Majakowski

If other games with limited fidelity are priced at 70 Euros and can still be sustained with sales a fraction of that price, I have no worries that a higher fidelity game can be made and be economically viable given that the far reaching wishes are articulated, digested and readied for implementation at an earliest possible stage thus preventing the need to disassemble an already done but limited product for retrofitting functionalities that once were put aside but suddenly become necessary because of some competition having the bright idea of implementing it. I mean, why are we loitering here? Certainly not because we look for compromises before we even know what's in the realm of possibilities. Creating an extensive foundation is a one time effort but one that will pay in the long run. More fidelity will also be easier to handle with a new engine that is made for it from the ground up instead of trying to pull a container ship with a rowboat. Let the devs decide what is viable, we as customers have a uniform interest and this is to get "the whole package", that is what has been announced, this is what we signed up for, we did not come because Jason promised us mediocrity and compromise that rests solely on a temporary constraint (in terms of hardware cost). If we wanted another iteration of a certain product on the grounds of "sorry more isn't possible" then we'd already have it. Time to shed the the old mind blockades, this genre is old and mature enough to provide us the maximal experience. We are not sailing into a virgin sea anymore but are ploughing through a canal between well charted wreckage. All we need to do is take an inexpensive look at the wrecks and logbooks to see what is to be avoided and which course to take and not bother with the details of navigation for we as paying passengers only want to come to our destination. Looking for compromises before the other side has even taken a definite position on a matter has the ugly consequence of lowering the bar of what is possible to what'd be enough.

Aircraft have a certain amount of custom actions that can be defined and hotkeys assigned to. Thus certain extra functions can be incorporated into planes from the beginning or a player input can be used to trigger other actions when a mission is designed in the mission editor. For example: user defined action 1 - 9, key bindings defined, say the number keys 1 - 9 and then via mission editing the action can be given a name like user defined action 1 -> "throw messenger bag" or "transmit radio message" Each action has an "output node" from which a path of actions can be triggered in mission editing. The mission editor can thus easily recreate scenarios that require a certain player input but for which there is no native functionality given out of the box.

Who would buy a game that features only two airplanes and then only air starts with no scenery at all? I certainly wouldn't and would wait until proper content is there. Problem is that all people who will wait for proper content wouldn't earn the company money in the meantime. We are not talking about an internal prototype featuring two boxes swirling around in the void to just test the feasibility of a basic idea but a game that is bound to gain traction from offering a rich experience and will heavily depend on how its introduction into the market will be received. And leaving out practically all the enthusiasts that are there for more than some warthunder skirmish will certainly be seen as a kick in the bowels and immediately destroy all trust in the company.

The water surface tells the pilot about wind velocity and direction so he can roughly estimate wind drift for navigation and, in case of seaplanes, it is important when choosing direction for takeoff and landing.

@Lusekofte And never ask of it like "if it is implemented.." but rather "when you implement it, will you consider..." just to get some mental conditioning. It is hard work for us, too!

A map is based on a part of a sphere like it is with the earth. Thus spotting enemy ships could be facilitated by seeing the funnel smoke creeping over the horizon in the correct distance based on altitude flown instead of resorting to haze or specks popping in. Also maybe this could be helpful in connecting theatres or making a seamless map where the player, flying beyond the intended map range, just runs out of gas on empty sea instead of hitting an invisible wall.

That was deliberately wrong, was it?

@charon The bombardier should of course be in the hands of the player or human crew member unless there is an intelligent way to "tell" him where to aim like pointing on a point on the map/bombardier view or by "padlocking" a certain ship if the target is to be a specific object. Then the pilot could either adjust his path according to the bombardier or switch control to him altogether which disengages after dropping. Shouldn't be impossible as it is what AI is already doing anyway, in the case of bombardier advising the pilot on course, it would just necessitate to "vocalize" the correction moves for the player to act upon instead of using it as input for the steering logic.

Regarding humans I think some idle low poly officers on the carrier island catwalks and of course on the AA guns would make for great immersion. The officers could (or should) disappear when the ship is attacked. Also some randomly toiling shore personnel to make the target feel more alive would be great but not something overly complex, just a little for the atmosphere, after all unless the focus will be on close air support, the only times you see people are on the home base and briefly over the target running away from what's about to get them. It would be great if strafing the AA guns of a destroyer, freighter or carrier would actually silence their fire thus providing for scenarios like the battle of the Bismarck Sea.

@Lusekofte and Gambit21: Prove it by solving the following extremely difficult mysteries: 1) 🤴🎣 2)🐈‍⬛ 3) 4)

@ÆþelrædUnræd Then I misunderstood your post, sorry for that. Also I did not advocate for dumbing down an editor, just for rearranging some functionalities to come around more intuitively. I am always for maximum functionality but also for ergonomic usability. It shouldn't be a chore.

