IL-2 Korea and Combat Pilot: Which do you have more faith in and why?

[86Cheese]

On 4/13/2026 at 1:07 AM, Xtremist said:

The Combat Pilot steam trial was absolutely futile. Either the game will have PS2 level graphics, or the visuals will be overhauled from the ground up, and then all the collected data will become useless. 

It made a very bad impression, for me that demo killed all the hype for the game. VERY bad graphics, (TSR only) triangle shaped vegetation on the ground popping in and out from 50m, and still unplayable fps when flying low over an island the size of a football field. All this in a top tier gaming pc. 

I don't know how they think this can be released this year (or the next)... 

I had the same experience. I know its very early, but that demo did not give me much hope for Combat Pilot tbh. It looked awful, it ran poorly, the controls menu was abysmal and half of the functions didn't even work. I do not understand how they felt this was a good idea to release publicly, but frankly I am even more baffled by the overwhelmingly positive response from the community. I could forgive the state of all of those things if the flight models were in anyway impressive, but it didn't really even feel like there were flight models. It felt like floating in a world with no gravity or physics. And this after a year and half of work? I have seen more impressive things thrown together in a weekend game jam. 

Its not my intention here to just bash the guy, but I already had some reservations due to some of the behavior Jason displayed in the discord when Combat Pilot was first announced. He kept going on about how no one at 1C ever thanked him(for being their boss). In some direct interactions I had with him he continued trying to convince me, some random person in discord, that everyone at 1C should have been thanking him. He came off as kind of arrogant and narcissistic and basically said directly that GB would have failed without him. I was genuinely shocked by what he was saying and that people came after me for saying thats kind of a weird thing to do in the discord for your new game.

Time will tell but I get the feeling his departure may be positive for the project, as it appears to have been for IL-2.  Some of you may not remember, but the Jason era of GB was sort of plauged by over promising and under delivering (drop tanks and air marshal, anyone), and Combat Pilot has been giving a similar vibe since the beginning. 

 

Feel free to remove this post if it breaks the rules, I tried to keep it mostly objective but if its gotta go, I get it.

[Mission_bug]

For me the Combat Pilot demo was good enough to give us a look at what there was so far, remember it is many decades since we really had a WWII flight sim built from the ground up in a new engine so I did not expect too much from it, the guys at 1C have been doing this for a long time and yet even their products still get some considerable noise from the community as to their failings. What there was in Combat Pilot at least showed the sim was more than just hear say and if nothing more the 3d models were excellent, there is a long way for these guys to go but give credit where it is due they took on what is a monumental task and are trying to bring to life a theater of WWII that many have craved for years. 

Could you really have expected it to be up to the standard of 1C this early on, I doubt it, and so I for one am happy to give them some positives as these guys normally do strategy games I think so this is a big departure for them and way out of their usual comfort zone I would think, lets live in hope it will all come together eventually.

Korea has also been a major upgrade for 1C but at least here they are on safer ground, let us hope they all come through and the community gets the things they want most.

Take care and be safe. 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

[Luger1969]

IL2 Korea. These guys have a proven trackrecord of delivery plus I think they went allout for this title. Did not hold back.

Combat Pilot will have its day, it just a long walk to get there.

[86Cheese]

On 4/15/2026 at 12:54 PM, Mission_bug said:

Could you really have expected it to be up to the standard of 1C 

No. Literally no one is saying they expected the demo to be a finished product. But releasing a demo that isn't really even a functional vertical slice doesn't really inspire a lot of confidence in the project or its leadership.

I want the pacific as much as the next guy, and I want Combat Pilot to succeed just because competition is healthy for the space. But when people already have so much invested in IL2 and DCS, the new guy is going to have seriously impress or give us something we cant get elsewhere. At this rate, by the time Combat Pilot is actually out, we will probably have multiple options for the pacific. 

