Dev Blog #85: What's Next?

[GiftGruen]

54 minutes ago, AndreiTomescu said:

Ambitious and passionate, this plans. Also I see the devs are  much more willing to adapt their plans to the wishes of the community, and that's both smart and fruitful.

Now myself, a genuine east European guy, i'm worried a bit about one thing: timelines.

Imho, putting some ETAs for each planned development would confirm the already proven skills and commitment into the project.

Ah, come on, beeing the typical relaxed german I just say ETAs are dreams, let‘s just wait and see 😉

[Viking1]

looking forward to see how the game grows! It would be good to hear how,sales are going.. its the sales that will drive all these dreams.

[Avimimus]

47 minutes ago, LuftManu said:

With all of the things we've seen plus the ones coming such as simplified "Objects" for also fighters I bet we will increase the numbers of things in both MP and SP. And that would make WW1 even better 😄

@Avimimus 

Although a lot of flights in WWI were very small (the actual units often didn't have that many aircraft). There were exceptions of course - some of which could be quite impressive.

I honestly think that the most important engine enhancements for a WWI module would be (1) AI which is much better at choosing safe points during a dogfight where it can fly level (accelerate) or climb to regain energy and (2) much more realistic artillery spotting and aerial photography...

Of course there is plenty of time for them to work on both of these areas. But the basic truth is that WWI aircraft were much worse at retaining energy (there really is no such thing as a 'sustained turn'... at least not before late 1917) and there is a lot of really fascinating gameplay that is missing involving things like providing much more precise artillery direction against a much wider variety of targets, and complexities of using handheld as well as fuselage mounted cameras with relatively primitive film. It could make for much more engaging gameplay.

Perhaps too, some technical breakthrough to make the trenches less two-dimensional... there's likely several years before we get another WWI sim - so there is time to dream at least.

Anyway, I've gotten quite off-topic.

 

53 minutes ago, Justicier10-7 said:

Now that you mention WWI... a dynamic campaign there would be fun as well. Mayhaps we'll get a Korea engine Flying Circus someday... with properly modeled trenches and craters... no man's land would look as insane as it actually was.

With the front line being so static it is hard to imagine much influence with regard to the outcomes of the war.

I could definitely see targeting enemy airfields (and perhaps the enemy reacting to your attacks with more aircraft or relocating experienced pilots)? I could also see working with a specific artillery unit to try to keep them alive by guiding counter-battery fire... or trying to drop messages (or even some supplies) to troops in more forward positions)... things that would provide a bit more of a connection with the troops/PBI.

However, a lot of this could be done with some modifications of the existing commander career mode!

 

[Viking1]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

 or trying to drop messages (or even some supplies) to troops in more forward positions)... things that would provide a bit more of a connection with the troops/PBI.

 

..or escorting a critical supply drop with an enemy determined to stop you..

 

 

Edited August 18 by Viking1

[catch]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

Although a lot of flights in WWI were very small (the actual units often didn't have that many aircraft). There were exceptions of course - some of which could be quite impressive.

I honestly think that the most important engine enhancements for a WWI module would be (1) AI which is much better at choosing safe points during a dogfight where it can fly level (accelerate) or climb to regain energy and (2) much more realistic artillery spotting and aerial photography...

Of course there is plenty of time for them to work on both of these areas. But the basic truth is that WWI aircraft were much worse at retaining energy (there really is no such thing as a 'sustained turn'... at least not before late 1917) and there is a lot of really fascinating gameplay that is missing involving things like providing much more precise artillery direction against a much wider variety of targets, and complexities of using handheld as well as fuselage mounted cameras with relatively primitive film. It could make for much more engaging gameplay.

Perhaps too, some technical breakthrough to make the trenches less two-dimensional... there's likely several years before we get another WWI sim - so there is time to dream at least.

Anyway, I've gotten quite off-topic.

 

With the front line being so static it is hard to imagine much influence with regard to the outcomes of the war.

I could definitely see targeting enemy airfields (and perhaps the enemy reacting to your attacks with more aircraft or relocating experienced pilots)? I could also see working with a specific artillery unit to try to keep them alive by guiding counter-battery fire... or trying to drop messages (or even some supplies) to troops in more forward positions)... things that would provide a bit more of a connection with the troops/PBI.

