A new Dev Blog #86 is here!

[YoYo]

 

[Dash,Polder]

Banshee will be interesting, it'll also be the first twin engine injected into the game.  Was really hoping to see it, but wasn't so sure it would make the cut.  I for one am very happy with the selection and look forward to many hours smashing all of them on deck post strike.  I like the extra sea pay.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Been pouring over our in game map, and real maps of North Korea, and accounts of the actual missions that are the basis of the "Bridges at Toko-Ri" and I can find nothing in the area of the actual events that looks close to the recon photo of the actual three bridges that the Skyraiders took out that day.

I am disappointed, I really want to re-create that mission as closely as I can.

[Rjel]

This update checked nearly all of my wants, including the helo. Having watched “Bridges” so many times, if the pilot isn’t wearing a green top hat, I’m going to be disappointed. Just a little. Still, even as AI, having one in the sim should open up a lot of possibilities for mission builders. 
 

I can feel the pain for the Red pilots. As a U.S. based simmer, the years waiting for the P-38s, 47s and 51s in GB were excruciating. I’m sure your patience will be rewarded. Now, let’s talk about the E and F models of the Sabre….

[LukeFF]

☺️

[Juri_JS]

Does anyone know from which positions carriers during the Korean War launched their strikes? I wonder if the map needs to be slightly enlarged in the east and west.

[Mastiff]

WHOOOHOOOO!!!!!

My Skyraider!!!! at last and this is for real, no ghost plane like the other guys!!!

 

[YoYo]

The introduction of the Sea Fury, however, means adding another nationality to the IL-2. Korea, or simply UN forces? A new opportunity should appear in the career.

[Leifr]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

☺️

I am hoping that we see some carrier crew during our ops!

[Uther]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

☺️

Firefly confirmed. 😇 😁

[AEthelraedUnraed]

10 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Been pouring over our in game map, and real maps of North Korea, and accounts of the actual missions that are the basis of the "Bridges at Toko-Ri" and I can find nothing in the area of the actual events that looks close to the recon photo of the actual three bridges that the Skyraiders took out that day.

I am disappointed, I really want to re-create that mission as closely as I can.

Well, surface editing is still possible. So with a bit of extra work, you can still recreate that mission 🙂

[robzerg]

It's great to hear there's a pretty significant AI focused patch planned for September.  I didn't see this in the official dev blog, so I wonder how ShamrockOneFive over at Stormbirds learned of this?: https://stormbirds.blog/2026/09/01/bombers-and-banshees-the-roadmap-ahead-for-il-2-series-and-great-battles/

I'm delighted to see the Sea Fury in the list - kudos to 1C as a Brit!

 

[Bell]

Carrier...I thought F4U and F9F would be Marines.There should be other reasons why they make Korea before PTO.

[Uther]

12 minutes ago, robzerg said:

It's great to hear there's a pretty significant AI focused patch planned for September.  I didn't see this in the official dev blog, so I wonder how ShamrockOneFive over at Stormbirds learned of this?: https://stormbirds.blog/2026/09/01/bombers-and-banshees-the-roadmap-ahead-for-il-2-series-and-great-battles/

 

 

Yes first I've heard of that. Good news. 

[Jade_Monkey]

27 minutes ago, robzerg said:

It's great to hear there's a pretty significant AI focused patch planned for September.  I didn't see this in the official dev blog, so I wonder how ShamrockOneFive over at Stormbirds learned of this?: https://stormbirds.blog/2026/09/01/bombers-and-banshees-the-roadmap-ahead-for-il-2-series-and-great-battles/

I'm delighted to see the Sea Fury in the list - kudos to 1C as a Brit!

 

Did you read the very first paragraph? It was a closed door presentation 

[Mark_Krieger]

On 9/2/2026 at 12:23 PM, robzerg said:

It's great to hear there's a pretty significant AI focused patch planned for September.  I didn't see this in the official dev blog, so I wonder how ShamrockOneFive over at Stormbirds learned of this?: https://stormbirds.blog/2026/09/01/bombers-and-banshees-the-roadmap-ahead-for-il-2-series-and-great-battles/

I'm delighted to see the Sea Fury in the list - kudos to 1C as a Brit!

 

"Other features like controllable tanks are not out of consideration from the sounds of things but also not immediately planned." (from Stormbirds)

Perhaps it's my natural tendence of being quite pessimistic, but I must admit it worries me that so many fronts opened (bombers, carrier DLC, Odessa and Leningrad, etc.) make that there isn't enough workforce to improve what they said in last DD that were the priorities: AI behaviour and general performance of the game, specially in VR. Also important aspects like complex management of the planes like the fuel tanks, radar control and communications, more complex ATC, etc. Aspects that in fact were anounced in past DDs previously to the game launch wich I was quite unhappy to see that they weren't already implemented at the game launch. I'm also not enthusiasmed about dinamic "what if" campaign (I clearly prefer historically accurate game). It seems that Daniel's preference finally found a way although majority of the team voted for the historical career. Well, having both options isn't bad, but I see a huge amount of work that makes me afraid that some aspects that in my opinion should have priority will take a long time to be developed. In fact I already payed for the founders edition, and although I will really love the Skyraider, Sea Fury and Corsair I really think that the priority should be good AI performance (still a lot of friendly collisions and AI jets fly awfully and I can even shot down Sabres in a IL-10 wich is absurd) and of course the general performance of the game, wich in my opinion, although it is more or less playable it is still very far from being optimal. I don't care to wait a few more months to get those planes if the quality of the actual game improves faster.