[AndyJWest]

I don't really consider 'faith' a relevant criteria in this context. Or see any need to make a judgement right now. Any purchase decision I make will be based on the sort of assessment I can only make when the respective products are at a much later development stage. I downloaded the Combat pilot demo, and tried it out. It was clearly an early alpha, and not represented as anything more. If the finished product was like that, I'd be unlikely to buy it, but that wasn't why I downloaded it. Evidently the developers thought that showing some early work-in-progress might help them convince people that they were getting somewhere, which I'd have to suggest they did. A more established development team with a proven track record would probably have thought this unnecessary, more confident that reputation alone would maintain interest. That's a judgement call too.

 

 

[FuriousMeow]

On 4/15/2026 at 1:54 PM, Mission_bug said:

remember it is many decades since we really had a WWII flight sim built from the ground up in a new engine

That isn't true. The engine for GB, while an iteration of the previous engine used for GB, was still a new engine and isn't decades old. But if that's your criteria, the UE engine is even older as its another iteration of an engine from the late '90s so it isn't new either. 

And that is where I won't say faith or hope or anything, but interest wanes heavily - the off the shelf engine. 

DCS, GB/Korea, even the Cliffs engine as they have the source code, are unique engines the devs own and have full control over so they can make some hefty changes to the core of the game. That's not going to happen with CP, any and all engine changes/fixes/upgrades have to be done by Unreal. Also, getting those new engine upgrades may not even happen because going from one UE version to the next is a very heavy lift, if it's even possible. So whatever UE version they chose, thats what it's stuck with. Even within the UE5 branch.

STALKER 2 was built on UE5.1, the devs have been making noise about an upgrade to 5.5.4 - UE latest is 5.7 - and they've been at it for over 8 months now. There's some performance boost going from 5.1 to 5.5.4 but there's a huge boost going to 5.6 and more in 5.7 except the work to go to 5.5.4 doesn't translate into work to upgrade to 5.6 or 5.7 so there's lost hours there if they decide for either of those because Unreal does not make it easy to upgrade versions and not to mention all of the custom integrations.

So, the off-the-shelf engine for a sim just doesn't leave me feeling reassured or even really excited for it. I'll see what it's like closer to release but in general I am severely disappointed with the rise of the same off-the-shelf engine being used to drive so many games. I don't game a lot either, but if I see a game is powered by Cry Engine or Unreal Engine it makes me think twice.

Edited April 17 by FuriousMeow

[GiftGruen]

4 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Evidently the developers thought that showing some early work-in-progress might help them convince people that they were getting somewhere, which I'd have to suggest they did. 

This!

A shown real prototype gives some ‚trust‘ that the team is progressing and it’s not just a mockup project.

Especially after loosing a well-known developer, I assume they simply want to set a statement.

Edited April 17 by GiftGruen

[Enceladus828]

I mean it's a rather unfair assessment at the moment since Korea is about to be released whereas Combat Pilot is in early Alpha. Perhaps a question of what are you more interested in would have been a better question.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

21 hours ago, FuriousMeow said:

That isn't true. The engine for GB, while an iteration of the previous engine used for GB, was still a new engine and isn't decades old. But if that's your criteria, the UE engine is even older as its another iteration of an engine from the late '90s so it isn't new either. 

And that is where I won't say faith or hope or anything, but interest wanes heavily - the off the shelf engine. 

DCS, GB/Korea, even the Cliffs engine as they have the source code, are unique engines the devs own and have full control over so they can make some hefty changes to the core of the game. That's not going to happen with CP, any and all engine changes/fixes/upgrades have to be done by Unreal. Also, getting those new engine upgrades may not even happen because going from one UE version to the next is a very heavy lift, if it's even possible. So whatever UE version they chose, thats what it's stuck with. Even within the UE5 branch.

