FSExpo 2024 - Las Vegas June 21-23, 2024 *Updated 6/13/24*

[IckyAtlas]

Amazing, congratulations to Jason and the team.

Cross fingers, I have the feeling I will get here all what I was missing with IL2.

When looking at what is the result of the first year, where you need to set everything up, create all the tools as well as all the work and production process, set up the dev team etc. and even with that we already have flying planes and floating carriers, I am pretty sure the second year will be very very productive and amazing.

I can only thank Jason about working with the community and for the community. That's a recipe for success.

I also understand we will have an editor and I hope as good as the one in IL2 but maybe with a better user interface.

I love building missions and I will be happy to start as soon as possible. And doing that under Unreal-5, I say wow!!

Let me know when you will have a Patreon account and merch.

 

 

[OriginalCustard]

Hot damn, I am so looking forward to this project and it was a great presentation and news update. We are getting that little bit close to when we can hop into our Zero's and take off from Akagi (I know I'll have to have many attempts to put it down on the deck again) Oh yes, and we mustn't forget the other aircraft and carrier too! 

[Aapje]

 

To be honest, I got a bit less optimistic about the project due to this. It gives the impression that CP may try to go the DCS route, where they spend way too much time on each plane due to full fidelity cockpits. IMO, that focus completely screwed up DCS, as it required them to ask big money for each plane, and it pulled focus away from creating a coherent player experience.

In itself it is not bad for there to be big ambitions, but ambition is going to run into reality and then it is all about making the right choices.

Edited June 27 by Aapje

[Sea Serpent]

Thank you for your important insight Apjey.

I happen to like flight simulation that requires some brains to operate, and I’m willing to pay some amount of leisure-time money for it, so quit being so f*ckng dogmatic.  They are soon to come out with a new Flaming Cliffs, with “easy” MiG-15, lol, for casuals like you, so don’t despair on DCS just yet, guy.

Edited June 27 by Sea Serpent

[ZachariasX]

4 hours ago, Aapje said:

In itself it is not bad for there to be ambitious, but ambition is going to run into reality and then it is all about making the right choices.

I see Enigmas point here as well, but I don‘t think his gripe with DCS really translates that well into a strictly WW2 aircraft simulation. The incredible complexity in DCS is only owed due to the huge amount of system functionality that was cramped into more modern jets, without having a suitable interface to manage this functionality (in the real aircraft!). Hence you had a gazillion of dedicated switches, buttons, dials and levers to operate that functionality. The learning curve in DCS is almost exclusively related to learning to play those pianos with a million keys and not to actually flying the aircraft. The F18 and A10 are an orgy of incoherent interfaces from hell. But they are easy to fly.

That in DCS prop modules cost a lot is simply owed to the fact that YOU (and me) pay that kind of money. Those prices are not cost-plus. Nick himself admitted that the prop planes are their biggest cash cows.

I think Enigma is wrong here to assume that DCS provides what it does („lacking a cohesive experience“) due to technical constraints. It is how it is due to them making most money this way. Like that, they can produce less modules that they sell you at a higher price. That is Nicks choice, not a general necessity.

If IL2 can sell a WW2 crate for almost 1/10th of the price just tells you about the accepted profit, which is simply a company decision. But also with IL2, they get good (about DCS like) profits by selling „collector planes“ that come at obscene price points in comparison to planes included in a game module.

The difference in IL2 and DCS strategy is only what they decided upon selling you as a „base game“.

In DCS, you get a free playpen where you can blow up stuff with a Su-25 and where you can just fly about in a P-51. Plus, you get a great(!) mission editor. Everything you want more, you pay for dearly. As the planes are often a lot of work to learn, learning them can be a gaming experience in itself.

In IL2, entry level is an often heavily rebated (now somewhat ageing) planeset that in principle is around 50 bucks that provides for certain scenarios. However, they don‘t give you a mission editior that has purpose for most gamers. You get a simplified mission generator and some free campaigns. Learning the planes is dead easy if you have a basic understanding of aircraft. Mastering the plane is not an (gaming) experience, but a simple prerequisite to play the game in the first place.

Personally, I think it is dull and disingenious just to do the same ol‘ thing again. I am not looking for another groundhog day in (combat) aircraft simulation. MSFS has proven that mere flight with aircraft if limited capability can be a fun challenge that appeals to a great many folks. In IL2, this experience is wholly absent. Planes just work and the mightiest enemy of all, weather, is just a coloration of the playpen. Same in DCS, really. Although looks improved, when was last time you feared icing on your aircraft or worried about a thunderstorm approaching your base?

