Interesting reveals in 1CGS podcast summary

A member of the IL-2 Great Battles team has recently gone on a Russian speaking podcast to talk about some of the projects that the studio are currently working on. Most of the podcast is apparently not about IL-2, however, Sneaksie on the IL-2 forums has presented us with some highlights that do concern IL-2. There are some interesting revelations both of the “that’s interesting” and the “that’s very interesting” kind. Let’s have a look!

Interesting and then more interesting

Posted to the IL-2 forums earlier today, Sneaksie from the 1CGS team gives us some translated details on what Han recently had to say on a Russian speaking podcast. The podcast was not IL-2 focused but it did reveal some interesting information.

There are some interesting notes such as the original project management chart from the Rise of Flight days wrapping around the office in 8-point font. We learn that the team once considered a move to a commercial engine but decided against it. The decision to not include Moscow on the Moscow map was largely borne out of the fear that it would bog down the project much like creating London did for Cliffs of Dover. We also learn a few fun to know facts like Daniel’s favourite airplane is the MiG-3 and Albert’s is the P-39.

There’s also some more consequential reveals. The first concerns Marshall-mode for multiplayer.

Marshall multiplayer mode was a very ambitious idea (it is basically an online players’ dream), but after half a year working on the project, it became evident it is too hard to develop. Unfortunately it would have been better to put it on hold right away. Then Covid hit and eventually Marshall was stopped. This is even more frustrating because the system was almost finished (in beta-testing stage), but there were many performance problems and bugs caused by its complexity and reliance on network stability and speed. All in all, this system is very complex and hard to implement.

Going by this statement, it would appear that Marshall mode may not be coming or at least not any time soon. The full scope of what it would be able to do was still somewhat uncertain and so we may never completely know what we might have missed out on.

There’s also some talk about aircraft carriers which will surely cause some folks to pay close attention. Here’s what Sneaksie wrote:

Unlike other modern sims where an aircraft carrier, if modeled, is a small fraction of the whole product and any shortcomings of its modeling don’t affect the quality of the whole sim, in the case of an integral, all-in-one BoX title about the war in the Pacific EVERYTHING should revolve around carrier operations and a carrier is ought to be its central part. This means that any shortcomings of the carrier modeling and interaction with it, any performance and other issues that may arise become super-critical, jeopardizing the whole product. In the current situation this makes it a huge risk we can’t afford to spend 3 years on.

This makes some logical sense. If carrier modeling lives up to standards and works well for players then it would be a key component of the experience. If it fails in some way then it could jeopardize the success of the product.

I don’t know if this is intended to steer us away from hopes of a Pacific expansion or simply suggest that carriers wouldn’t necessarily be the focus of a Pacific expansion. It’s hard to know at this point. The series could still do something like the air war over New Guinea without needing to bring carriers into the mix. Even the battle up “The Slot” in the Solomon islands doesn’t specifically require carriers and could make them a sideshow to mitigate the risk.

No doubt there will also be a feeling by many reading this that a Pacific scenario may just not be in the cards right now and I’d be hard to disagree. Still, hope springs eternal for the day that it does.

Finally, an interesting comment was made regarding the departure of Andrey (An.Petrovich) Solomykin (who is now working with Asobo). This one is intended to reassure us that the team is able to continue on despite this relatively high profile departure.

AnPetrovich leaving the company won’t affect our plans because little has changed actually – for the last 1.5 years he worked on an isolated part of the product. We have a strong engineering team that is currently being replenished with new members. The new engineer lead is Roman, you may know him as Gavrick on the forums.

Finally, we’ve learned from this summary that we’ll likely have the Churchill tank available to us in just a couple of weeks.

Read the whole thread right here!


30 Comments Add yours

  1. Novice-Flyer says:

    My interpretation of the Pacific comment is no carriers = no Pacific. That to me is BS, it’s like saying no heavy bombers like the B-17, B-24 or Lancaster, or Drop Tanks = no doing late war Western Front. Well, the devs have been able to do just that with medium bombers and without Drop Tanks.

    A Guadalcanal installment would work out very well as the first Pacific battle and would be able to get lots of things out of the way so that the task of making carriers is much easier than if a carrier battle was the first Pacific battle.
    It’s time for the Pacific.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. steelcitygator says:

      Agree. I don’t have all the models currently but only more WW1 (hopefully, well, midwar technically but early as flight sims go) and Pacific are the only ones that are really gunna get me juiced for future installments.

      That or an early cold war game.