STALKER 2 was built on UE5.1, the devs have been making noise about an upgrade to 5.5.4 - UE latest is 5.7 - and they've been at it for over 8 months now. There's some performance boost going from 5.1 to 5.5.4 but there's a huge boost going to 5.6 and more in 5.7 except the work to go to 5.5.4 doesn't translate into work to upgrade to 5.6 or 5.7 so there's lost hours there if they decide for either of those because Unreal does not make it easy to upgrade versions and not to mention all of the custom integrations.

So, the off-the-shelf engine for a sim just doesn't leave me feeling reassured or even really excited for it. I'll see what it's like closer to release but in general I am severely disappointed with the rise of the same off-the-shelf engine being used to drive so many games. I don't game a lot either, but if I see a game is powered by Cry Engine or Unreal Engine it makes me think twice.

Well said. Although I do have to remark that it usually isn't completely impossible to introduce your own changes to a pre-made engine, or at least work around them. See for instance how Kerbal Space Program uses 64-bit coordinates on the Unity engine, which itself uses a 32-bit coordinate system. Extending the existing engine with custom code is also what CP seem to be doing. But in general you're correct, and a pre-made engine is usually only a good idea if either you're a small developer that doesn't have the money to write your own engine, or it's a generic genre that doesn't require specific tools or physics (e.g. an FPS). In case of CP, it's clearly the former.

In the short term, it's probably the only financially feasible way to get up-to-date graphics. But on the long run, it might cause troubles when they need to upgrade their base engine (e.g. so that their graphics remain up-to-date) and their existing codebase proves incompatible.

[CatteMoto]

I don't think this is a fair question. One project has demonstrable progress and achievements, the other seems a rushed and incomplete elevator pitch to prospective investors.

 

I wasn't able to play the demo for Combat Pilot but the videos I saw of it landed like a stall 15m above the tarmac. Maybe they'll pull off the landing but it didn't seem inspiring or interesting. It reminded me of War Thunder (derogatory). 

 

With there being two major combat sims, DCS and IL-2, I think it's understandable something so basic and uninspired left many excited for another, eventual, option. 

 

I have little 'faith' for CP but am quite optimistic for IL-2:K. I was, at first, disappointed the next series wasn't a Pacific Theatre setting but I don't think choosing Korea is a bad choice. Just unexpected. There are very few Korean War games in the first place, to place a flight sim there is even rarer. Korea was almost as transformational a period as WWII was for technology and tactics. 

The progress on IL-2:K looks like a solid improvement over IL-2:GB. As long as there is not an emphasis on hunt/evade missile combat I will be a happy pilot. I look forward to defending the peninsula from the imperialists 

[KC23]

Combat Pilot feels like someone's pipedream. Projects that move that slowly never seem to work out in the end. I don't have what I describe as "faith" in IL-2 Korea. I'm just taking a chance and hoping for the best. I've been out of flight sims for more than a decade, so I'll be struggling with even the simple things like setting up my new HOTAS setup. 

[AndreiTomescu]

20 hours ago, CatteMoto said:

but I don't think choosing Korea is a bad choice. Just unexpected.

indeed. But! the Korea choice is, imho, extraordinarily wise. deep, if you like. somehow give a closure to GB. See, the end of WW2 left the world in ruins. All the old colonial powers, burnt in ashes, debts and blood. The 2 new super-powers that emerged victorious, USSR and USA were both planning to change the world, each in its own way. 

This conflict, actually, is the seed for all that came after. new technologies, tested, but without leaving the old ones aside, just yet. USA, the great winner of the western hemisphere, sees its power challenged by the mighty giant from the east, an USSR that despite faced the huge burden of war destruction, emerged more powerful than ever.

choosing Korea as a start for the new sim series i see as both bold and wise. From those early '50, things were different. The balance of the wold resided and was symbolized in that line: the 38th parallel.

[LukeFF]

Guys, no more politics, or the thread will be locked.