However, a lot of this could be done with some modifications of the existing commander career mode!

 

It's almost like Korea was designed with WW1 on their mind. 

[HarryM]

Dynamic Campaign? Hell yes!

[Jade_Monkey]

Dynamic campaign reminds me of the show I’m watching right now (SAS: Rogue Heroes.  — Highly recommend it!!) and how their actions in the North African desert impacted the war directly by sabotaging airfields and supply depots.

 

The update is directionally good, although a bit “high level”. It’s always nice when we get something more specific, such as a screenshot of something coming up in the future.

Edited August 19 by Jade_Monkey

[Hotdognz]

Great blog and interesting, it worries me that the dev's think there overall performance is at a good level in VR, what is this based on, because in my experience the game can run fine in VR but look rubbish in the headset or it can look good in the headset but run terrible on a good system.

For now the game has been shelved and im back to IL2 GB, DCS, FS2024 which all run great and look fantastic in VR compared to Il2 Korea.

 

[Vostok]

Very interesting dev blog. Regarding the dynamic campaign, it’s great to see the ambition and resources being put into it. Modern flight simulators tend to forget, in my opinion, that they are games first and foremost, so bringing back career/campaign modes like in the golden age of the classic simulators of the ’90s is an excellent thing, especially as someone who primarily plays solo. if the career and role-playing aspects could be developed even further ; really giving you the feeling of being a pilot and part of a squadron, through things like in-world news, pilot reports, and other contextual events that would be a huge plus.Hopefully, all of this could eventually be playable in co-op as well. That would be the dream.

[tattywelshie]

That’s great news, nice little snippet as well re bombers in GB! A dynamic campaign and AI improvements would really elevate Korea in the single player sphere!

[Mark_Krieger]

In my opinion, the good thing of this diary is they are priorizing what's more important. AI and VR performance. It's true that from my point of view, they are too much optimistic about the actual performance as some other aspects, but as long as they work on solving the problems it's ok for me.

What I admit I don't like so much is the idea of the dinamic campaign. I clearly prefer historically accurate scenarios, but I understand too that if the game is historically accurate, probably it could be boring for a lot of players, because the presence of red planes in most of Korea since 1951 was almost non existent. Anyway I don't like when I'm intercepted by Migs far south of the Mig Alley in career mode. I even remember how Daniel said he voted for a dinamic campaign when Korea was still being planed, but the most voted option was a historically accurate career (at least in the frontline). It seeems that he finally achieved what he wanted 😏. Anyway I understand that many players want to feel that what they do has some impact, although for me it would be enough with more realistic and minor impact on the ground units and with the persistent damage system when it's implemented.

Edited August 19 by Mark_Krieger

[Mainstay]

I don’t know how the devs are satisfied with the VR performance. I can understand it’s an ongoing process. 
 

Im wondering if the choice for this specific engine is causing bottlenecks when it comes to VR compatibility. 
 

Very nice to read a dynamic campaign is in the works! 

[YoYo]

1 hour ago, Mainstay said:

I don’t know how the devs are satisfied with the VR performance. I can understand it’s an ongoing process. 
Im wondering if the choice for this specific engine is causing bottlenecks when it comes to VR compatibility. 

It's possible that it's simply a matter of expectations, not consistent experience. If you don't use certain things daily, but only occasionally, you might not be fully aware of the problem or certain issues. Of course, it's hard for me to confirm or deny anything, as I don't know what the testing process was like or how much attention was paid to any issues.

Most importantly, however, the current block confirms awareness of performance issues in VR, so we don't feel alone. Further work has been promised, as well as a plan for how to address them. Therefore, I strongly hope that the performance issues will be resolved sooner or later.

[Jorri]

I'm impressed. You've clearly kept your ear to the ground, and you're not afraid to express some big ambitions. Nice!

[Col.Sanders]

6 hours ago, YoYo said:

It's possible that it's simply a matter of expectations, not consistent experience. If you don't use certain things daily, but only occasionally, you might not be fully aware of the problem or certain issues. Of course, it's hard for me to confirm or deny anything, as I don't know what the testing process was like or how much attention was paid to any issues.