  2. Stewmanji says:

    I just have a really hard time understanding what level of complexity/modeling they’re envisioning for pacific carriers that is so insurmountable as to render the prospects of the project nigh-impossible.

    I found myself watching Enigma’s IL2:1946 pacific theater video on YouTube the other day, and I was just blown away by how much developers of the time accomplished with the “core game” as compared to now.

    Perhaps I’m being naïve, but I think in this case, developers are letting the quest for perfection be the enemy of the good. Wouldn’t most in the community take a 75% “finished” WWII pacific carrier campaign over nothing? Wouldn’t we take a less realistic B-17 in Bodenplate or Normandy over nothing?

    I understand that modern software/game development is likely significantly more complex than it was two decades ago, but it’s just mind-boggling that the depth of the game engines/worlds offered by BMS and IL-2: 1946 continue to be so far ahead of modern sims. Don’t get me wrong, I love new cloud systems and lighting effects, but I’d trade those in for a functional AI ATC or more diversity in aircraft/mission types/theaters in a heartbeat.

    All that said, thanks for sharing this info!


    Liked by 5 people

    1. ShamrockOneFive says:

      Thanks for sharing your comments Stew! None of us know what their vision is for this area so yeah its hard to comment specifically. I agree that sometimes modeling to such a high level sometimes means that you stop doing something where a 75% solution would be very satisfactory.

      I was blown away by Aces of the Pacific back in 1991 and the carrier experience there. It was very simplistic but there were wires to catch and a LSO would wave you in with a little icon in the top corner. Sometimes I think that’d be enough.

      Liked by 4 people

  3. spreckair says:

    I have to wonder if IL-2 is heading toward an endpoint. If modeling all of the air war in WWII is not the goal, where else will 1CGS go? Will there be much left that will make money?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Colin says:

    Hi Shamrock.

    Have a couple of concerns now that are quite worrying. We know 1CGS are mostly Russian guys and with all that’s going on with this world just now I hope they are getting paid properly?

    Nobody wants to talk of this but its all at the back of our minds, President Vladimir Putin is rattling Nuclear weapon drums again and that should alarm absolutely everyone. When the Ukrainian invasion was proposed and Putin massed at their borders, even I hoped it was just a political military sabre rattling exercise but we were proved wrong … not that it matters now because its happened but I have good friends in Ukraine.

    When out of control world leaders start talking of seriously using Nukes, even tactical mini nukes on Ukraine, we all perhaps need to stop, take stock of where things are really going and digest whats going on in the real world.

    Again, not having a go at 1CGGS guys (more worried of their safety than mine) or even Jason, nobody wanted this threat of war with Nukes, and it will impact on everything we do, it cant be ignored.

    God help us all over Putins latest nuclear threats.


    1. ShamrockOneFive says:

      Hi Colin. Yes, the state of the world right now is gravely concerning. It hits close to home for nearly all of us… or maybe truly all of us.

      With two significant flight sim companies coming from Russia and with developers and artists who hail from both Russia and Ukraine there are definite real world impacts on our hobby.

      I am choosing to not focus on that here with Stormbirds. I have brought it up from time to time but for me this is an escape from a very difficult reality. I did that with the pandemic and am doing that with this damned war too.

      It is hard to focus on the fun things when this looms over us. But I think we do have to borrow a bit of the Blitz mentality and keep calm and carry on. Not from ignorance but from steely resolve.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. 1_Robert_ says:

        Good for you, I think that is a wise choice. There are more than enough other platforms for us to discuss this crazy world, I come here to get away from it.

        Thanks for the summary. Personally, I just don’t feel like we will see a Pacific theatre anytime soon and I worry a tad that there may not be much in the pipeline. I’m surprised we haven’t heard any substantial rumours on where the series is heading next. I hope I’m wrong and that there are still big new developments coming for the title.


  5. Colin says:

    No worries Shamrock, big concerns though and thanks.

    As regards the once promised Pacific theatre, it looks to me like they just don’t want to commit to it at all and have never liked the idea from day one. One early theory was suggested they don’t have enough accurate data on Japanese WW2 aircraft, but ?? they have enough on WW1 aircraft for two volumes that are far from complete and highly inaccurate going by their own forum feedback.

    I’m pretty sure we were fobbed off, and not for the first time IMHO.

    There is enough data out there on Pacific WW2 aircraft we all would love as is their much criticized WW1 Flying Circus vols 1 and 2, data, because we have big problems there …. if they can give us that and most are satisfied, why cant they give us equally inaccurate Pacific war scenario stats too? But if it cant be provided as in WW1 Flying Circus Vol one and two we are still waiting to flesh out properly, then why not Pacific Theatre too?