[Catch]

On 4/15/2026 at 10:31 AM, 86Cheese said:

I already had some reservations due to some of the behavior Jason displayed

Who knows what went on behind the scenes (in both GB and CP) but yes, he could be quite volatile. Pressure will do that. Buying an existing company with talent, a good engine for its day and the revelatory early days of Rise of Flight to build on, even with a language barrier, is one thing. But that's vastly different from starting an enterprise from scratch. That he has now left both is a bit of a worry regardless of what happens to CP. He's probably not in a good place right now. I didn't get on with him I'll admit but he deserves some slack.

[DetCord]

12 hours ago, Catch said:

Who knows what went on behind the scenes (in both GB and CP) but yes, he could be quite volatile. Pressure will do that.

Saying that he was volatile is putting it lightly. He could be an outright pompous douche at times, wildly unprofessional and thin skinned. Tact also wasn't a word he had any knowledge of, especially when it came to PR and community engagement. 

Quote

Buying an existing company with talent, a good engine for its day and the revelatory early days of Rise of Flight to build on, even with a language barrier, is one thing. But that's vastly different from starting an enterprise from scratch. That he has now left both is a bit of a worry regardless of what happens to CP.

Agreed.

Quote

He's probably not in a good place right now. I didn't get on with him I'll admit but he deserves some slack.

Regardless of what you think of him, he's the reason that GB is the way it is today. He's the reason we got BoBp and BoN, and a variety of other features he pushed for, though Normandy isn't my cup of tea. That said, I actually think, given recent announcements, roadmaps, Korea, etc, that the series is good hands without him going forward.  

[Ramstein]

On 4/13/2026 at 2:12 AM, Xtremist said:

Jason Williams has just left the developement team of Combat Pilot, this is anything but promising... 

same, Sad, but it was not a good sign what they showed us.. I don't think he will be hurting as there will always be a need for his experience.. so he will do ok... probably had a couple hundred grand in it..

Edited April 21 by Ramstein

[spreckair]

Given how niche-y flight simming seems to be, I am just grateful that there are these two efforts, and I hope they both succeed wildly and encourage more efforts.  I am truly grateful that there is a company like 1C that has created a full WWII experience, albeit I would love to be able to fly all of WWII (and pre-war) and I am sure that I am not alone on this.  I think 1C has consistently set the bar in many ways for the historic flight sim experience.  We don't have a lot; I am glad we have some.

[JollyJack]

In regards to my long history with buying 1C stuff since Maddox days I would have more faith in that. 

But it seems Great Battles is now on the way out? If 1C is not continuing that and hopefully adapting it to the newer Unreal Engine also, i'd be losing my faith there. In fact i already bought more DCS stuff now. A real Card house with the current 3rd party mods and quite a lot ww2 stuff has been added also for the pacific. Also the Bell 47 heli needed for korea LoL.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

15 hours ago, JollyJack said:

But it seems Great Battles is now on the way out? If 1C is not continuing that and hopefully adapting it to the newer Unreal Engine also, i'd be losing my faith there.

Great Battles may be on the way out, but IL2 certainly isn't. Korea looks very promising.

Not sure what you mean with "adapting GB to the newer Unreal Engine." IL2 has never run on Unreal, and as FuriousMeow pointed out, there are some serious disadvantages about running a one-size-fits-all engine like Unreal. In any case, whether or not a game runs on Unreal tells you little about its quality.

[DetCord]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

 ...there are some serious disadvantages about running a one-size-fits-all engine like Unreal.

Serious? They're extensive. UE has immense issues and roadblocks in simulating realistic/dynamic physics, like those over the surface of a wing of a plane or vertical stab, and it can take a lot of dev time to get it right when it comes to aircraft performance. Now multiply that (physics computations) by 50-100 aircraft on screen at any given time, and engaged in combat, and it'll slow to a crawl. Then there's the problem that can't prioritize details at a distance, nor can it cull or inject assets properly as scale increases. This includes UE5+.

As an example, P3D's Fuse has a budget to rival a dozen CoD's and GTA5's and they're bogged down with all kinds of engine related issues.    