I would hate if the main challenge of flying aircraft (knowing how to get where you want to and do so despite the weather) would be absent. For me, this makes both DCS and especially IL2 phenominally bland flightsims as such. As this indeed might be an unduly challenge for casual gamers, a mission editor (or pre set missions) can always spawn the players on top of each other and next to the target, as it was done since Chuck Yeagers Air Combat.

[Robli]

Looks promising! Long way to go still of course, but the foundation appears solid.

[Bando]

Would it be possible to either lock this thread or place it out of the "announcement" section.
 

[Robli]

My take from Enigma's video, especially highlighted by the Cohesion-Fidelity matrix there, rather gave the impression that Combat Pilot is not trying to go too far with the "full fidelity" mantra.

[Aapje]

11 hours ago, Sea Serpent said:

They are soon to come out with a new Flaming Cliffs, with “easy” MiG-15, lol, for casuals like you, so don’t despair on DCS just yet, guy.

My argument was never that I wanted simpler planes, but that full fidelity can come at the expense of things that matter more.

But good job on both completely missing the point I made and making a personal attack, I guess. I hope that made you feel better.

[Aapje]

@ZachariasX

DCS takes a really long time to finish any of their planes, including WW 2 ones, so I have my doubts that their level of fidelity allows for a module a year. From my perspective, the level of work they put into everything results in them never releasing anything coherent, or in them releasing a nice bundle that a lot of people will get. So it's hard for campaign builders to make something that works for many people, when everyone owns different stuff. And DCS never focuses on releasing a good campaign experience.

And IL-2 tried the full-fidelity cockpits and abandoned it, so I'm not convinced that it is that easy for WW II.

Perhaps CP can find a way to do it, but I have my doubts.

And CP can do a lot of things differently to IL-2 without having full-fidelity cockpits. For example, the impactful weather that you mention doesn't require full-fidelity cockpits at all.

[Sea Serpent]

I look forward to Combat Pilot, because Jason has billed it as “hard core”.  I’m well aware that your average bf-109 ‘expert’ from IL-2 probably can’t even get the DCS K4 halfway down the runway without crashing, but this is supposed to be simulation. The reality is that there is a very bustling market for “full fidelity” sims, and I hope Combat Pilot is in that category.  I’m aware of the learning curve of a FF 4th Gen jet, but we are dealing with single engine WW 2 pistons here, with a learning curve that is fractional by comparison.  I don’t see why people are so intimidated.  

[Aapje]

The way development works is that you tend to have a bunch of wonderful ideas. Some of those take as long as you expect to implement, too few take way less effort than you thought and a bunch end up being way more complicated.

At that point you get the hard choices. Do you continue implementing those or do you abandon them. Both choices have consequences.

Edited June 27 by Aapje

[Sea Serpent]

Is it fair to say you’re an IL-2 guy?  I was too for a long time.  But let’s face it, that sim doesn’t even have drop tanks for crying out loud.  And they tried, but their fuel systems were so generic, and they were so purist about it, that they actually failed in trying to implement them.  They have strict engine timers.  In a Messerschmitt, you can’t even cut off the coolant system to one side, not because they can’t model a 4 position knob, or that it would be too tough for the user, but because they obviously don’t have the system modeled sufficiently enough.  People always complain about the poor DM, but I don’t know how it could have a good DM without the underlying systems modeling.  Operationally, they have rudimentary nav instruments, but you can’t even tune them to a specific station.  So, for the sake of the discussion, where do you think Combat Pilot should make the sacrifices to allow for what you call “coherent player experience”.  

Edited June 27 by Sea Serpent

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

And IL-2 tried the full-fidelity cockpits and abandoned it, so I'm not convinced that it is that easy for WW II.

What is hard and what is difficult to make depends as much on how you are doing things than what you are doing. It is rather clear that Nick has other ways for having things done than Han. I am positive Jason will find an efficient way for doing what he thinks his product should be like. And what he accomplishes will have little in common with what is perceived difficult or easy in the current discussion.

And regarding clickspots, every f*rt freeware in MSFS has them. It is not 2015 anymore. Clickspots are the electrolytes of difficult. We either have them or we don‘t. And if we don‘t have them, then simply because they don‘t contibute enough for the game in how it is meant to be played.

[Aapje]

@ZachariasX

If it is both very difficult for DCS and IL-2 to do, then it seems like a good assumption that it is also going to be hard for CP. Perhaps they figure out a way to do it more easily. That would be great. But I won't assume that it is easy just because I would like it to be easy.

And of course the difficulty is not in registering the clicks, but in modelling all the systems so the buttons work as they should, even when all these planes do things a bit differently from each other.

[ZachariasX]

Going back to the original title, Jörg was also there it seems:

Tons of things included that not only were assumed to be monumentally difficult, but unthinkable to do. Regardless of the budget.

[SOLIDKREATE]

Can't wait Jason!