    At the end of the day, nobody is asking for 100% accuracy in any of their simulations, we all make compromises. some more than others.

    If they don’t do it soon, someone else will … Time does not stand still.

    Like you Sham, enjoyed early Pacific flight sims, 1942: The Pacific Air War by Microprose, it had an expansion pack too with strategy elements as I recall … great stuff : was it realistic, nope, but it was fun … 1CGS could do better but cant see that happening.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Urgent Siesta says:

    Saying that PTO must revolve around carriers is willfully ignorant. Or something…

    P-40s & Flying Tigers
    Pearl Harbor
    P-38s & Yamamoto.
    P-47s & Marianas.
    F4Fs & Guadalcanal
    F4U Corsairs were mainly land-based
    P-51s escorting SuperFortresses

    Are we seriously to believe that 1CGS can accurately re-manufacture Nazi wonder weapons but can’t somehow handle a straight deck escort carrier without even a catapult?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Urgent Siesta says:

      p.s.: saying we can’t have PTO without carriers is like saying we can’t have ETO without Battle of Britain…


    2. Robert Haynes says:

      Oh man, I forgot about China. That would be an amazing expansion.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Hawks5 says:

    To be honest, now that we have the Normandy map I’d be happy if they pumped out packs of aircraft we don’t currently have from either side that could be used over the channel spanning 1940-44 (in conjunction with PWCG). Of course I would love a Pacific BoX module like many others but that doesn’t seem likely.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Novice-Flyer says:

      At this point, I don’t think doing aircraft packs for pre 1944 Channel Map Ops would be viable, maybe as a Collector plane but not as a pack. The best option would be to do a battle with aircraft that also saw action over the Channel. For example, Battle of France, Battle of Sicily. The latter would be the better option as more people would be interested in flying the aircraft in that installment — Beaufighter, Spitfire VIII, flyable B-25, Kittyhawk II, and A-36, as well as the Italian birds and one German plane.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. ShamrockOneFive says:

        That sounds like my next dream wishlist 🙂


  8. Redwing says:

    I would not be surprised if the studio had to put everything on hold for a while, under current circumstances. They are after all a Russian company and western sanctions might get bigger in the near future…and there’s also the possibility for the devs to win a Adventure Trip to the south, at any time.

    I might buy something involving the Italian front, otherwise the content is getting boring. Hope the would fix some stuff (shimmering on the horizon for example), make coop playing easier, create a lobby and let the creative people in the community to build online wars like we had with the 1946, when there was easily 200-300 pilots online on daily basis even during the week.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. boxcarleader says:

    To me it just sounds like standard Russian excuses based of the same lame pattern of Vladimir Putin. These guys have been very un trustworthy for two expansions now. I stopped playing. Don’t get me wrong ED does it too but not so blatantly. If they don’t want to they won’t but they will let a third party do it. I believe the poster above is right. 1CGS will turn into a blizzard style company sitting on their lurals and another company will come in and do pacific and better than il2 then they will expand into Europe and pull the player base. It’s natural but anoying 1CGS has no were else to go DCS is diving into Vietnam era hard and fast and if they don’t do the Pacific 1CGS has noware to do because DCS does it better. Also if there not willing to make a workable carrier with what they have they are not going to put in the time or effort to make something from scratch.. I say rip 1CGS and based on their attitude good riddance


  10. Phil says:

    Pacific would be the next big arena, but there are two to three other battle arenas that are interesting, but forgotten:
    Middle East/North Africa – though, that is now covered by Desert Wings. Different platform, but still somewhat connected, so would cut into profit margins. Plus the plane selection would be not too different from the already existing one.

    Early France/BeNeLux – Rarely covered, maybe because it doesn’t have the valiant tone like BoB? Or because it is about an overall axis victory? It would allow for new nations with their unique designs, while adding in some of the first ever variants of later fighter/bomber icons from established nations. With those early variants, some of the existing maps could still be used, as those early variants didn’t just disappear right away.

    Spain – Similar to above, another area that was instrumental in WWII aviation development/history, but somehow gets completely sidelined in WWII simulation space. It would have less of a national unique feel for aircraft, but it would gain a massive amount of possible aircraft from all kinds of nations (esp. Republican forces are a complete mix, US, British, Russian, French, Dutch, Czech, Nationalist mostly German + Italian), as so many nations used that conflict to test their designs, that would either wither or become well known in WWII.