@ÆþelrædUnræd I did not say, the Il2 ME was deliberately bad but that creating one that is for the sake of keeping certain people out, would be unnecessarily cruel. I know what can be done in the Il2 mission builder and am not opposed to a certain complexity or even using a sript or programming language tonget things done, I scripted in Operation Flashpoint back in the day and I had much fun with it. But if it must be complex and rudimentary in what can be done with relative ease, then at least it should provide for some of the most basic features, that other editors in the industry are doing for ages. I happily work with the MCU system of the Il2 ME but then it should be implemented in a way that isn't like trying to build a staircase out of matches when others have boards and bricks available. I have not said, that the functionality should be limited for sake of ease but rather that the functions should be streamlined into as less hassle as possible. Why not add a native probability or placement radius option to a spawn or waypoint in addition to timers and other MCUs that could also provide such a functionality if one chooses? Also the Il2 1946 editor has shortcomings in that you can't easily build convois. But all those are things that could finally be ironed out by combining the strengths of these things while avoiding the errors made in them.

My journey started in time immemorial at my cousin's PC in the late 90s who had "all the games" and one of it was "Aces of the Pacific" from Sierra that I still played well after the year 2000 on my old DOS and Windows 3.1 PC. This game together with TV documentaries and movies shaped my life or at least my main interests hobbywise. I remember when some certain TV show made "the Pacific war in colour" and all this technicolor footage of AA tracers, the scenes of dive bombers in formation and so on. When I was a small child I got a present from my grandparents, a 1/48th scale PBY Catalina. Those were my formative years, I can tell you! I set it together with all the parts and all the decals because I didn't know what I was doing then and was "optional" meant, in the end it was the Cansocatalina of the Royal U.S. Armee de l'air lol Much time has passed since then and along with it I (alongside many other enthusiasts) not only lived through all the iterations of combat flight simulation and the ups and downs of the all Il2 branches but also almost literally ate books on the PTO and aviation in general. Inside the realm of my possibilities (not being in the US so no entry to the necessary archives) I digged out some archeologist's paper who went to Saipan to research the operation of seaplane bases, a topic on which very little documentation was made even by the U.S. Navy, survived or was published and where he set out to determine the fate of a certain individual PBM Mariner, lying on the seafloor there, discussing and researching operational details, layout of the base nearly all from what lays and stands there rusting away and so on. I was fascinated by this because it opened a whole new universe of environmental impact and organizational considerations behind flight operations that before lay essentially in a murky haze that simply isn't portrayed anywhere or only very sparsely and at best only by those who lived through it. And mostly on a level that is comparable to telling about taking the trash out, which is only remembered and documented when breaking your leg while doing it. My early preoccupation with the "famous" and "most powerful" planes has subsided considerably over time and today you can view me as an enthusiast for the "obscurities" that always tend to be ignored inspite of being of vital importance. Before I was like "meh" and not interested at all whenever a plane had two sets of wings or wasn't featured in the movies and documentaries. That has turned into the full opposite. Not the most talented fighter pilot anyway and with a rather low tolerance for being put against impossible odds, I came to embrace the "auxiliary" but nonetheless necessary aspects of flying. Also the "boring" ones. Playing a career as patrol or air-sea rescue pilot or hunting subs as convoi protection would amount to a dream being fulfilled especially since I got to know the importance of all these - until now neglected in flight simulation - duties. I would be happy to help if I can, if some informations are being looked for, then at least my decades long immersion in this field of interest wasn't all for naught. Maybe I myself stumble upon new information and sources like it so often happens when engaging in a community of enthusiasts.