[Simfan1998]

6 hours ago, Aapje said:

And IL-2 tried the full-fidelity cockpits and abandoned it, so I'm not convinced that it is that easy for WW II.

 

you mean il2-CoD tried it...and new planes still have it, even new functions like radiators cut-out and bypass in the 109.
It isn't really difficult is you create a generic system for fighter/bomber/biplane/whatevertype , not so closed-coded,that can be modified to suit each airplane. 
A clickable cockpit is just a visualisation of the functionality of a system, and in il2 box, systems are very basic or even non existent anyway what links to the DM (like Seaserpent said). in BoX, airplanes are empty shells just like in 46, all DM effects are coded, there is no "interaction" with the model, unlike in CoD where the pathway of a bullet is calculated on the 3d model and tables with input data. If you shoot a bullet at a spit in CoD, the bullet trajectory is first calculated  through the ballistic table, then, when it goes through a hitbox , let's say engine cover, bullet's path is recalculated with with angle, kinetic energy and type of material it's made of, a new trajectory is applied, if enough energy is available, the next part is the engine camhead, the soft will calculate if the available bullet energy is enough to go through it, if yes you got oil leak or worse depending on the type of the bullet....
Now, check the wildcat "squelet" images and guess why they bothered to model every part of the plane, my educated guess is that we'll have all the main systems available for the "pilot" and for the DM, which will be even more detailed than in CoD.

Edited June 27 by Simfan1998

[IckyAtlas]

On 6/27/2024 at 8:19 AM, ZachariasX said:

I would hate if the main challenge of flying aircraft (knowing how to get where you want to and do so despite the weather) would be absent. For me, this makes both DCS and especially IL2 phenominally bland flightsims as such. As this indeed might be an unduly challenge for casual gamers, a mission editor (or pre set missions) can always spawn the players on top of each other and next to the target, as it was done since Chuck Yeagers Air Combat.

The challenge is to please everybody without too much compromising the sim quality.

There are various type of players but we could say that those that like arcade style is out of scope here. They have console or smartphone solutions where they can play with a few buttons.

The others would go from:

--- "simple easy" plane flying with simplified plane management (a lot is automatic) and quickly into action whatever it is. They have little time and even if they expect a more realistic approach. The environment detail is not too important. Playable on laptops as they will not give to much attention to maximize visual quality. They may not have any interface gear beside a mouse, and keypad.

--- An intermediate level where missions can be a bit longer, but still plane should be easy to handle, they will give more attention to environment but still also playable on laptops. May use some interfaces like joystick but with a limited setup.

--- Then you have the more demanding category in terms of "realism", "Immersion" uncompromising on visual quality etc. These play all max settings, big screens or VR, and probably build a powerful rig for the sim. They may even build a mockup cockpit ect. They will use realistic gear Hotas and rudder pedals and more. They will look after a very good sound system to have an immersive sound environment.  They want to play full realistic missions from "parking" to landing back with the time it takes for the mission. They want to master their plane, this means that they will manually control the various plane features. 

There is a category besides that is made by those who build missions and campaigns. I know some want simple easy editors but here I'd rather be nuanced. The editor must be absolutely complete and allow for all complex scenario and map designs. IL2 is a good example but with a difficult learning curve due to its interface but also due to a lack of formal support and "official" updated manual. What has to be improved is the interface but capabilities must not be reduced just to make it simple. 

The big challenge is for a sim developer to please the four categories to maximize the customer base. The higher you go the smaller is the customer base, as the financial investment needed becomes more important. 

If you stay with WWII propeller planes, there is a big advantage compared to DCS modern jet fighters. That advantage is the plane itself. A WWII plane is simpler de facto because all the complexities of the sensors (thermal, IR, visual etc), gps, autopilot, digital maps, HUD and helmet display, digital communications, data links, night vision, very complex weapons systems, satellite connection, electronic warfare, computers, multifunction screens, radars, thermal cameras etc. etc. etc. simply did not exist at that time, or in very rudimentary form and only for some exceptions. WWII planes were also slower in speed and so finally you can do a good aircraft simulation with less complexity and development work. 

All this makes for a very robust development planning and setting objectives.

In French we say "qui peut le plus peut le moins" which would translate that if you can please the most demanding gamer segment then they should be able to cover the other ones too.

 

[Skelthos]

4 hours ago, IckyAtlas said:

The challenge is to please everybody without too much compromising the sim quality.

Very well put. I think most people here want a hard-core sim (which is what the CP team is building), but it has to be done in a way that is profitable. This likely means doing things like providing the option for automatic engine control, rudder assist, etc. preferably with the ability for people who run online servers to block those settings on individual servers. This gives us what we want, and allows a path for new players to get into the game as well.

