually apply: - the current engine is at least partly based on assumptions that are not valid anymore, and - the engine is not modular enough to make more gradual updates feasible. In case of IL2, it seems the engine is modular enough to make the huge changes we've already seen, without necessitating a new codebase. So at least the second condition doesn't apply. 13 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said: Yes, but people are calling for a new engine because the devs always say "oh, we can't implement that because our previous decisions (sensible at the time, we swear!) are now biting us" and they never say "we can't implement that because we don't know how and can't afford to learn how", which I imagine is often closer to truth. That's not what I think Aapje is saying, nor do I think it's often closer to the truth. Most capable developers should have a general idea of how to implement the things they're hired to do, even if they need to copy-paste from StackOverflow every now and then. But developing stuff costs time, and someone needs to pay for the programmers' salaries. So as long as your engine is not so outdated that you're really running into trouble, or again the engine is modular enough so that you can update only the obsolete parts, it's a much better option to stay with the current engine. Edited April 22 by AEthelraedUnraed
R33GZ Posted April 22 Posted April 22 After the new dev blog, I think something like: Il2 - Train Crash Simulator
PivoYvo Posted April 22 Posted April 22 (edited) New Name: IL-10 Red Star vs. White Star Edited April 22 by PivoYvo
Dragon1-1 Posted April 22 Posted April 22 17 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said: In case of IL2, it seems the engine is modular enough to make the huge changes we've already seen, without necessitating a new codebase. Is it? Because I've seen some "unfixable" issues, and features that are in demand, but supposedly unfeasible to implement on GB engine. Those are the best indicator of either a codebase that's in need of replacement, or devs that can't be bothered to make those changes. Or perhaps the code needed to add those features we're missing isn't on StackOverflow. Either we can implement the latest advances in rendering technology, performance optimizations and the like on the existing codebase, or we can't. If it's the former, the devs need to get to it, because aside from the techs' own benefits, it's quite likely further new tech will be built on what's cutting edge today. If it's the latter, they need to think of the time when the cutting edge becomes standard, and the existing codebase will drag the sim down. DCS devs seem perfectly capable of completely overhauling their rendering engine to use Vulkan, adding DLSS and multithreading. Il-2 devs seem to be having trouble unlinking the guns on the Hs 129, despite having added the third trigger. Tech-wise, the latter sim does seem to lag behind, too.
Recommended Posts