Edited September 7 by Mark_Krieger

[Husar]

All of this looks great, but the lack of the DB-3/Il-4 or Tu-2, SB-2 in the GB bomber DLC is a pretty big omission.

 

[Steini18778]

5 minutes ago, Mark_Krieger said:

"Other features like controllable tanks are not out of consideration from the sounds of things but also not immediately planned." (from Stormbirds)

Perhaps it's my natural tendence of being quite pessimistic, but I must admit it worries me that so many fronts opened (bombers, carrier DLC, Odessa and Leningrad, etc.) make that there isn't enough workforce to improve what they said in last DD that were the priorities: AI behaviour and general performance of the game, specially in VR. Also importank aspects like complex management of the planes like the fuel tanks, radar control and communications, more complex ATC, etc. Aspects that in fact were anounced in past DDs previously to the game launch wich I was quite unhappy to see that they weren't already implemented at the game launch. I'm also not enthusiasmed about dinamic "what if" campaign (I clearly prefer historically accurate game). It seems that Daniel's preference finally found a way although majority of the team voted for the historical career. Well, having both options isn't bad, but I see a huge amount of work that makes me afraid that some aspects that in my opinion should have preference will take a long time to be developed. In fact I already payed for the founders edition, and although I will really love the Skyraider, Sea Fury and Corsair I really think that the priority should be good AI performance (still a lot of friendly collisions and AI jets fly awfully and I can even shot down Sabres in a IL-10 wich is absurd) and of course the general performance of the game, wich in my opinion, although it is more or less playable it is still very far from being optimal. I don't care to wait a few more months to get those planes if the quality of the actual game improves faster.

You can not shift the whole company to a single module, when there are only 2-3 experts are able to do the job. The rest like 3D artists can start with new projects because they can not work on AI. But i understand you and your pessimistic attitude. Thatswhy i still did not bought Korea so far. Reports of bad AI und VR kept me from buying.

[Mark_Krieger]

7 minutes ago, Steini18778 said:

You can not shift the whole company to a single module, when there are only 2-3 experts are able to do the job. The rest like 3D artists can start with new projects because they can not work on AI. But i understand you and your pessimistic attitude. Thatswhy i still did not bought Korea so far. Reports of bad AI und VR kept me from buying.

Yes, that's true too. There are different specialists and of course not everybody is a programer/engineer. And don't get me wrong, I usually sound more pessimistic than what I am in reality, but I tend to focus on aspects to improve and not so much in what is already well done. I don't regret to have bought the founders edition. There are many aspects of the game that are fenomenal too wich I enjoy, but it is true that AI behaviour made me stop to play the carrer mode (so many accidents of my wingmen are too frustrating for me) and dificulties to get a decent VR performance with my PC wich isn't a bad PC made me slow a bit more the rythm. I am quite confident 1C will solve most of the problems and improve the game like they did with Great Battles. My only fear is if this will take too long.

[Husar]

IMHO, I don't think the AI will ever be fixed to the point where it’s no longer a major source of complaints.

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

The AI could be perfect, and someone would still complain about it.  It's human nature, especially on the internet.  Not saying that improvement isn't called for, it certainly is, but the continuously strident complaints will not bring about change any faster.  They don't have a dev team the size of the AAA titles designed for consoles with budgets that would make your nose bleed.  Patience is a virtue in this.

[Dash,Polder]

Everybody has their own vision of what AI should be.  Thing is not even us players can consistently meet or fly to all those requests and demands, when that's the case how does one go about programming for that with ease, there is always going to be compromises made.  The fidelity of combat in this current simulated world is deep enough things are way past the dynamics even most of us can master, and it's going deeper with the carrier deck soon to be added.  The complex dynamics are the very thing that draws me into this sim in the first place, so please never kill it by trying to over control and contain it. 

Yeah, there's simple stuff to fix, like don't lawn dart bots into the ground for no particularly good reason.  But I'll take the excellent gravy even over bland mashed potatoes and still eat my fill.  There are no mashed potatoes in multiplayer, just delicious meat and the gravy is to die for.

[Joch]

Carrier Ops! 
 

Hope we get an animated LSO.

[Captain_Trips]

[LukeFF]

12 hours ago, Juri_JS said:

Does anyone know from which positions carriers during the Korean War launched their strikes? I wonder if the map needs to be slightly enlarged in the east and west.

When operating from Korea's east coast, it was usually near the 38th Parallel. 

You can get a good idea of their operating area by looking at the numerous original reports uploaded by the US Navy. I've relied on them heavily when writing the unit histories for the new playable units that are coming:

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/archives/digital-exhibits-highlights/action-reports/korean-war-carrier-air-groups.html
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/archives/digital-exhibits-highlights/action-reports/korean-war-carrier-combat.html