    Personally, Spain would be great to see, as it is just so underrepresented and has a ton of aircraft in their earliest form or outright unique that would not be available in any other scenario.
    More realistic with a slightly wider appeal would be France/BeNeLux, though off course still not as much as Pacific.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Robert Haynes says:

      I would love to see Spain for all the reasons you listed. I think if the Pacific is out (cry) then the next most likely place would be Italy. There are already some Italian aircraft in the game, it’s very interesting terrain.

      But at this point, who knows?


      1. Phil says:

        Oh right, Italy is still an option, close to Middle East/Africa, but far enough to not take away from Desert Wings in terms of timeframe and somewhat location.

        Another almost never touched arena is actually the early Soviet-Japanese clashes e.g. Kalkin Gol.


  11. HBPencil says:

    Slightly off topic but it has struck me that the thread about this topic over on the GB forum is generating a lot of comments with plenty of supposition, theorising and heated debate yet the devs and admin have been dead silent about the whole thing so far, giving space for (parts of) the player base to fill it with theories and work itself into a frenzy.
    Maybe I’m over thinking it but I feel the devs should perhaps issue some clarifications or explanations.


  12. Robert Haynes says:

    I want to know what they consider an acceptable carrier implementation to be. For me, I just want something that moves and lets you catch a wire. I don’t need deck crew (although they are neat), I don’t need working elevators, I don’t need recovery operations.

    I would be surprised if anyone else would really be upset about missing any of these features either. I fly off carriers in DCS pretty exclusively, and while I like the supercarrier, the regular carrier was perfectly fine. I wouldn’t have wanted to miss out on an F-14 just because Eagle Dynamics wanted an LSO station.


  13. Tim says:

    That is very sad news on the pacific. I have been waiting years. Just give us a moving runway target in the ocean. Upgrade it as time permits. I think those who want a pacific scenario would gladly put up with inadaquasys of this to have this favorite area to engage.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Uncle Belly says:

    Great obsession with pacific with most of the folks . Burma with all it entails would be amazing …the forgotten war by this community. Italian planes over Italy Sicily …love to see North Africa but we know there is a product already but hope springs eternal …early war Battle of Britain …I know…cliffs of Dover……late war on eastern front would be cool …..earlier war flying circus would be magnificent ….
    Also it would be fantastic to play out the heavy bombers such as the Lancaster and such ….il2 is a fantastic sim …..tank crew there’s room there to include much more and infantry …to a point. I would love the East Asian war to included but the obsession with pacific ? It wasn’t just there was it… I think we can forget midway ….move on folks there’s more than the pacific


    1. ShamrockOneFive says:

      There are quite a few scenarios left, I agree. Pacific obviously did include aircraft carriers but the battles in New Guinea, up the Slot, and in the CBI theatre are other spaces they could potentially go to.

      We’ll find out eventually!


      1. Uncle Belly says:

        Hi shamrock …yes indeed New Guinea Burma as well I’m guessing late eastern front then something with a Rosta of Italian planes then the heavy allied bombers ……… circus vol 3 three surely. Let’s hope the chaos in Ukraine and Russia does not disrupt the wonderful series too much and fingers crossed now Normandy is released we may soon get news of the next 2ww time front

        Liked by 1 person

  15. busdriver says:

    I don’t think they have a plan for advancing this franchise (at least in terms of appealing to Western consumers). Another chapter promoting the glory of the USSR makes sense and is low-hanging fruit. The reality of life in Moscow and the possibility of getting drafted to serve as cannon fodder are probably distractions. I would be very surprised if Jason isn’t exploring other career options. I would not be surprised if some of the Dev team were making their way out of mother Russia.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Alex says:

      Russians I know, while on a panic attack last week, have calmed down as they dont think mobilization will go beyond reserves otherwise their putinist media will flip out which isn’t what the regime wants. i expect the il2 team to be thinking the same, and along with the entire world pray and hope the war of aggression and the murder ends soon. i suspect it will turn out with a dmz like the korean peninsula, unfortunate but preferable to, you know, world war 3. then putin goes the way of his soviet predecessors and in 10 years hope things are set right when the next leader comes – as by then most of these chekist leftovers from USSR will be in nursing homes.

      agree though late war east front sounds likely, but i am hoping for at least ground based pacific if carriers are not happening.


    2. ShamrockOneFive says:

      Yeah, I suspect it’s going to be a turbulent time for a while yet. I also wouldn’t be surprised if we make a return to the eastern front.


  16. Blue 5 says:

    AGS map 1941-44? Could have, I don’t know, Kharkov, Kherson, Izyum. Possibly even to the gates of Kiev but not actually in the city.

    Just an idea.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s