Most importantly, however, the current block confirms awareness of performance issues in VR, so we don't feel alone. Further work has been promised, as well as a plan for how to address them. Therefore, I strongly hope that the performance issues will be resolved sooner or later.

They have mentioned their testing process in reddit threads. It was not great and points to a fundamental misunderstanding of the current state of the technology. Especially when it comes to quadviews/DFR and it's performance. They utilized a sub par PC, specifically the CPU on a game that is still very cpu bound and wrote off the whole technology. I bought and returned because performance in VR isn't acceptable. 

 

[AndreiTomescu]

6 hours ago, Col.Sanders said:

specifically the CPU on a game that is still very cpu bound

So very true about the cpu bound fact. Could you please tell me what cpu did they use?

[YoYo]

8 hours ago, Col.Sanders said:

They have mentioned their testing process in reddit threads. It was not great and points to a fundamental misunderstanding of the current state of the technology. Especially when it comes to quadviews/DFR and it's performance. They utilized a sub par PC, specifically the CPU on a game that is still very cpu bound and wrote off the whole technology. I bought and returned because performance in VR isn't acceptable. 

I'm a bit more optimistic. Of course, I also wondered how on earth this engine could have such a problem, considering that MSFS2024 (also on Dx12) performs much better in VR, and cities (though they also tax the system) still allow me to maintain frame rates at or near my maximum (72). Similarly, in DCS, it's difficult to compare the vast Cairo, Paris, London, and Ghaza (there still) to the relatively small Seoul of the 1950s here, and the performance difference is significant. I had to downgrade to potato-era settings to achieve acceptable performance in IL-2 Korea (although I will add that despite this, Korea still looks nice).

However, the developers have my trust and although it's said that "hope is the mother of fools" , I strongly hope that the situation will improve. 

Edited Thursday at 08:11 AM by YoYo

[Col.Sanders]

8 hours ago, AndreiTomescu said:

So very true about the cpu bound fact. Could you please tell me what cpu did they use?

Can't find the reddit post, but they didn't say specifically. But based on how they described it, it would have been an old intel CPU like at least 8 years old 

 

6 hours ago, YoYo said:

I'm a bit more optimistic. Of course, I also wondered how on earth this engine could have such a problem, considering that MSFS2024 (also on Dx12) performs much better in VR, and cities (though they also tax the system) still allow me to maintain frame rates at or near my maximum (72). Similarly, in DCS, it's difficult to compare the vast Cairo, Paris, London, and Ghaza (there still) to the relatively small Seoul of the 1950s here, and the performance difference is significant. I had to downgrade to potato-era settings to achieve acceptable performance in IL-2 Korea (although I will add that despite this, Korea still looks nice).

However, the developers have my trust and although it's said that "hope is the mother of fools" , I strongly hope that the situation will improve. 

The fact they continue to ignore one of the most important technologies in VR, not just for high resolution headsets, but also lower end gpus shows they have a fundamental misunderstanding on how to make a solid VR experience. They keep going off the we did a good job implementing VR in GB years ago so we know our stuff. GB has since been surpassed by DCS and others on VR performance. 

[AndreiTomescu]

6 hours ago, YoYo said:

it's said that "hope is the mother of fools"

Hope was the name of one of those 3 Gloster Gladiators that valiantly defended Malta at the beginnings, and did a good job. So, let's ....hope. 🙂 

IMHO, adding some timelines (=commitment) into hope will build more trust. And trust = increased pre sales. But i won't go there again, no worries.

[Avimimus]

4 hours ago, AndreiTomescu said:

Hope was the name of one of those 3 Gloster Gladiators that valiantly defended Malta at the beginnings, and did a good job. So, let's ....hope. 🙂 

IMHO, adding some timelines (=commitment) into hope will build more trust. And trust = increased pre sales. But i won't go there again, no worries.

I have a bit of a similar response to the word snowflake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Snowflake. Tough little ship, in some of very significant battles. IMHO, we could do with more movies about Flower class corvettes (and other small submarine chasers). Besides, as a Canadian I both identify with snow and respect it.

