Between DCS, BMS, IL-2 GB, IL-2 Korea, WT and soon Combat Pilot, there is a growing list of sims in this genre which is good news. I have never been an all or nothing type of person, more games means more choice and that leads to more fun so I am very excited to see Combat Pilot come to market when they are ready. Let me know what you think below.
IL-2 Korea will be my next sim. I'm getting a bit tired of DCS's level of complexity. It feels like they make it more complex than it should be "because they can". I have a full time job already I don't really need to spend hours learning to drop bombs.
I'm really excited for IL-2 Korea, too. I played a ton of Rowan's MiG Alley back in the day. DCS has the planes, but as is often the case in DCS, no maps or content to go with them. You can go fly your Sabre over modern Syria, I guess. That's actually one thing that gives me hope for Combat Pilot: it sounds like they have the sort of "big picture" focus that DCS desperately needs. DCS is obsessively focused on fine details, to the exclusion of all else. So you end up with a bunch of elaborately modeled aircraft from a hodge-podge of periods with little rhyme or reason to it, and then a separate hodge podge of maps and content (mostly maps, though--DCS is really not into providing content) that sometimes intersects with the modules in logical ways, but often not.
@@kendil22 I wish DCS had something along the line of turning off complex system management while retaining the flight model and other realistic limitations. That is one thing I love about nuclear option is you get some realism with pick up and play.
I really like to see the competition. Maybe FINALLY Eagle Dynamics will create a dynamic campaign, believable AI, and ATC as promised for years now. Definitely looking forward to Combat Pilot and BMS new terrain engine. P.S. WT is not a simulator. Never was, never will🤣
Great video! I was impressed with what the team has already done at FSExpo. Flying it hands-on felt good, especially considering how early it is. I'm pretty optimistic about the future.
I'll say this about clickable cockpits: I do like them a lot, but probably not for the same reason that most people do. Maybe this is weird, but I feel like they make a sim more accessible. I don't have to memorize a bunch of hotkeys or extra HOTAS binds. You do have to learn the cockpit controls, but those are all labelled and tend to be organized in a logical fashion. So, do I think that IL-2 would be better with clickable cockpits? Yeah, I kind of do. It's not a dealbreaker, but it is a thing that I like.
I actually agree with this. When you have everything clickable then you can at least be aware that the option exists. One tricky thing that I found when playing WT Sim is you can't interact with the cockpit so you have no idea what is or isn't modeled and you have to go diving into the keymapper. For IL-2 GB though, I don't really think clickable pits would really add much though because they are just simple prop planes, there really isn't that much to interact with. I would much rather have them add things like torque or revamp the low speed handling of their planes.
This is 100% how I feel as well. Id rather hop into a new aircraft and have enough intuition to know what to look for in the cockpit and just click to operate. This allows me to quickly get in the air and discover what I want to map for convience. This is way more approachable instead of fumbling through 100 keybinds where 20% of them are duplicates depending on what plane you are in (IL2), 20% do the same thing in different ways (DCS), and 40% you will rarely need to use.
For sure, I can look around the cockpit and find the switches and controls I need, then map the stuff that's on the the flight stick to my HOTAS controllers. I do this in MSFS, I do this in DCS. This is much easier than trying to remember key combinations, then look down to find it on the keyboard and have to reach for it in the middle of combat, when I already know where the switches are in the cockpit. I love everything about IL2, except the non clickable cockpits, which also seem to make the planes less fidelity to me, I don't play those anymore.
That's exactly why I like clickable cockpits myself. In DCS I have a much harder time learning FC3 modules than I do learning the "Full Fidelity" jets, because I retain the knowledge better than I can when trying to remember a bunch of shortcuts.
I loved CFS2. It’s been a long time since I got the opportunity to fly in the Pacific. Very hopeful for this title, it’ll be a good while yet but this looks excellent for an early prototype.
This, dynamic campaigns are essential for me. There's little point in high fidelity clickable cockpits etc if there is only repetitive quick missions and pre-scripted missions. There's no sense of the unpredictable nature of flying over a warzone, no sense of a war at all in fact. These planes are meant for fighting, not having their knobs fondled.
I was pretty happy to hear that engine start ups and such were going have auto start options. I’m very much into quick starts and get flying. And the benefit to flying older planes like this is there not a terrible amount of complex weapon systems unlike fighter jets. Been recently playing IL-2 and I have been loving it with PWCGs dynamic campaign generator. Though I wish there were more options to have fantasy battles with more dynamically influenced frontlines… would love to play a campaign as the Germans fighting the Japanese lol. And I wish they had The Battle of Midway or Pearl Harbor. I’ve been craving naval flight combat
I think dynamic LOD in unreal engine is about starting with one high quality asset, and dynmicaly changing the number of polygons on the asset as things move further from the camera. It means devs dont have to spend time making 4 or 5 lower poly versions of the assest for different distances. I dont know how it works its magic. It also looks really good for forests, it means you dont need any 2D tree sprites.
i am very impressed by the gameplay footage and the current stage of the game. I think the most challenging thing is building the environment in wich future planes, ships and locations are put in. Making a beautiful 3d model with awesome textures and functions will be one of the later steps but the foundation of the game looks promising. On the side… can we talk about the awesome work they put into the water 😀
When he rants his hatred of Fidelity this is my take away. Enigma wants a simulated warzone, the planes are just a byproduct to get him there. There is an irony he hates modern BVR planes, but wants WWII/Cold War planes that basically fly themselves. That said Fighting Games recently have had Simple Modern and complicated Classic Controls. Combat Pilot should make them flaming cliffs and iL2 Default controls with a hard-core option to switch over to full Fidelity Also this isn't the same full Fidelity "trap" like DCS working with classified radar, ECM, Missile Seekering wareheads and such. These are fuel driven piston engines with minor differences between each one, really coming down to switch locations in the cockpit. Anything beyond that is ABSOLUTELY declassified and simplistic by modern standards.
I think the point sailed over your head. When fidelity reaches past the point where it cant be sustained and standardized between all the modules then the fidelity becomes destructive. For example, cockpits fogging up due to humidity. Its realistic, it's not classified and it would add to the experience but it shouldn't be added if only a few planes have it and others do not.
As someone with a baseline HOTAS, I think a clickable cockpit, for the essential or standard stuff anyway, is pretty important. For context, I do feel that the F-4E in DCS is an impressive piece of simulation but that it does a lot more than it needs to. I don’t care about simulated electrical circuits or hydraulic actuators. In fact, when that becomes launched, I hope it can be switched off. For one thing, it will eat into my CPU/GPU budget. For another, I prefer my simulation to be a sim of a mission where little things don’t go wrong like in real life so I can concentrate on the flying and fighting rather than the admin. I do learn startup sequences in DCS just to see what’s involved but after a while I drop back to autostart and usually forget the procedure - often letting me do something else while the gyros or nav computer align, or the engine warm up. But I would love it if stuff in the IL2 cockpit was clickable. I imagine it’s not an issue for someone with a HOTAS where they don’t have to use maybe half or more of the actions through command/shift/control keys, but on mine, I tend to use my limited buttons for the main stuff, assign a bunch of shifted buttons for the rest and then scratch my head or look through the key commands window to remind myself which combination of CTRL, ALT and Shift I need to use. In DCS this fiddling is reduced as I can click in the cockpit. In IL2, not so much.