Good Flightsim AI should still be a "relatively easy" (not to be meant in a derogatory sense) problem to solve if only the appropriate amount of dedication and work is put into it (as everything in life is just a function of directed energy), regarding the amount of documented problems that already exist (like crashing into the ground, making bombing runs without bombs, lingering in flak area and so on). Also much can be learned from the biographies like...I think Dick Best was it who said that when dive bombing, approach from the bow so the movement of the ship forces you to steepen your dive, thus your drop will be more accurate. Things like this could act as templates for certain skill levels. Also the nature of the weapons employed calls for a finite amount of possibilities (speed, altitude, course) there are. No need for complex maneuvres in a torpedo run aside from the hammer-anvil distribution and maybe a reaction to target course changes, then making a run for it which is a simple thought of getting away furthest possible, fastest possible, then gather the unit again and head for home. I don't claim, making AI would be an easy task anybody can do at the kitchen table, don't get me wrong but we do have an enormous amount of data on which to act upon, either from the real world workings as well as the failures in implementation in other simulations. Also I think it should be taken into account that combat flying consisted for the main part of unit tactics rather than x amount of individual single pilots acting independently. So the AI should be made to think of what the formation is doing and an overzealous player attacking an enemy formation alone to get up his kill list should be punished by a cooperating and communicating enemy that ruins his day immediately instead of the need for every AI plane to be an expert that matches each of the player's actions as low pilot quality was a fact for both sides at varying points in the war and, sure, the player who played flightsim for 20 years has more experience than an AI pilot who is supposed to be at the front since 6 months so part of the discussion must be to inhibit the player in some way by implementing disciplinary aspects for reckless behaviour for example or relegating him to be a wingman with all duties and needs fornself-inhibition that come with it. A must have for our computer comrades of both field post numbers is the will to live. So instead of slugging it out to the bitter end, a competent AI should assess its surroundings and call RTB when the odds are that staying amounts to suicide without anything being accomplished. But also the player should be taken into consideration. Disobeying the call for RTB of his unit leader should be awarded with him being grounded for the next missions. Diverging from his formation also should have consequences so that the player gets a sense for being inside a unit and hierarchy that accomplishes its goals through many acting as one instead of each on his own. Also a point for AI aside from implementing flawless text book maneuvres should be a human factor like cowardice, surprise, disorientation or panic. Sakai had a great narrative on his flight where he was badly wounded, saying that he was in a daze and changed his decisions on wether to sacrifice himself or RTB multiple times. We can see that instead of speculating what a plane is technically able to pull off, the AI should orient itself on documented pilot behaviour. It wasn't that the US pilots were all Richthofens after 1942 but it was that new tactics and numerical and technical superiority as well as the implementation of real experiences into pilot training that ensured the Japanese demise even with average American pilots. Then if we have the same principles for the own AI, we can ensure that air combat just feels right without individual human pilots being able to rampage through the enemy lines with impunity and racking up 100 kills or - on the other hand - having an entire squadron chasing a single, lonesome fighter back to the enemy's home base. In my opinion, the developers making the AI should be forced to read all the WW2 books 😃 Idea for "Operational AI levels" that determine the way the game plays out: Task force commander skill: Impacts range of attack and max range when a mission is created depending on target importance, see: Battle of the Philippine Sea where planes were launched at excessive range and towards the evening, making return dangerous if at all possible. Air group commander skill: Determines more minute details like determining a course when report of enemy units is ambiguous. See: The behaviours of Stanhope Ring and John Waldron at the battle of Midway. Section/division leader skill: Determines the playing out of individual tactical situations. Individual pilot skill: Comes to play in a direct dogfight, determines his formation flying enroute, his behaviour as wingman, his spotting ability. Thus an exceptionally aggressive Task Force Commander sending a set of noobs to a very dangerous mission at most unfavourable conditions is likely to turn out disastrous from the start, while a cautious commander sending out highly skilled unit leaders will favour a safe return of the units at the possible prize of missing an important target and an aggressive task force commander sending out highly skilled unit leaders and pilots will set the tone for a successful mission at a reasonable "calculated risk". I think, having these levels as a reflection of real world organization would help a great deal in compartmentalizing the complex and rather abstract problem that is AI.

@ the guy with the unfindable letters.... As nobody forces you to download "rubbish" missions and not everyone who creates mission intends to publish them, trying to gatekeep mission building through torturous software is an unnecessary evil. I have to work with software that consists of suffering and pain and I don't regard myself as an "elite" because I have to get something done in it but I am annoyed and unwilling to use it. Then, when I do something for a hobby, I don't want it to be a chore, I am willing to learn but it has to make sense, a deliberately badly designed piece of software that only the developers understand, makes no sense. The Il2 GB mission editor has held me back very much because everytime I had some idea for a complex mission that covered some parts aside from two groups meet and make plain dogfights, I was discouraged and left it when I had to do some insane mind acrobatics just to get a simple function done. Randomizing the path of a ship to make recon missions be realistic instead of "go there, you will find your target 100% at that place at that time with that speed and that course" comes to mind. I want to make missions that have a replayability and I don't want to make a simulation of quantum physics while doing that. At least not for each and every unit. I also have never heard that people complained about the Silent Hunter editor being too easy just because you could randomize a waypoint placement without creating a finite amount of single waypoints that then have to be switched through logic gates to see which one activates (if at all, because at one point into your hours of doing the chore, you forgot an object link). You just set a radius and it was done. No pain, no suffering, a pleasure to use. I also like quality but then I don't download the rubbish missions. Easy as that. Il2 1946 is still alive and maintained by enthusiasts after more that 20 years and has possibilities unseen in Il2 GB. Quality will in the end show itself through the feedback in the community so you don't need to be bothered with what you call "rubbish" if you just get those missions that are rated well by the community.