BlitzPig_EL Posted June 6 Posted June 6 Enigma is making the mistake that a lot of us online players make... thinking that the air combat sim world revolves around multiplayer. It doesn't. 4 2 9
Avimimus Posted June 6 Posted June 6 40 minutes ago, Trooper117 said: Very political... I'll leave it there. I know! He completely left out the WWI flight sim community! He also seems to assume everyone is flying online (and competitively) ...while also somehow assuming multiengine bombers are desirable (which definitely will not be competitive online)!
Avimimus Posted June 6 Posted June 6 On a more serious note: - In my opinion, the Pacific is big enough for more than one flight sim and there are initial indications that the Pacific flight simulators will not overlap (at least not for the first modules released). I think it is good to have more than one flight sim company considering the Pacific, and the risk of competition is somewhat overstated. - I think the video makes a mistake in assuming that only one of the major flight simulator companies has Russian origins and staff (even if it isn't as widely publicised in the other case), but we already have another thread on the issue of boycotts, and whether or not they are justified - so I'll leave it at that. - I will say that, personally speaking, the value of this sim for helping remember the Korean War (as a Canadian) makes it a contribution to everyone. 1 2
ST_Catchov Posted June 6 Posted June 6 11 minutes ago, Avimimus said: He completely left out the WWI flight sim community! What a strange dude. Is the voice AI? Unlistenable. Boycotted.
Zooropa_Fly Posted June 7 Posted June 7 Content creator - needs to generate views and loves the sound of his own voice. Can be safely ignored. 3
Avimimus Posted June 7 Posted June 7 Just a reminder: I'd advise people not to get personal. I understand people might feel that this video contains some inaccuracies, or even that some of these discussions could undermine the flight sim genre - but making fun of people's voices (etc.) will not fly. This is regardless of who they are or whether they are forum members. 2
[CPT]Crunch Posted June 7 Posted June 7 People with platforms usually have a dog in the race. Have yet to see any of them define this magical community they're speaking for. I ain't in it and you don't get to speak for me. 2
Barnacles Posted June 7 Posted June 7 18 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said: Enigma is making the mistake that a lot of us online players make... thinking that the air combat sim world revolves around multiplayer. It doesn't. Yes. Even the capabilities of the AI is often gauged on its ability to be competitive against an experienced PvP player, rather than acting like a credible WW2 pilot would. Nothing wrong with having/wanting a challenging computer game of course. The ideal scenario is we have a 'slider' that can make the game be all things to all men, but it's not fair to judge a game against a standard it's not designed to satisfy. 2
1PL-Husar-1Esk Posted June 7 Posted June 7 19 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said: Enigma is making the mistake that a lot of us online players make... thinking that the air combat sim world revolves around multiplayer. It doesn't. Not he doesn't, he said that his channel is about multiplayer.
Avimimus Posted June 7 Posted June 7 1 hour ago, Barnacles said: Yes. Even the capabilities of the AI is often gauged on its ability to be competitive against an experienced PvP player, rather than acting like a credible WW2 pilot would. Nothing wrong with having/wanting a challenging computer game of course. The ideal scenario is we have a 'slider' that can make the game be all things to all men, but it's not fair to judge a game against a standard it's not designed to satisfy. I've long thought that it'd be good to have a 'realistic AI' difficulty option that would reduce the AI's ability to spot and also make it much more likely to disengage (e.g. after the first pass, or if it is isolated or outnumbered, or just isn't feeling lucky). Most engagements enemy aircraft didn't evade, and in most cases they didn't descending to a prolonged dogfight... those are relative rarities in historic accounts. 1 2
Charger_ Posted June 8 Posted June 8 Its a fairly valid thing to discuss. I didnt know about the server hosts having issues - that was interesting. To answer the question raised in the video - i ain't boycotting anything. If political awareness impacted my personal purchase choices - man i would be living in a cave as hunter gatherer. 2
Zooropa_Fly Posted June 8 Posted June 8 I'm not sure I understand how this video has been allowed to be posted here ? 1
=MERCS=JenkemJunkie Posted June 8 Posted June 8 It's not a secret, the war topic always boils over every so often, and I don't think it will disappear until the war ends, which 1C can't control.