Just so long as it isn't a 'live service' game with tech tree grinding and $50 premium modules or a practically empty sim sandbox with $60+ modules with zero entry-level content except for broken tutorial missions, that becomes a slide show the second a cluster bomb is deployed! I had years and years of fun with il-2 1946 thanks to the modding community content and relatively low resource cost. I think that anything that takes its inspiration from that has a great chance of being a hit.
With both Combat Pilot and IL2 Korea in development I'm pretty excited. Gunfighter air combat has always been what I've gravitated to most, and early jet combat in a complete, cohesive package hasn't been seen since "Mig Alley" back in 1999. However, I do wish there was a 'modern' or late cold war flight sim out there that had a comparable business model and fidelity level to IL-2. Back in the "golden age" we had Jane's Combat Simulations making several flight sims of various fidelity levels, Falcon 4.0, Enemy Engaged, and even Strike Fighters had its moments. I put more hours than I care to admit into the dynamic campaign of Jane's Longbow 2. Now, it's DCS or War Thunder... tragic that those are the options for modern air combat. I can't stand the business model of either for different reasons. Then you have the fidelity level of WT being too little, while DCS goes overboard with aircraft system modeling while very important core game elements such as a built-in dynamic campaign are still MIA after years of (low priority) development. And I fear, if/when that dynamic campaign does come, it will just be another money pit.
I do believe that everything should be clickable in the cockpit. I don’t believe everything should need to be, but sometimes it’s easier to find a button in a cockpit for functions you rarely use, than remember which keyboard key it is, or feeling around for the correct key while wearing VR glasses.
Im still a newbie to flight sims and started with DCS,i have to say I like clickable cockpits because I play in vr and when I played with a hotas it was a pain in the ass to bind and rememeber what button and switch does especially if I havent flown in a minute.
13:50 oh god lumen rendering and upscaling, this is what I feared about unreal engine being chosen. I do hope the devs will eventually address this, because we can't afford jpeg artifacting around aircraft at long ranges
I have a recommendation to the developers. Dudes, just do a remake of the best simulator ever, IL-2 1946 with modern graphics and better visuals on the maps and get over with it. I could choose that over any other "new" WW2 flight sim any day.
Appreciated information sharing! A flyable Zero means it can bloom. But my only complaint would be the flight settings! Is it gonna be stick or M+K exclusive or is it gonna be possible to play on a modern controller with the keyboard for shortcuts in mind? Setting up a flight setting for a controller at il 2 is a nightmare and in WT it's a UI headache.
From what I can see, they are capable of delivering most of what they promise. My only point of concern here is that developing a flight sim in the West is going to be more expensive than in Russia. So unless they attract new people to the genre and only compete for the same pool of players, their long term financial viability is in question. They could get extra funds from their tools, but then there's a risk of it becoming an Unreal Engine or Steam situation, when the 2nd thing becomes the main thing and they basically stop making games. So fidelity is nice and all, but they need all the pop appeal they can produce.
I feel like this "between il2 and DCS" while promissing both having scale and clickable cockpits is only possible with WW2 assets If they ever start thinking adding something more modern/cold war down the 10 year road then they will get overwhelmed with systems simulationc, if they hold on to the clickable cockpits standard across planes. I still think DCS's flamming cliffs 3 planes are the best sweetspot between reality and gameplay if they ever (or another project) want to go beyound WW2 with a scale and multiple flyable planes. But if they plan to stick with WW2 for whole 10 years then yes, clickable cockpits in simple planes is possible. And yes, I am in the camp that will forever regret that ED abandoned the sim-lit spinoff DCS title ambitions as my Lock On nostalgia is strong. Including the fact that in those days the planes were gameplay balanced in multiplayer as gameplay was above realism in priorities in those golden days.
@@Enigma89 Ehm ... honestly never heard of it and now that I googled it a bit looks superficially something matching what I might like, but man ... 99usd bundle on 1998 style store ... no VR support (yeah I am one of those in DCS/WarThunder) and I assume competitive or PvE multiplayer is long dead ... :D. For retro-infused game I recommend "Tiny Combat Arena" and for a good example of how to do simplified simulation of modern systems "VTOL VR". If VTOL VR would increase scale, provide us dedicated server and release as DLC balanced RED plane for PvP it would be "THE" perfect sim. .. Until then, always buggy War Thunder (because low priority of sim mode} is probably the only "somewhat" balanced competitive flight sim out there. If you can stomache the z-infused russian ultranationalists as devs.
Curious about what they really will manage to realize. Game devs big plans are not unusual, game dev realising big plans are. So yeah lets wait and see.
I've always disagreed with you over the "high fidelity is a trap" thing, not because I like high fidelity, but because I don't think it makes financial sense in the context of DCS. The fact that you think all opinions contrary to yours amount rivet counting tells me you don't really understand why people disagree with you in the first place.
As much I try to convince myself that the game has enormous potential and that graphics are not important, in some screenshots the similarity with other games with unreal engine is truly uncanny. That was my initial doubt. I'm sad that we're back on that path.
The biggest problem for combat sims...Developmentally its the same people trying to reinvent the wheel time and time again. I understand you sometimes play GatesOfHell, which started off as a Mod...Of a mod. and its RIDDLED with core problems that have been present since Launch and are still in the game. Games on paper sound cool, but as we've seen time and time again....They suck at transfering that to reality. All talk, no action Just excuses. enough is enough bro.
It is exciting because they seem to want to proportion their efforts in the right buckets and try to approach this with a long term plan. That is very different from the current games that stumbled into their position
I saw a few people giving flak on what was shown in the experimental build. I wanted to show it in the same light of how it was experienced in Vegas. Just flying around and getting a feel for it. They are still cooking and are trying to be transparent. No one has built a net new sim with these sort of ambitions in a really long time. So be patient, let them cook!
@@Hellfire0220 No proof of that, and if they were, why is it only affecting one developer and not all of them? Why did it only come out after the release of one module when there have been others from the same developer for literally years with no issues? It's not an ED issue but a Razscam issue, and specifically a Mudhen issue. Sounds like RZ wanted a bigger cut of sales but ED said no, and RZ has thrown a hissy fit and has done the equivalent of "taking their toys away and going home" like a petulant child.
Thank you @Enigma89 for the video and coverage even though you could not be at the FS Expo. We were so busy with the show we did not have time to spend more time explaining what we are doing before or during. This video helps makes things a little clearer. Thanks to those that came to the show to check it out, was a fun time. Jason will have more to say about the show and our current state of development in the near future after he takes a couple days off. The team is now back to work post show. We have a long way to go, but everyone is invited to watch and come along for the ride. Making a CFS is quite risky and we are the smallest and least funded team out there currently, but we are going to give it our best shot.