[Mustang_Mike]

Not sure what I expected to read here given which forum I'm on, but lmao the mental gymnastics and cope in here regarding the Combat Pilot pre-alpha Steam demo are HILARIOUS. Clickable cockpits, no engine timers, a carrier I can land on, great tailwheel ground handling and a rock solid flightmodel for the state of development. Plus a theater of war I'm actually interested in, that isn't being developed by Russians and funded by the CCP? Yeah sorry, not really much of a contest at all. I know which game I'm waiting for. 

[Aapje]

11 hours ago, Mustang_Mike said:

Not sure what I expected to read here given which forum I'm on, but lmao the mental gymnastics and cope in here regarding the Combat Pilot pre-alpha Steam demo are HILARIOUS. Clickable cockpits, no engine timers, a carrier I can land on, great tailwheel ground handling and a rock solid flightmodel for the state of development. Plus a theater of war I'm actually interested in, that isn't being developed by Russians and funded by the CCP? Yeah sorry, not really much of a contest at all. I know which game I'm waiting for. 

Most of the stuff you name is either coming to IL-2, and quite likely before Combat Pilot (carriers and PTO), or is just hope/speculation. Is Combat Pilot's damage model going to be better than engine timers? Given that Combat Pilot doesn't have any damage model at all right now, it is just hope on your part that they will come up with something better. I don't think that Combat Pilot has ever made it public where their funding comes from, so who knows how good and bad the people/countries doing the funding are? 

The 'rock solid flightmodel for the state of development' seems to be pure hopium, where you seem to believe that they are behind right now, but you assume that they will improve beyond IL-2 based purely on speculation.

In fact, even the idea that you have a choice to wait for Combat Pilot is based on speculation that they will even manage to make it to a finished product (and in a reasonable time frame). Plenty of games get cancelled along the way or take way too long to finish. Given how far they are from being done, where making a list of all the things that IL-2 has, but that are missing in Combat Pilot would most likely result in me running out of pixels, they are merely on my radar as a project to keep track of. I'm certainly not going to pin all my hopes and dreams on something so unfinished and so far from release.

[Steini18778]

Even if the odds are against me i believe Combat Pilot has more potential. Why? Because after so many years i gave up hope that IL2 GB will solve one of the most important problems. Every itteration of the game had huge game breaking problems for me. They have a great product but they never used that chance to make a perfect. After so many years the same problems occure and they dont solve it. Last time i started a SP mission 4 of my 8 planes crashed mid air. The AI is still useless and radio not working. After 1-2 missions you get so frustrated again that you deinstall the game. Dont get me wrong the game is great but they are not able to fix serious singe player problems and after 15+ years a gave up hope. It is not only IL2, but the same thing happened to Tank Crew. 

[LukeFF]

Guys, last time: any hint of talking about politics, and the topic is being shut down.

[Kubert]

4 hours ago, Steini18778 said:

They have a great product but they never used that chance to make a perfect.

Maybe there is the problem, if you expect a perfection. I don't know any perfect game. Every game has its own problems. IL-2 GB is the only game I have installed all the time and play reguraly since 2020 and it was improved significantly since then. A lot of content was added, updated or reworked. Of course, there are some unsolved issues, which probably never will be solved, but most of them are minor issues with existing workarounds and definitely are not game breaking. To believe that any new flight sim will come and be better from scratch is in my opinion unrealistic expectation.

Both career mode and scripted campaigns are valid options. I am playing them exclusively, because I am not a multiplayer material...and except campaign Havoc over Kuban, which was not updated for a long time, and Achtung Spitfire!, which could get some tweaks, are all fully playable. BlackSix, Jaegermeister and Juri_JS are doing very good job in this direction. Career mode is, I would say, from 95% playable. There are some problematic scenarios, but not many of them and when bugs are reported they usually get fixed over time, if possible.

The game is not perfect, but for me is very far from being frustrating to the point to give up.