Avimimus Posted June 8 Posted June 8 4 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said: I'm not sure I understand how this video has been allowed to be posted here ? Normally such discussions wouldn't be permitted (i.e. due to them touching on global politics) as they would violate the forum rules. However, with regard to the simulation itself - it is valuable to have enough discussion to allow clarifying misleading information. So we've been avoiding shutting down this thread for now. As mentioned earlier, the developers have previously clarified that they don't have any military contracts (which - I might add - is not true of some other competing flight simulator companies). As for whether having two or three flight simulator companies is too few or too many - that is a subjective opinion. As someone who is old enough to have seen the genre almost go extinct, I'm glad to see multiple companies existing. P.S. As mentioned earlier, there is room in the Pacific for more than one simulator - especially as they appear to be focussing on different theatres. The Pacific war spans more than five years and an Ocean that covers 1/3rd of the earth's surface after all. 4 3
ST_Catchov Posted June 8 Posted June 8 2 hours ago, Avimimus said: However, with regard to the simulation itself - it is valuable to have enough discussion to allow clarifying misleading information. So we've been avoiding shutting down this thread for now. That's ridiculous. It should have been shut down for mentioning that which cannot be mentioned. Or is it okay now to mention the unmentionable as long as it's within a simulator context? It doesn't make sense. 1
Avimimus Posted June 9 Posted June 9 13 hours ago, ST_Catchov said: That's ridiculous. It should have been shut down for mentioning that which cannot be mentioned. Or is it okay now to mention the unmentionable as long as it's within a simulator context? It doesn't make sense. Your input is noted. I agree that there shouldn't be ambiguity - it is true that the forum rules still apply everywhere else. We definitely don't want discussions of politics generally. I suppose the decision about whether or not to boycott simulators based on the national origins of some of the developers is a question that could risk destroying the genre (both established combat flight simulator companies DCS and Il-2 are Russian in origin - even if both have investors and team members who are International). So it is important to have a little bit of space for people to think through the implications of such an idea. P.S. Technically we should be discussing moderation via direct/private messages (the community manager and moderators welcome such input) rather than on the open forum (rule 6), but given that an exception has already been made for this thread, we'll let it pass.
Vishnu Posted June 9 Posted June 9 (edited) I play exclusively SP. I only tried online once and hated it. With QMB, careers, campaigns and PWCG, I have a variety of choices and plenty of scenarios to hold my interest. I fall into the undecided. I’m not into Korea. I’m a WWII junkie. As for politics, I’m torn and undecided as well. Just my 2 cents. Edited June 9 by Vishnu
=MERCS=JenkemJunkie Posted June 9 Posted June 9 If you're inviting us to talk politics then I think this thread will soon turn into an episode of Gossip Girl. I think the best thing to do is for 1C to give their side of everything, which they've done for at least some for it, and then people are gonna believe what they're gonna believe. There's a certain % of people who can't be swayed by anything true or false though, and only the wars end and time could possibly change their minds. Sucks, but can't go backwards, only forwards.
Trooper117 Posted June 9 Posted June 9 Might as well close this thread... we all know why things are as they are, anyone with more than two braincells can work it out.
GOA_Karaya_VR Posted June 9 Posted June 9 I'm shocked for the Drone model issue, to me that was new, i never notice that 9gigs of the Korea project was leaked and that model and the hud was on it, and also on this forum all of it was this exposed.
Aapje Posted June 9 Posted June 9 9 hours ago, Vishnu said: I fall into the undecided. I’m not into Korea. I’m a WWII junkie. There are many links between the two, because lots of the equipment was used in both wars, including planes and carriers. You can probably even ignore the jets and play a decent career, especially if you are into ground-pounding. 2
AEthelraedUnraed Posted June 10 Posted June 10 9 hours ago, GOA_Karaya_VR said: I'm shocked for the Drone model issue, to me that was new, i never notice that 9gigs of the Korea project was leaked and that model and the hud was on it, and also on this forum all of it was this exposed. Old news and long-since clarified by the Devs: "We don’t have any military contracts and never had. Our only activity is making video games. Drone model is just part of another battlefield-like game prototype, which was developed to clarify if we were able to create content for such genre. Perhaps, one day it will turn out into a full-scale game like this 12 year old tank prototype has become foundation for our Tank Crew game."
Avimimus Posted June 10 Posted June 10 On that note, I'm locking the thread for now - as it seems like the topic has run itself out to a logical conclusion. If anyone wants it re-opened they can send a direct message to a moderator or the community manager. *edit* On second thought, I'll leave it unlocked - as there doesn't seem to be a particular need to lock it if it is dying of its own accord.
Enceladus828 Posted June 10 Posted June 10 On 6/6/2025 at 4:15 PM, Avimimus said: In my opinion, the Pacific is big enough for more than one flight sim and there are initial indications that the Pacific flight simulators will not overlap (at least not for the first modules released). I think it is good to have more than one flight sim company considering the Pacific, and the risk of competition is somewhat overstated. Agree, there are a number of places in the Pacific where there is bound to be overlap like the Solomons and New Guinea but as long as one team includes elements that are not in the other like flyable heavy bombers, more aircraft including AI or covering a different timeframe then there’s no issue. With WW1, there is enough demand to continue the series in the Korea engine with a pre-1916 timeframe or other fronts like Galicia or the Italian. FC3 wouldn’t have quickly followed FC2 nor would Paris have been modelled in FC4 if it wasn’t really profitable. 🙂
Mysticpuma Posted June 10 Author Posted June 10 Personally, the first team to bring a flywable B-25 to a Sim, that's the one that will gain my attention. Bomber and strafer, great all rounder...had hoped for it in BoX, but maybe the Pacific will unleash it's capabilities 🙏 1
Hoss Posted June 10 Posted June 10 He clearly states the issue is about a certain war going on at the moment, and people's choice to boycott products developed by the side that sits on the eastern side of the front lines. I find the whole thing comical to talk about boycotting a developer who's game you are already playing. If one feels that strongly about things developed by the country further to the east, then by all means uninstall all iterations of IL2 from your computer, and really show your outrage over the situation...... Ludicrous....... My only beef is there will be no carrier operations in the game... it's nuckin futs.... 1 1
Trooper117 Posted June 10 Posted June 10 6 minutes ago, Hoss said: My only beef is there will be no carrier operations in the game.. There will be... it'll come in another dlc.