It really sounds like they have the right priorities. Scale is so important in a flight sim and one of the things that elevates BMS and completely hobbles DCS. Also landing somewhere between IL2 GB and DCS is the perfect spot. I agree that clickable cockpits aren’t necessary but I’m glad they will have them as so many folks in this community fixate on that feature. I really hope they can pull off a dynamic campaign eventually. The theater and map set may make this less daunting than a full BMS campaign. They really just, at a minimum, need something like 1942 Pacific Air War that simulates the task forces and generates cap/strike missions.
I agree with you about the sim dark age. Currently all devs seem to either be in a fidelity-arrogance trap, an exploitative Russian F2P mafia trap (War Thunder) and/or an ancient engine trap. Sooo, I just don't flight sim anymore. I wish these guys all the best and I hope their game can be a reason for me to get back into it. I also like WW2 the most. Also, clickable cockpits can really help in VR if implemented properly. Cause I always forget all the keybinds.
It seems like that’s the same for all WW2 sims. The only really good sub sims are Silent Hunter III and IV (and mods are basically mandatory for the former since it’s coming up on 20 years old), and while U-Boat is catching up it’s a very different style of game. There are basically no tank sims except Steel Fury 1942, which is pretty small unmodded and apparently it’s difficult to get the big mods for it. Apparently IL2 Tanks are a thing, but I haven’t heard good things about it. All the newer seems seem to either have the issues you mentioned, or they take place in more modern eras.
6:32 Yes, and it is a reason I'm not playing IL-2, but not out of pedanticness. I fly exclusively in VR therefore: 1. keyboard shortcuts don't really work for me 2. I tend to forget most of my HOTAS bindings. 3. having clickable cockpits means I don't have to bind anything beyond basic stuff like gear/flaps/wpn triggers. Il-2 not having clickable cockpits is a quality of life issue, not a fidelity issue.
Agree wholeheartedly, having a switch you only press every now and then, and then having to remember that switch on the spot gets old real fast. Just let me click the damn switch I can see it right there but I don’t know what my damn bind is
Maybe but we would not have to half the plane they made if they had to be clickable and il2 needing clickable cockpit most plane you only need one radiator mixture and rpm that it and you can bind the same key to everyplane like if you play a few time a week it become muscle memory
I like clickable cockpits, but I argue for a LOW FIDELITY CLICKABLE COCKPIT. Meaning, we don't need all the systems "behind the switch" to be modeled. I like my "frequently used" cockpit items to be clickable.
This sounds like it will be your vibe then. I think the nature that this is WWII makes it much easier to achieve that. I would guess that trying to do this in jets would be much harder to translate click into system action because they are all so different.
I agree that the present state of flightsims will leave anyone sour, unless youre super new to it or just naive. With that said, I see a bright future for the niche: Microprose coming into scene, Combat Pilot and now with IL2 Korea. I loved IL2 Great battles but I got bored out of it. DCS was one of my biggest disappointments in gaming, for it is no game, only cockpits. I hope Copi, the new IL2K and whatever comes out way will actually bring us some fun, some REAL multiplayer battle gameplay and not just autistic needle and screen simulator/air Quake. I'll probably reference this video in my upcoming videos about flightsims. Cheers Enigma.
Great content, they are wise to show where they are precisely, get rid of the people with no patience and inform those who want to know they are really building something.
Fidelity to me is planes have personality. This is edge of envelope punishment, engine / g force abuse punishment, and weapons limitations. This along with unique performance in combat / landing is way more important than clicks cockpit.
2:59 - Airbus because they have tons of experience in prop planes? As you mentioned "and other aerospace experience that their team has", i hope they been with Cessna or something on that line, because we already know torque does affect adverse yaw^^ Kinda kidding, fingers crossed for a great WW2 sim. EDIT: Obviously you cannot "feel" the sim from just a video - but the flight model looks actually pretty good already imho.
Seems cool, CLOD was definitely a really fun game, I found the battle of Britain spitfire vs 109 match up to be really fun. One thing that I do find a bit hard to wrap my head around is, when it comes to flight sims, why starting the aircraft is a sticking point for some people. It's by far one of the easiest things you can learn to do. If you're being lazy and skipping that, what over things are you supposed to be doing that you are also skipping? If you're just gonna be messing around with AI that's fine, but you're gonna be a detriment to your side if you are not putting in the work to learn to properly fly.
I'm very excited by this game, and by the news that IL-2 Korea won't be just a great battles new content, but an independent and new fly sim with a new engine and a lot of new technologies and surprisingly it is very advanced in its development. I'm very happy that developers are creating new fly sims with new engines, instead of recycling old games. I hope that these is the way to get rid of the dark age of flight sim.
I won’t be upset if their cockpit fidelity doesn’t match DCS, that’s what DCS is for and hopefully it evolves well in the WW2 sphere over the next decade. However what annoys me in great battles is the floaty flight models with no torque and the engine timer dynamic. I’m hoping for a focus on great flight models, good spotting and solid engine management.
@@snow1-2pinkkush46 it was a shock to me after first learning to sim in il2 to find things like torque and spinning out after stalling existed. Now every time I try to go back it’s like I’m flying a sailplane with no drag in turns that rolls right whenever it pleases at low speed. Watching a 190 in il2 point its nose at slow speed is very entertaining. Ill admit I’ll never get to fly a warbird full throttle so I don’t have a fkn clue what’s real or not. To me il2 seems to be a flight model ported from a ww1 game with just sliders for each plane for speed and lift modified for a different 3d model. How has your experience differed?
@@Magpie...il2's flight modelling is poor in a different way than DCS. DCS over complicates and exaggerates how some effects work to a silly degree. If you are a pilot or have flown in high performance singles you know what I mean. DCS makes every plane feel like it has zero stability and are super twitchy, il2 makes them feel like they are on rails. The BEST flight modeling for the feeling of flight has to be Cliffs of Dover. Team fusion have done an amazing job with those aircraft and the feeling of flight is perfect.
@@thanksskeletor4812 Great way of explaining it, I bought clod in anticipation of a VR release but I’m yet to see it progress sadly. I really hated the twitchy nature of some of the warbirds, especially British aircraft when I solely used a vpc base. However once I made a strong ffb stick they really made more sense. You apply some pressure against the firmness, the stick barely moves but the aircraft responds. All sense of twitchyness evaporates and the Mossie and spitfire sing, especially if you make a trim box. I know it’s not a cable controlled jet but even the a-4s ridiculous roll rate becomes a pleasure once the stick forces are turned up. It’s almost like flying with a force sensing stick in the viper. I think dcs just chooses to not alter stick deflection = control deflection and it doesn’t correspond well to a spring loaded joystick base. It was such a difference I went ahead and made ffb rudders too.
forget it. UE is optimized for shooters and can't handle geospatial applications. You will probably see only 10 km ahead and get a world made of water.
