Brief Room Episode 3 went up on Friday and now that I’ve had a chance to listen in on the responses I’ve got a brief summary of some of the key points. Check it out below.

The episode and summary

You can watch the video above for the full context and all of the questions answered. I’ve focused in on some of the highlights that I think may catch folks attention. There are some interesting revelations so lets get to it.

The “new project”

First, there’s plenty of talk about the “new project” which for now remains untitled. We have confirmations of new technology for the project with DirectX 12 confirmed as the API of choice.

Other new technology being implemented includes a new damage model that will have more systems simulated (including turbochargers) and a greater range of subsystems that can be affected by damage. They will also be making visual improvements that show off these damage effects visually. Additionally, there was discussion about adding API bullets to Great Battles and the answer is no for that sim but yes for the new sim – apparently Great Battles damage system doesn’t have a means for incendiary bullets to cause incendiary type damage such as increased chance of fuel tank fire.

A new career mode with more player control over the squadron was also mentioned. Additional tasks as Unit or Regiment Commander (titles the used) would have you do things that include managing fuel and supply for the unit.

The new project will also support AI with a simplified system that will allow for formations of large bombers to be in the project without the associated performance hit. They did confirm that the large bombers are not planned to be flyable at this point.

Early on they also revealed that their follow on project, the one after the “new project,” will be in the Pacific somewhere with several references across the Q&A to everything from carrier operations to amphibious aircraft.

Great Battles answers

There were also interesting reveals and questions answered about Great Battles.

We already learned, in the previous video, that several new aircraft were planned and that list seems to have grown a bit. In addition to the Spitfire IXc, Ta152, and I-153 that are confirmed, we are also likely to see the Ju-87D-5, Yak-3, La-7 with the possibility that the IL-10, Tu-2 (which sounded like 22 in the discussion but in the comments appears to be the Tu-2), Fw190A-9 and Bf110F-2 as all being possible.

Some of these aircraft are being added outside of the Career mode as they feel that they are popular airplanes for online battles.

There was a question about the B-25 and B-26 becoming flyable. They said that they don’t think they will be at the current time due to their complexity, however, the B-25 was a possibility for their future Pacific based title. The same answer was given when asked about the potential for an IL-4.

AQMB features are going to be added to the Flying Circus map at some point in the future with indications that it would come after the next Volume was complete.

Finally, two other items that I noted that were of interest. First, a revision to the P-40E and its engine timer issues with the potential for a modification or a later engine model being used to increase its available power/engine timer limit. This update is possibly coming at the end of the winter. The second, a new look at the P-47 and its flight model happening in the first half of the year.

Interesting stuff

It looks like at this point that Great Battles is lined-up for another year worth of content that includes a fair number of Collector Planes, Flying Circus content, and the chances at fixing some remaining issues with the current sim while the team continues to work towards the next project.

Even more interesting is the mention that the project after would be a Pacific based sim. It seems to be the direction that a lot of the industry is moving in right now with Combat Pilot, DCS World, and now seemingly 1CGS tackling the area. Some changes to how they are approaching this from before must be in place as we’ve been told for many years that the sources for certain aircraft were just not possible for the 1CGS team to go on and create. Whatever the case is … that seems to be the direction though I don’t think we’ll be talking about that realistically until the latter half of the 2020s.

Stay tuned as always!


17 responses to “IL-2 developers answer community questions, a summary”

  1. Interesting play on the Pacific front isn’t it esp with Jason’s departure and subsequent project (Combat Pilot)

    Like

    1. It’s very interesting, especially given the alleged disagreements between Jason and Il-2 developers about not doing the Pacific years ago.

      https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/84368-pacific-ww2-sim-combat-pilot/?do=findComment&comment=1271384

      I’m curious about what really happened behind the scenes.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. ShamrockOneFive Avatar
        ShamrockOneFive

        It’s definitely an unexpected development.