HazMatt Posted June 10 Posted June 10 Thanks for leaving it unlocked so I could comment. I don't make any decisions on games based on anything going on in the world. Would I have to order at a restaurant based on the political persuasions of the country that the fish came from or the country that raised the beef? Heck so much stuff is made in China these days that if I had a problem with them I wouldn't be able to buy hardly anything. That said, I can't bring myself to get excited about Korea. Something in the pacific, China vs Japan, Solomon's, France, Africa would be way more interesting to me.
Avimimus Posted June 10 Posted June 10 1 hour ago, Hoss said: He clearly states the issue is about a certain war going on at the moment, and people's choice to boycott products developed by the side that sits on the eastern side of the front lines. ...and it is worth noting that both major combat flight simulators have both Russian and International team members. 7 minutes ago, HazMatt said: Would I have to order at a restaurant based on the political persuasions of the country that the fish came from or the country that raised the beef? It is tricky in highly integrated economies. The last time this came up someone quoted the old 'there is no ethical consumption under capitalism'. That said there are cases where boycotts might make sense because making the product is harmful, the product itself is causing harms, or the profits are being used by people you want to stop. Given that this is the only sim in a quarter century to try to model the Korean war, and that 2/3rds of the aircraft are American (and lovingly recreated by a team intent on preserving history), and this sim is important to preserving interest in that history for us as well ...it doesn't make sense to me to undermine it simply because of decisions made by the leaders of the country the developers are from. But I understand that people may feel strongly, and no one is forced to buy anything. 1
Aapje Posted June 10 Posted June 10 3 hours ago, Enceladus828 said: With WW1, there is enough demand to continue the series in the Korea engine with a pre-1916 timeframe or other fronts like Galicia or the Italian. FC3 wouldn’t have quickly followed FC2 nor would Paris have been modelled in FC4 if it wasn’t really profitable. 🙂 Flying Circus saves costs by having one big shared map, while the modules are more like plane sets. So that kind of cost-cutting is not exactly evidence of huge expected sales, I think.
Enceladus828 Posted June 11 Posted June 11 19 hours ago, Aapje said: Flying Circus saves costs by having one big shared map, while the modules are more like plane sets. So that kind of cost-cutting is not exactly evidence of huge expected sales, I think. Yes, it is limited to one map but chunks of that map were released in every installment so there is still more work put into each module than simply adding planes. Anyway, this more than likely did not have the same amount of sales as BoN but the series still sold well enough for FC3 to quickly follow FC2 instead of a hiatus and for Paris to be modelled. Those kinds of things don't happen when sales are faltering. I'm tired of hearing that. Flying Circus has shown that there is an appetite for WW1 by flight simmers and would make sense to continue the series in the Korea engine, hopefully with Nieuports over Galicia and the Gulf of Venice. In all likelihood we didn't get the Channel Map because the devs have moved onto that engine. 1
1CGS LukeFF Posted June 11 1CGS Posted June 11 Guys, this is not a discussion about Flying Circus. 1 1
ZachariasX Posted August 5 Posted August 5 (edited) On 6/10/2025 at 8:01 AM, AEthelraedUnraed said: Old news and long-since clarified by the Devs: "We don’t have any military contracts and never had. Further clarification: In russia, there supposedly is a „Cyberphysical Platform Berloga“, where kids learn to pilot FPV drones foryouknowwhat. And simulating drones supposedly has happened there but only from individuals not acting on company orders, honestly. https://x.com/United24media/status/1952373830812422451 Edited August 5 by ZachariasX
AEthelraedUnraed Posted August 5 Posted August 5 (edited) 30 minutes ago, ZachariasX said: Further clarification: In russia, there supposedly is a „Cyberphysical Platform Berloga“, where kids learn to pilot FPV drones foryouknowwhat. And simulating drones supposedly has happened there but only from individuals not acting on company orders, honestly. https://x.com/United24media/status/1952373830812422451 And how does this have anything to do with IL2? If a military drone simulator already exists, it only proves 1CGS' point that the drone they developed wasn't for military purposes. PS note that another 1CGS team has developed an FPS while IL2 has playable tanks. If there's *any* studio that has the ready in-house knowledge to develop a realistic "battlefield-like" combined arms game, it's them. Edited August 5 by AEthelraedUnraed
Recommended Posts