I'm excited for the Genre of flight sims in general. DCS is having a hiccup with issues but the future still is positive, as for IL and Combat Pilot, it's just icing on the cake
I think it would be silly having to decide between one or the other, unless one strives for absolute realism 100%. Then no hotkeys, but then your cockpit and head movements are restricted by what you ate for breakfast that morning.😅
I am really eager to see how this game will come alive. And at the same time very happy to see Il2 dive into Korea. I am here to root for all of them. Even ED who seems to be the worst publisher of all lf the companies out there (Razbam shebang for example, or dropped dead Hawk.....)
If I’m honest, I think IL-2 level fidelity but with clickable cockpits would be more or less the perfect level of fidelity. I love DCS, but I also hate it. Contradictory I know, but I’ve come back to DCS so many times due to new modules releasing, or just because I’ve felt like flying. Only then I realise just how much I’ve forgotten, or how entire systems have been reworked and no longer function like I knew them (Mirage 2000/Harrier were guilty of this). It ended up killing a lot of the enjoyment and at times actively dissuaded me from playing, because real life was tiring enough without needing to relearn modules endlessly. Not only that, but the lack of core improvements to DCS is become unacceptable now.
Is VR planned from the start, or will it be added later? And will it be done correctly like every other game/sim does, instead of how IL-2 GB did it in the past? i.e. so they don't need to get a physical HMD model in their hands each time a new one is released in order to get simple things like the aspect ratio correct on day one.
Clickable doesn't automatically make it "full fidelity", it just make it interactible with a mouse, easy and convenient, no need for extra button mappings or keyboard shortcuts. We have clickable cockpits not only in DCS but also MSFS, BMS, even IL-2 CLOD/Tobruk. Still not clear, wether cockpits will be clickable or not? "Will be possible to make them clickable" is good, but they better be clickable, it's good for convenience. I see that they also plan to make it "mouse free VR", that can mean proper hand and/or controller support, but that also may mean that they don't want to make actually "clickable" cockpits.
Honestly this looks really promising, and i'm quite impressed with the transparency and the development so far with their little demo. It looked good for just 12 months work! i can't wait for flight sims to catch up to the modern gaming world engine and technology wise, this looks like it could revive the combat flight sim community and give us a modern, well performing game and foundation to build on for the future.
For just a year from scratch that is INSANE! Words mean a lot but THAT means everything. They now have my attention. Anyone giving flak over that is either a child or an idiot, that is by far the biggest cause for optimism I've seen from a new product in awhile. If devs are checking comments for feedback, I do have one thing. About clickable cockpits, as someone who flies in VR I absolutely recommend at least committing to SOME things being clickable, like gear, flaps etc. Things you need but you don't really want on your stick. It's not very many things but binding on your keyboard is just awful in VR. Just a thought.
“Uses Unreal Engine 5+” may not be a good thing. While virtually all game environment scales are able to be handled by the leading game engines due to increased memory and better streaming, flight sims are still at too big of a scale if things are being rendered and calculated based on “correct” data and calculations and not pretty ones that are faked. Maybe that is what CAP aims to do - be a visual blast, have fun gameplay, while convincing enough world accuracy. It wouldn’t be correct to call DCS a dated engine. It’s an engine that is actively worked on and goes through major version updates - hence, that’s why sometimes module integrations break. I’m just saying - if you’re gonna critique DCS for breaking certain effort, you should understand what is being gained. DCS has Vulkan rendering, dynamic campaign (why the mission editor is constantly getting updates and missions break…they are changing it necessarily), and even a global map is a “far out there” goal. As far as fidelity: it’s WWII? “Full fidelity” for that era is a far easier. The planes don’t have autopilot, radar, GPS/INS, jammers, data link, or missiles. All you have are engines, guns, and radios. I say this because it’s what’ll allow them to “succeed” for that space, but also curb the silliness that they would do “DCS better.”
I just invested in some decent VKB flight controllers. I bought most of IL2 Stalingrad DLC, and was just thinking how much I miss CFS2, and even how few decent Combat flight games there are out there. Colour me excited about this! I am however quite tentative still, and reserve judgment until we can see an EA version which we can buy. Let’s see how this one pans out…. That said, I’d buy an Early Access version today if it was out 😊
Greatly looking forward to both this and IL-2 Korea. As a simmer since sims started back in the 80's i've seen (and owned) just about everything ever produced. I still fly BMS Falcon for it's dynamic campaign, and if someone offered something similar (26 years later...finally?) I would buy it in a heartbeat.. not that I won't buy it anyway.. 😆
The most impressive thing I saw from the demo (aside from the fact that it exists at all with such a short time in development) is how the propellers believably transition from being able to count them individually to becoming a blur. I guess most would consider this a minor detail but still, I didn't think it'd take this long to figure out how to do that. (If another sim has already done it then I'm not aware of it, since I mostly look at flight sims the same way some people look at EVE online: from a safe-ish distance.) My main issue with the project right now is the abbreviation is... quite unfortunate. As long as attack and bomber planes don't take a back seat then I'll be happy since I don't think I could ever really function in a fighter role.
Looks very promising! I really hope they take a page from pacific fighters for settings and 1942 for dynamic campaigns. Pretty big asks, but accessibility for flight Sims is so important for building the community. Great battles and DCS are great, but the barrier to entry is brutal for people who are new to Sims and don't have a full set up.
I'd rather them spend time on other immersion aspects outside of full fidelity cockpits. Being able to walk around an airbase and climb into your own plane would be incredible. Basically what DCS envisioned with the supercarrier module and then never followed through on. Besides, most of the time the pilots didn't start their own engines in the first place, so running out of the ready room/PBR to the plane on the flight deck as others are beginning to launch would be absolutely incredible.
Personally id rather them not bother with the clickable cockpit. It is way to much work for little reward. I simply don't see them being able to make a substantial amount of clickable cockpit aircraft with any kind of realism. But this is also coming from someone who has been around and flown warbirds and will nickpick just about every aspect of the module. For those who will look past a lot of inaccuracies because they just don't catch them then sure I guess its cool
“Uses Unreal Engine 5+” may not be a good thing. While virtually all game environment scales are able to be handled by the leading game engines due to increased memory and better streaming, flight sims are still at too big of a scale if things are being rendered and calculated based on “correct” data and calculations and not pretty ones that are faked. Maybe that is what CAP aims to do - be a visual blast, have fun gameplay, while convincing enough world accuracy.
Wish IL-2 46 still had a huge community. Heck I wish the CoD blitz servers were more populated as well. Cut my teeth in IL-2 forgotten battles and road it into 1946 before I left with the military. By the time I came back the community was nonexistent
I don't need to be able to click all of the buttons. I do want full fidelity when it comes to FM, systems functionality, etc. Everybody binds those 100 buttons to Hotas anyway.
Unreal Engine is a bummer for me, since it's VR performance is shite (even compared to DCS). Let's see how good it works, in the meantime there is IL2 Korea which should work great in VR
Thank you for reporting on this! I have to admit I'm a fanboy of jets but even I can understand how important such projects are for the *whole* (combat) flightsim world.
A big waiting time for me: for RTX 5090 to get full benefits from my PC to fly VR in DCS, for IL-2 Korea and for Combat Pilot, can't wait for this all😁
I hope there will be more than just one set of controls for everything tho. This drives me nuts in IL2 controlling everything with the same settings without the option to tune for specific aircraft.