        Like

      2. Hazarding a guess:
        – Things were going a bit south
        – Disagreements over where to focus with possibly unwillingness from Russian elements to focus on another West vs. Axis plus potential issues with carriers, Japanese aircraft data
        – Post-Jason, team re-evaluates and decide it is possible and would be potentially profitable, but will require quite some work
        – Korea chosen as more limited / less-ambitious middle step for new engine / tech etc.

        But No One Will Ever Know…

        Mixed PR here. Still unsure why they feel the need for secrecy. If longer term is Pacific and all evidence for intermediary is Korea, which hide the latter? No one expects a detailed feature list as of Jan. 2024.

        Like

      3. It’s a cultural thing. I see the same in other games developed there – secrecy is an impulse. Gaijin is notorious for, let’s say, playing their cards close to their chest. C’est la difference!

        Like

  2. As for going on to the Pacific next, competition is always good. Hopefully it will push the development teams to put out their best efforts. But I suppose most of us will buy both flight sims anyway.

    Like

  3. It’ll be interesting to see if this new Pacific title ends up competing with Combat Pilot.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. This was already said by Han a year ago…

    They literally said Pacific will come after the next installment.

    And we should not be sad if it was not Pacific just yet, as the theater would be interesting nevertheless.

    Like

    1. ShamrockOneFive Avatar
      ShamrockOneFive

      Really? I don’t remember that.

      It’ll be interesting to see three different takes on the same thing.

      Like

      1. Thanks for the review. So is it Korea or not?

        Like

      2. ShamrockOneFive Avatar
        ShamrockOneFive

        They are still calling it “the new project.” The aircraft we’ve seen, however, point to the 1950-53 Korean War era. It’d be great if they formally announced it.

        Like

  5. I know right? It’s pretty obvious. Announce it properly. Build some hype. Bring in new customers. Grow the game and the hobby!

    Like

  6. IL2 needs at least ai B17/24 to complete bomber interception in ETO. Remember the Luftwaffe’s primary role was Defense of the Reich in 1943-1945.

    Like

    1. ShamrockOneFive Avatar
      ShamrockOneFive

      Oh I know the history of it well.

      The problem for this sim has been threefold: 1) Even mid sized bombers incur a significant AI hit meaning even small groups of medium bombers can slow down the sim. Large formations of heavies would be more problematic. 2) Developing said bombers appears to have been considered cost prohibitive. 3) The size of the maps hasn’t been fully condusive with flying a full B-17 or B-24 raid. AI only aircraft would be an option in my mind but I’m told that they are still 2/3rds the effort and so we go back to the cost thing.

      So what IL-2 has done is focus on the tactical air war. That has been its strength and it does it well. Sometimes I feel that the RAF 2nd TAF and USAAF 9th AF tales are less well told and the sim is doing a good job of bringing them to light. But I get the desire to intercept/escort some high flying heavies too.

      Things may go better with the new sim from the looks of things.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. I find their reasoning for not doing Sicily because it’s too urban complete BS. The map, likely stretching as far west as northern Tunisia, maybe a bit more, and as far north as southern Italy near Reggio Calabria, would mostly be open sea. The reasoning cannot be that this wouldn’t sell to a Russian audience because the Invasion of Sicily caused German forces to be diverted away during the Battle of Kursk.
    My guess is that the devs don’t know much about early to mid 1943 in the MTO and considerable time and resources would have to be spent on researching this or Korea would sell much better than Sicily.

    Novice/Enceladus

    Liked by 1 person

    1. ShamrockOneFive Avatar
      ShamrockOneFive

      It did strike me as an odd answer too with other dense urban areas paired down for gameplay purposes and frankly it seemed fairly well done though I know some folks want to see the Rhineland map beefed up – the design decision was the right one.

      Like

      1. With a new engine or new tech, it’s possible that they’re aiming for a higher quality standards, or maybe certain systems became incompatible without major rework.

        Like

Leave a reply to Fuddler Cancel reply

Trending