As for timelines: Yes, it can show intentions... but I think the team has shown a strong intention to commit to the product line - and put a tremendous amount of effort to very ambitiously improve it in all areas. Anyone who follows the project closely could see that. I'm not sure how best to communicate that to someone who hasn't been paying attention though.

I do know, from my years of observation, that presenting a timeline and missing it generally produces a larger reduction in trust than being honest about development uncertainties. It is probably a good idea to do what they've done recently by having only relatively short pre-order/early access periods to differentiate themselves from the large number of early access titles that become vapourware or unsupported. But I think the way to do this is to fix the major issues (namely AI, and a couple of graphical issues) and continue to release relatively complete products (rather than releasing deadlines). But that is just my intuition.

[AndreiTomescu]

48 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Anyone who follows the project closely could see that.

I did, from the RoF. And I upvote hearty your statement about the team's commitment. Only nowadays thing are changed. Youngsters have no patience. And have no drive into enjoying what's available now and WAIT for future new stuff. Everything has to be done yesterday. The core gamers, the original batch of Il-2 fans are not getting younger. Those guys, us guys, we know to wait. The series really need new blood, and this new blood doesn't know patience. It's not criticism, it's a fact: I see my sons and their peers. That's why i said what i said about timelines.

 

58 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

to differentiate themselves from the large number of early access titles that become vapourware or unsupported

Ha! This development team HAS a history. They go waaay back in developing air sim. They are proven to deliver. Can't be mistaken with itsy-bitsy software company. It's like comparing Mercedes with BYD. Whoever does that, doesn't deserve to drive the Mercedes! 🙂 

[Aapje]

10 hours ago, Col.Sanders said:

Can't find the reddit post, but they didn't say specifically. But based on how they described it, it would have been an old intel CPU like at least 8 years old 

They talked about it here: https://old.reddit.com/r/IL2Series/comments/1uwejyn/dev_blog_81_virtual_reality/

I'm still confused what processor Han was talking about because in one post he talked about an i7 with 3.4 GHz, and in another post about a 4.5 GHz boost. However, there is no i7 with 3.4 GHz base clock and 4.5 GHz boost. Unless Han was talking about two different systems, which is also plausible.

However, if I a search for any processor with 4.5 GHz boost, then it is not one of the latest CPU's, with the 5800X3D being about the most potent of the bunch.

[Alator]

Продублирую тут ( мой пост с Русской ветки общения).  Русское сообщество поддерживает меня в этом плане. Интересно мнение игроков из других стран.

Дублирую:

"Я бы ещё экзамены пересмотрел. Взять тот же F-51 или наш Як-9.... Полёт по маршруту. Смысл новичку насиловать двигатель на предельных режимах и потом судорожно думать как же погасить скорость что бы уложиться в оставшуюся минуту полторы до посадки. Это же полёт по маршруту, основы навигации  - как на карте привязаться к ориентирам и пройти все точки. Ну и к слову сказать обычно полёт по маршруту выполняется (и выполнялся!!!) на номинальном или крейсерском режимах.  Считаю текущее ограничение по времени в режиме "экзамен" это откровенный перегиб. Не гонки же, а освоение самолёта...  Надеюсь разработчики прислушаются и пересмотрят пересмотрят...."

Высказывайте своё мнение, может действительно что то получится...:)

[Aapje]

My opinion is that the exams should be made easier with regard to time and number of kills required. If the devs want to have an extreme challenge in the game, then put the current exams in there as a special challenge that is clearly marked as being hardcore or such.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

On 8/18/2026 at 11:57 PM, Avimimus said:

there is a lot of really fascinating gameplay that is missing involving things like providing much more precise artillery direction against a much wider variety of targets, [...]

Perhaps too, some technical breakthrough to make the trenches less two-dimensional... there's likely several years before we get another WWI sim - so there is time to dream at least.

With the new dialog prompts, it should be possible to have relatively complex artillery direction or FAC missions. One more reason to get the Texan 🙂

Regarding the "technical breakthrough" - it's already happened! The Flak positions and bomb craters in Korea actually dig into the ground; the same could be done with trenches. I hope they'll release some trench objects soon; there were plenty of those in Korea as well.