Between DCS, BMS, IL-2 GB, IL-2 Korea, WT and soon Combat Pilot, there is a growing list of sims in this genre which is good news. I have never been an all or nothing type of person, more games means more choice and that leads to more fun so I am very excited to see Combat Pilot come to market when they are ready. Let me know what you think below.
IL-2 Korea will be my next sim. I'm getting a bit tired of DCS's level of complexity. It feels like they make it more complex than it should be "because they can". I have a full time job already I don't really need to spend hours learning to drop bombs.
I'm really excited for IL-2 Korea, too. I played a ton of Rowan's MiG Alley back in the day. DCS has the planes, but as is often the case in DCS, no maps or content to go with them. You can go fly your Sabre over modern Syria, I guess.
That's actually one thing that gives me hope for Combat Pilot: it sounds like they have the sort of "big picture" focus that DCS desperately needs. DCS is obsessively focused on fine details, to the exclusion of all else. So you end up with a bunch of elaborately modeled aircraft from a hodge-podge of periods with little rhyme or reason to it, and then a separate hodge podge of maps and content (mostly maps, though--DCS is really not into providing content) that sometimes intersects with the modules in logical ways, but often not.
@@kendil22 I wish DCS had something along the line of turning off complex system management while retaining the flight model and other realistic limitations. That is one thing I love about nuclear option is you get some realism with pick up and play.
I really like to see the competition. Maybe FINALLY Eagle Dynamics will create a dynamic campaign, believable AI, and ATC as promised for years now.
Definitely looking forward to Combat Pilot and BMS new terrain engine.
P.S. WT is not a simulator. Never was, never will🤣
sea power and ask force admiral
Looks EXTREMELY good for 12 months of dev.
Great video! I was impressed with what the team has already done at FSExpo. Flying it hands-on felt good, especially considering how early it is. I'm pretty optimistic about the future.
I'll say this about clickable cockpits: I do like them a lot, but probably not for the same reason that most people do. Maybe this is weird, but I feel like they make a sim more accessible. I don't have to memorize a bunch of hotkeys or extra HOTAS binds. You do have to learn the cockpit controls, but those are all labelled and tend to be organized in a logical fashion. So, do I think that IL-2 would be better with clickable cockpits? Yeah, I kind of do. It's not a dealbreaker, but it is a thing that I like.
I actually agree with this. When you have everything clickable then you can at least be aware that the option exists. One tricky thing that I found when playing WT Sim is you can't interact with the cockpit so you have no idea what is or isn't modeled and you have to go diving into the keymapper.
For IL-2 GB though, I don't really think clickable pits would really add much though because they are just simple prop planes, there really isn't that much to interact with. I would much rather have them add things like torque or revamp the low speed handling of their planes.
This is 100% how I feel as well. Id rather hop into a new aircraft and have enough intuition to know what to look for in the cockpit and just click to operate. This allows me to quickly get in the air and discover what I want to map for convience. This is way more approachable instead of fumbling through 100 keybinds where 20% of them are duplicates depending on what plane you are in (IL2), 20% do the same thing in different ways (DCS), and 40% you will rarely need to use.
For sure, I can look around the cockpit and find the switches and controls I need, then map the stuff that's on the the flight stick to my HOTAS controllers. I do this in MSFS, I do this in DCS. This is much easier than trying to remember key combinations, then look down to find it on the keyboard and have to reach for it in the middle of combat, when I already know where the switches are in the cockpit. I love everything about IL2, except the non clickable cockpits, which also seem to make the planes less fidelity to me, I don't play those anymore.
Clickable cockpits are also a massive boon in VR.
That's exactly why I like clickable cockpits myself. In DCS I have a much harder time learning FC3 modules than I do learning the "Full Fidelity" jets, because I retain the knowledge better than I can when trying to remember a bunch of shortcuts.
It's been 22 years since MS Combat Flight Simulator... I wonder if this will finally fill the hole that has been left by it.
I loved CFS2. It’s been a long time since I got the opportunity to fly in the Pacific. Very hopeful for this title, it’ll be a good while yet but this looks excellent for an early prototype.
I too miss CF2 flying in this will be like a homecoming for so many that love the pacific, I eagerly await the time to fly with you all
Great news! II'm in my late 50's so I hope I live long enough to see an actual game!
I really cannot express how excited i am for this simply because of dynamic campaign. Oh also its the only new pacific flight sim out there.
Not a flight sim, but pretty awesome: Task Force Admiral.
This, dynamic campaigns are essential for me. There's little point in high fidelity clickable cockpits etc if there is only repetitive quick missions and pre-scripted missions.
There's no sense of the unpredictable nature of flying over a warzone, no sense of a war at all in fact.
These planes are meant for fighting, not having their knobs fondled.
Looking really forward to this. Especially their way of filling the "gaps" in flightmodels is genius.
I was pretty happy to hear that engine start ups and such were going have auto start options. I’m very much into quick starts and get flying. And the benefit to flying older planes like this is there not a terrible amount of complex weapon systems unlike fighter jets.
Been recently playing IL-2 and I have been loving it with PWCGs dynamic campaign generator. Though I wish there were more options to have fantasy battles with more dynamically influenced frontlines… would love to play a campaign as the Germans fighting the Japanese lol. And I wish they had The Battle of Midway or Pearl Harbor. I’ve been craving naval flight combat
I think dynamic LOD in unreal engine is about starting with one high quality asset, and dynmicaly changing the number of polygons on the asset as things move further from the camera. It means devs dont have to spend time making 4 or 5 lower poly versions of the assest for different distances. I dont know how it works its magic.
It also looks really good for forests, it means you dont need any 2D tree sprites.
Thank you for making this video!
i am very impressed by the gameplay footage and the current stage of the game. I think the most challenging thing is building the environment in wich future planes, ships and locations are put in. Making a beautiful 3d model with awesome textures and functions will be one of the later steps but the foundation of the game looks promising.
On the side… can we talk about the awesome work they put into the water 😀
Most anticipated sim for me.
Water looks great
When he rants his hatred of Fidelity this is my take away.
Enigma wants a simulated warzone, the planes are just a byproduct to get him there.
There is an irony he hates modern BVR planes, but wants WWII/Cold War planes that basically fly themselves.
That said Fighting Games recently have had Simple Modern and complicated Classic Controls.
Combat Pilot should make them flaming cliffs and iL2 Default controls with a hard-core option to switch over to full Fidelity
Also this isn't the same full Fidelity "trap" like DCS working with classified radar, ECM, Missile Seekering wareheads and such.
These are fuel driven piston engines with minor differences between each one, really coming down to switch locations in the cockpit.
Anything beyond that is ABSOLUTELY declassified and simplistic by modern standards.
I think the point sailed over your head. When fidelity reaches past the point where it cant be sustained and standardized between all the modules then the fidelity becomes destructive.