[ZachariasX]

4 hours ago, IckyAtlas said:

"qui peut le plus peut le moins"

That is singature worthy.

[Boba Fett]

11 hours ago, IckyAtlas said:

The challenge is to please everybody without too much compromising the sim quality.

There are various type of players but we could say that those that like arcade style is out of scope here. They have console or smartphone solutions where they can play with a few buttons.

The others would go from:

--- "simple easy" plane flying with simplified plane management (a lot is automatic) and quickly into action whatever it is. They have little time and even if they expect a more realistic approach. The environment detail is not too important. Playable on laptops as they will not give to much attention to maximize visual quality. They may not have any interface gear beside a mouse, and keypad.

--- An intermediate level where missions can be a bit longer, but still plane should be easy to handle, they will give more attention to environment but still also playable on laptops. May use some interfaces like joystick but with a limited setup.

--- Then you have the more demanding category in terms of "realism", "Immersion" uncompromising on visual quality etc. These play all max settings, big screens or VR, and probably build a powerful rig for the sim. They may even build a mockup cockpit ect. They will use realistic gear Hotas and rudder pedals and more. They will look after a very good sound system to have an immersive sound environment.  They want to play full realistic missions from "parking" to landing back with the time it takes for the mission. They want to master their plane, this means that they will manually control the various plane features. 

There is a category besides that is made by those who build missions and campaigns. I know some want simple easy editors but here I'd rather be nuanced. The editor must be absolutely complete and allow for all complex scenario and map designs. IL2 is a good example but with a difficult learning curve due to its interface but also due to a lack of formal support and "official" updated manual. What has to be improved is the interface but capabilities must not be reduced just to make it simple. 

The big challenge is for a sim developer to please the four categories to maximize the customer base. The higher you go the smaller is the customer base, as the financial investment needed becomes more important. 

If you stay with WWII propeller planes, there is a big advantage compared to DCS modern jet fighters. That advantage is the plane itself. A WWII plane is simpler de facto because all the complexities of the sensors (thermal, IR, visual etc), gps, autopilot, digital maps, HUD and helmet display, digital communications, data links, night vision, very complex weapons systems, satellite connection, electronic warfare, computers, multifunction screens, radars, thermal cameras etc. etc. etc. simply did not exist at that time, or in very rudimentary form and only for some exceptions. WWII planes were also slower in speed and so finally you can do a good aircraft simulation with less complexity and development work. 

All this makes for a very robust development planning and setting objectives.

In French we say "qui peut le plus peut le moins" which would translate that if you can please the most demanding gamer segment then they should be able to cover the other ones too.

 

I think the challenge is scalability.

You want to be able to please the "hardcore" guys but still make the game/experience top notch for your entry level market as well. There simply are not enough of the "hardcore" to sustain continuous development.

The key to every business venture is to ensure you have both new customers and repeat customers. For flight sims, I'd say three levels of play is the sweet spot. The first two with certain presets and the last as close to real world as possible/reasonable. With all three levels providing both great immersion AND gameplay within the scalability. THAT is the challenge.

[ZachariasX]

3 minutes ago, Boba Fett said:

You want to be able to please the "hardcore" guys but still make the game/experience

If you have simple items in your game, you can only adress the simple play style. If you have complex items, you can please every play style. Your mission editor should be able to do that. It‘s easy to simplify complex items for any desired modes of playing the game, but it is impossible to increase complexity beyond what you have.

Jörg made a sim that appeals to a huge market. And there you can’t even shoot stuff. This is because he welcomes the difficult things and goes as far as he can with that. Yes, he didn’t start out with what hardcore afficionados deemed top notch, but now he is just literally steamrolling the gendre. Adding auto start is easy to cater for XBox folks. It might be true that the hardcore fans don‘t make up for the mass of clients, but without them and their enthusiasm, you have nothing that stands out from the mass of other games. Jörg probably has most of his clients playing on consoles. Why would he be doing CFD? That is why.

The fact that combat sims are perceived as „niche“, that is because historically, they are ony good for one very specific thing. Sadly, flight as such hardly ever part of it. That is the problem. Not that „clickspots are difficult“. Or anything like that.

[Boba Fett]

I'm not saying anything significantly different than you or even Icky. But scalability and market share are going to be closely intertwined. Absolutely shoot for the most hardcore which is reasonable to attain from a technology and playability perspective but leave room for both casual and newly christened pilots. They are your bread and butter to go along with the meat of the sim.

[Trooper117]

Who knows how Jason and team are going to work this out... if you make it too hardcore it will take much longer to produce the assets you want to put in it (like DCS)... if you make it like IL2GB that won't please the hardcore crowd.

Is it possible to make it a mixture of both? A kind of halfway house? with some scalability involved... it's a tough one.