For example, cockpits fogging up due to humidity. Its realistic, it's not classified and it would add to the experience but it shouldn't be added if only a few planes have it and others do not.
As someone with a baseline HOTAS, I think a clickable cockpit, for the essential or standard stuff anyway, is pretty important. For context, I do feel that the F-4E in DCS is an impressive piece of simulation but that it does a lot more than it needs to. I don’t care about simulated electrical circuits or hydraulic actuators. In fact, when that becomes launched, I hope it can be switched off. For one thing, it will eat into my CPU/GPU budget. For another, I prefer my simulation to be a sim of a mission where little things don’t go wrong like in real life so I can concentrate on the flying and fighting rather than the admin.
I do learn startup sequences in DCS just to see what’s involved but after a while I drop back to autostart and usually forget the procedure - often letting me do something else while the gyros or nav computer align, or the engine warm up.
But I would love it if stuff in the IL2 cockpit was clickable. I imagine it’s not an issue for someone with a HOTAS where they don’t have to use maybe half or more of the actions through command/shift/control keys, but on mine, I tend to use my limited buttons for the main stuff, assign a bunch of shifted buttons for the rest and then scratch my head or look through the key commands window to remind myself which combination of CTRL, ALT and Shift I need to use. In DCS this fiddling is reduced as I can click in the cockpit. In IL2, not so much.
Just so long as it isn't a 'live service' game with tech tree grinding and $50 premium modules or a practically empty sim sandbox with $60+ modules with zero entry-level content except for broken tutorial missions, that becomes a slide show the second a cluster bomb is deployed!
I had years and years of fun with il-2 1946 thanks to the modding community content and relatively low resource cost. I think that anything that takes its inspiration from that has a great chance of being a hit.
With both Combat Pilot and IL2 Korea in development I'm pretty excited. Gunfighter air combat has always been what I've gravitated to most, and early jet combat in a complete, cohesive package hasn't been seen since "Mig Alley" back in 1999. However, I do wish there was a 'modern' or late cold war flight sim out there that had a comparable business model and fidelity level to IL-2. Back in the "golden age" we had Jane's Combat Simulations making several flight sims of various fidelity levels, Falcon 4.0, Enemy Engaged, and even Strike Fighters had its moments. I put more hours than I care to admit into the dynamic campaign of Jane's Longbow 2. Now, it's DCS or War Thunder... tragic that those are the options for modern air combat. I can't stand the business model of either for different reasons. Then you have the fidelity level of WT being too little, while DCS goes overboard with aircraft system modeling while very important core game elements such as a built-in dynamic campaign are still MIA after years of (low priority) development. And I fear, if/when that dynamic campaign does come, it will just be another money pit.
I do believe that everything should be clickable in the cockpit. I don’t believe everything should need to be, but sometimes it’s easier to find a button in a cockpit for functions you rarely use, than remember which keyboard key it is, or feeling around for the correct key while wearing VR glasses.
oh!
So this is the carrier ops Sim that i was looking forward to!
Im still a newbie to flight sims and started with DCS,i have to say I like clickable cockpits because I play in vr and when I played with a hotas it was a pain in the ass to bind and rememeber what button and switch does especially if I havent flown in a minute.
Time to boot up IL-2 1946 and get to learning carrier operations lol
What was it again. Flying 5 knots above your stall speed and choking the throttle when above the flight deck?🤔
I hope this is the true MS CFS2 sequel we've all been waiting for.
Can you elaborate on what they mean by being able to calculate turbulence models?
13:50 oh god lumen rendering and upscaling, this is what I feared about unreal engine being chosen. I do hope the devs will eventually address this, because we can't afford jpeg artifacting around aircraft at long ranges
I have a recommendation to the developers.
Dudes, just do a remake of the best simulator ever, IL-2 1946 with modern graphics and better visuals on the maps and get over with it.
I could choose that over any other "new" WW2 flight sim any day.
the water looks good for an early build
Appreciated information sharing! A flyable Zero means it can bloom. But my only complaint would be the flight settings! Is it gonna be stick or M+K exclusive or is it gonna be possible to play on a modern controller with the keyboard for shortcuts in mind? Setting up a flight setting for a controller at il 2 is a nightmare and in WT it's a UI headache.
I just want to see good coop capability. I really feel like this is the thing that BoX misses the most on. A coop career would be amazing
From what I can see, they are capable of delivering most of what they promise. My only point of concern here is that developing a flight sim in the West is going to be more expensive than in Russia. So unless they attract new people to the genre and only compete for the same pool of players, their long term financial viability is in question. They could get extra funds from their tools, but then there's a risk of it becoming an Unreal Engine or Steam situation, when the 2nd thing becomes the main thing and they basically stop making games. So fidelity is nice and all, but they need all the pop appeal they can produce.
I feel like this "between il2 and DCS" while promissing both having scale and clickable cockpits is only possible with WW2 assets If they ever start thinking adding something more modern/cold war down the 10 year road then they will get overwhelmed with systems simulationc, if they hold on to the clickable cockpits standard across planes. I still think DCS's flamming cliffs 3 planes are the best sweetspot between reality and gameplay if they ever (or another project) want to go beyound WW2 with a scale and multiple flyable planes. But if they plan to stick with WW2 for whole 10 years then yes, clickable cockpits in simple planes is possible.
And yes, I am in the camp that will forever regret that ED abandoned the sim-lit spinoff DCS title ambitions as my Lock On nostalgia is strong. Including the fact that in those days the planes were gameplay balanced in multiplayer as gameplay was above realism in priorities in those golden days.
Any thoughts on Strike Fighters 2?
@@Enigma89 Ehm ... honestly never heard of it and now that I googled it a bit looks superficially something matching what I might like, but man ... 99usd bundle on 1998 style store ... no VR support (yeah I am one of those in DCS/WarThunder) and I assume competitive or PvE multiplayer is long dead ... :D. For retro-infused game I recommend "Tiny Combat Arena" and for a good example of how to do simplified simulation of modern systems "VTOL VR". If VTOL VR would increase scale, provide us dedicated server and release as DLC balanced RED plane for PvP it would be "THE" perfect sim. .. Until then, always buggy War Thunder (because low priority of sim mode} is probably the only "somewhat" balanced competitive flight sim out there. If you can stomache the z-infused russian ultranationalists as devs.
Curious about what they really will manage to realize. Game devs big plans are not unusual, game dev realising big plans are. So yeah lets wait and see.
Any contact details for the developers? Ex Aeronautical Engineer/3D Artist/Military History buff that would love to help with this project...
Try their discord
Oh yeah 😊
Does anyone know if this game will come to console or is this to early of a question to ask?
Are they supporting VR?
I've always disagreed with you over the "high fidelity is a trap" thing, not because I like high fidelity, but because I don't think it makes financial sense in the context of DCS. The fact that you think all opinions contrary to yours amount rivet counting tells me you don't really understand why people disagree with you in the first place.
As much I try to convince myself that the game has enormous potential and that graphics are not important, in some screenshots the similarity with other games with unreal engine is truly uncanny.
That was my initial doubt. I'm sad that we're back on that path.
seems kinda optimistic but if they pull it off it will be the big break that we need for flight sims
oooh this sounds goood
Can’t wait
I would hold my breath on this... They have too many cards against them.
Still hot air 😢
Странно что самолёт полетел вперёд...
Sounds good, except it sounds like this will have no story-based campaign. Thanks for the reporting.
The biggest problem for combat sims...Developmentally its the same people trying to reinvent the wheel time and time again. I understand you sometimes play GatesOfHell, which started off as a Mod...Of a mod. and its RIDDLED with core problems that have been present since Launch and are still in the game. Games on paper sound cool, but as we've seen time and time again....They suck at transfering that to reality. All talk, no action Just excuses. enough is enough bro.
➡️ Combat Pilot not Combat Box
It is way too early to be excited about this. This is barely at tech demo level.
It is exciting because they seem to want to proportion their efforts in the right buckets and try to approach this with a long term plan. That is very different from the current games that stumbled into their position
anything better than the money hungry player eating snail or the trick while scam
Coming 2028 . Lol all these devlopers take years and years to come out with anything anymore. Sad
I saw a few people giving flak on what was shown in the experimental build. I wanted to show it in the same light of how it was experienced in Vegas. Just flying around and getting a feel for it. They are still cooking and are trying to be transparent. No one has built a net new sim with these sort of ambitions in a really long time. So be patient, let them cook!
No matter how many times you tell people verbally or show a warning message on screen they cant understand it's an experimental build 😂
By that logic DCS is "STILL COOKING" even after stealing from its own developers.
Ya I know it must be frustrating for the devs.
@@Hellfire0220 No proof of that, and if they were, why is it only affecting one developer and not all of them? Why did it only come out after the release of one module when there have been others from the same developer for literally years with no issues? It's not an ED issue but a Razscam issue, and specifically a Mudhen issue. Sounds like RZ wanted a bigger cut of sales but ED said no, and RZ has thrown a hissy fit and has done the equivalent of "taking their toys away and going home" like a petulant child.
Most of the work isn't in the eye candy when it comes to building a flight sim from the ground up, I don't think a lot of people realize that.
Thank you @Enigma89 for the video and coverage even though you could not be at the FS Expo. We were so busy with the show we did not have time to spend more time explaining what we are doing before or during. This video helps makes things a little clearer. Thanks to those that came to the show to check it out, was a fun time. Jason will have more to say about the show and our current state of development in the near future after he takes a couple days off. The team is now back to work post show. We have a long way to go, but everyone is invited to watch and come along for the ride. Making a CFS is quite risky and we are the smallest and least funded team out there currently, but we are going to give it our best shot.
It really sounds like they have the right priorities. Scale is so important in a flight sim and one of the things that elevates BMS and completely hobbles DCS.
Also landing somewhere between IL2 GB and DCS is the perfect spot. I agree that clickable cockpits aren’t necessary but I’m glad they will have them as so many folks in this community fixate on that feature.
I really hope they can pull off a dynamic campaign eventually. The theater and map set may make this less daunting than a full BMS campaign. They really just, at a minimum, need something like 1942 Pacific Air War that simulates the task forces and generates cap/strike missions.
I agree with you about the sim dark age.
Currently all devs seem to either be in a fidelity-arrogance trap, an exploitative Russian F2P mafia trap (War Thunder) and/or an ancient engine trap.
Sooo, I just don't flight sim anymore.
I wish these guys all the best and I hope their game can be a reason for me to get back into it. I also like WW2 the most.
Also, clickable cockpits can really help in VR if implemented properly. Cause I always forget all the keybinds.
It seems like that’s the same for all WW2 sims. The only really good sub sims are Silent Hunter III and IV (and mods are basically mandatory for the former since it’s coming up on 20 years old), and while U-Boat is catching up it’s a very different style of game. There are basically no tank sims except Steel Fury 1942, which is pretty small unmodded and apparently it’s difficult to get the big mods for it. Apparently IL2 Tanks are a thing, but I haven’t heard good things about it. All the newer seems seem to either have the issues you mentioned, or they take place in more modern eras.
I wouldn't even mind il2 1946 graphics as long as the flight model, scale and everything else was next gen.
6:32 Yes, and it is a reason I'm not playing IL-2, but not out of pedanticness. I fly exclusively in VR therefore:
1. keyboard shortcuts don't really work for me
2. I tend to forget most of my HOTAS bindings.
3. having clickable cockpits means I don't have to bind anything beyond basic stuff like gear/flaps/wpn triggers.
Il-2 not having clickable cockpits is a quality of life issue, not a fidelity issue.
Agree wholeheartedly, having a switch you only press every now and then, and then having to remember that switch on the spot gets old real fast. Just let me click the damn switch I can see it right there but I don’t know what my damn bind is
Maybe but we would not have to half the plane they made if they had to be clickable and il2 needing clickable cockpit most plane you only need one radiator mixture and rpm that it and you can bind the same key to everyplane like if you play a few time a week it become muscle memory
I would 100% take lower fidelity for better game play stuff like coop campaigns and great damage modeling good flight system.
You don't have to choose with unreal 5, nanite does a lot of the overhead work for them.
I like clickable cockpits, but I argue for a LOW FIDELITY CLICKABLE COCKPIT.
Meaning, we don't need all the systems "behind the switch" to be modeled.
I like my "frequently used" cockpit items to be clickable.
This sounds like it will be your vibe then. I think the nature that this is WWII makes it much easier to achieve that. I would guess that trying to do this in jets would be much harder to translate click into system action because they are all so different.
I agree that the present state of flightsims will leave anyone sour, unless youre super new to it or just naive. With that said, I see a bright future for the niche: Microprose coming into scene, Combat Pilot and now with IL2 Korea. I loved IL2 Great battles but I got bored out of it. DCS was one of my biggest disappointments in gaming, for it is no game, only cockpits. I hope Copi, the new IL2K and whatever comes out way will actually bring us some fun, some REAL multiplayer battle gameplay and not just autistic needle and screen simulator/air Quake. I'll probably reference this video in my upcoming videos about flightsims. Cheers Enigma.
they have talked about a campaign engine, maybe it is being worked on right now, maybe Early Early Access even releases within the next 10 years.
Great content, they are wise to show where they are precisely, get rid of the people with no patience and inform those who want to know they are really building something.
This announcement along with Combat Air Patrol 2 coupled with Mozza getting into flight controls all adds up to good times for flight sim players!
Combat Air Patrol 2??? The 8 year old E/A game with the non- communicative dev? Don’t get too excited just because MicroProse is publishing it now.
@@johnwicks4936 Sequel to a 1990s game.
@johnwicks4936 yeah looks just terrible ruclips.net/video/7PySdx-khLc/видео.htmlsi=DETJVz1fa4-D6Gwa
Thank you for the video Enigma. Appreciate it. The team thanks you for your honest review
You had me at, "dynamic campaign"
So, what happens in Vegas, _doesn't_ stay in Vegas? 😄
Fidelity to me is planes have personality. This is edge of envelope punishment, engine / g force abuse punishment, and weapons limitations. This along with unique performance in combat / landing is way more important than clicks cockpit.
"Be patient, let them cook!" Is not something I would've ever expected to hear from Enigma
2:59 - Airbus because they have tons of experience in prop planes? As you mentioned "and other aerospace experience that their team has", i hope they been with Cessna or something on that line, because we already know torque does affect adverse yaw^^
Kinda kidding, fingers crossed for a great WW2 sim.
EDIT: Obviously you cannot "feel" the sim from just a video - but the flight model looks actually pretty good already imho.
Seems cool, CLOD was definitely a really fun game, I found the battle of Britain spitfire vs 109 match up to be really fun. One thing that I do find a bit hard to wrap my head around is, when it comes to flight sims, why starting the aircraft is a sticking point for some people. It's by far one of the easiest things you can learn to do. If you're being lazy and skipping that, what over things are you supposed to be doing that you are also skipping? If you're just gonna be messing around with AI that's fine, but you're gonna be a detriment to your side if you are not putting in the work to learn to properly fly.
I'm very excited by this game, and by the news that IL-2 Korea won't be just a great battles new content, but an independent and new fly sim with a new engine and a lot of new technologies and surprisingly it is very advanced in its development. I'm very happy that developers are creating new fly sims with new engines, instead of recycling old games. I hope that these is the way to get rid of the dark age of flight sim.
I won’t be upset if their cockpit fidelity doesn’t match DCS, that’s what DCS is for and hopefully it evolves well in the WW2 sphere over the next decade.
However what annoys me in great battles is the floaty flight models with no torque and the engine timer dynamic.
I’m hoping for a focus on great flight models, good spotting and solid engine management.
Seems reasonable to me
Oh boy dcs flight model are not better ahah especially in WW2 ahah
@@snow1-2pinkkush46 it was a shock to me after first learning to sim in il2 to find things like torque and spinning out after stalling existed. Now every time I try to go back it’s like I’m flying a sailplane with no drag in turns that rolls right whenever it pleases at low speed. Watching a 190 in il2 point its nose at slow speed is very entertaining. Ill admit I’ll never get to fly a warbird full throttle so I don’t have a fkn clue what’s real or not. To me il2 seems to be a flight model ported from a ww1 game with just sliders for each plane for speed and lift modified for a different 3d model.
How has your experience differed?
@@Magpie...il2's flight modelling is poor in a different way than DCS. DCS over complicates and exaggerates how some effects work to a silly degree. If you are a pilot or have flown in high performance singles you know what I mean. DCS makes every plane feel like it has zero stability and are super twitchy, il2 makes them feel like they are on rails. The BEST flight modeling for the feeling of flight has to be Cliffs of Dover. Team fusion have done an amazing job with those aircraft and the feeling of flight is perfect.
@@thanksskeletor4812 Great way of explaining it, I bought clod in anticipation of a VR release but I’m yet to see it progress sadly. I really hated the twitchy nature of some of the warbirds, especially British aircraft when I solely used a vpc base. However once I made a strong ffb stick they really made more sense. You apply some pressure against the firmness, the stick barely moves but the aircraft responds. All sense of twitchyness evaporates and the Mossie and spitfire sing, especially if you make a trim box. I know it’s not a cable controlled jet but even the a-4s ridiculous roll rate becomes a pleasure once the stick forces are turned up. It’s almost like flying with a force sensing stick in the viper.
I think dcs just chooses to not alter stick deflection = control deflection and it doesn’t correspond well to a spring loaded joystick base.
It was such a difference I went ahead and made ffb rudders too.
UE5 could be a gamechanger for sims if it all pans out, as far more of the tech is appropriate/relevant to sims than UE4 ever was. Fingers crossed.
forget it. UE is optimized for shooters and can't handle geospatial applications. You will probably see only 10 km ahead and get a world made of water.
@@zellhaufen8583 Fortunately, the Pacific Theater was largely a world made of water. 🤣
Sim Dark Age officially over
Jason is involved therefore that is a step back already...
on the other end everyone is asking for PTO since forever
I'm excited for the Genre of flight sims in general. DCS is having a hiccup with issues but the future still is positive, as for IL and Combat Pilot, it's just icing on the cake
Better have hotkeys for the cockpit. I don't fly in VR, I don't require a clickable cockpit, I have a memory I can dedicate keyboard shorts.
I think it would be silly having to decide between one or the other, unless one strives for absolute realism 100%. Then no hotkeys, but then your cockpit and head movements are restricted by what you ate for breakfast that morning.😅
I am really eager to see how this game will come alive. And at the same time very happy to see Il2 dive into Korea. I am here to root for all of them. Even ED who seems to be the worst publisher of all lf the companies out there (Razbam shebang for example, or dropped dead Hawk.....)
If I’m honest, I think IL-2 level fidelity but with clickable cockpits would be more or less the perfect level of fidelity.
I love DCS, but I also hate it. Contradictory I know, but I’ve come back to DCS so many times due to new modules releasing, or just because I’ve felt like flying. Only then I realise just how much I’ve forgotten, or how entire systems have been reworked and no longer function like I knew them (Mirage 2000/Harrier were guilty of this). It ended up killing a lot of the enjoyment and at times actively dissuaded me from playing, because real life was tiring enough without needing to relearn modules endlessly. Not only that, but the lack of core improvements to DCS is become unacceptable now.
Is VR planned from the start, or will it be added later? And will it be done correctly like every other game/sim does, instead of how IL-2 GB did it in the past? i.e. so they don't need to get a physical HMD model in their hands each time a new one is released in order to get simple things like the aspect ratio correct on day one.
Clickable doesn't automatically make it "full fidelity", it just make it interactible with a mouse, easy and convenient, no need for extra button mappings or keyboard shortcuts. We have clickable cockpits not only in DCS but also MSFS, BMS, even IL-2 CLOD/Tobruk. Still not clear, wether cockpits will be clickable or not? "Will be possible to make them clickable" is good, but they better be clickable, it's good for convenience. I see that they also plan to make it "mouse free VR", that can mean proper hand and/or controller support, but that also may mean that they don't want to make actually "clickable" cockpits.
Honestly this looks really promising, and i'm quite impressed with the transparency and the development so far with their little demo. It looked good for just 12 months work! i can't wait for flight sims to catch up to the modern gaming world engine and technology wise, this looks like it could revive the combat flight sim community and give us a modern, well performing game and foundation to build on for the future.
13:40 well looking at the prop blades and the way they are turning, this zero will fly backwards
Still disagree with your ‘fidelity’ argument. I want them to innovate on how quickly they can hit higher levels of fidelity.
amazing video enigma keep it up
Well I'M excited, THAT'S for sure. It's about time the 'cartels' were rocked!!
For just a year from scratch that is INSANE! Words mean a lot but THAT means everything. They now have my attention. Anyone giving flak over that is either a child or an idiot, that is by far the biggest cause for optimism I've seen from a new product in awhile.
If devs are checking comments for feedback, I do have one thing. About clickable cockpits, as someone who flies in VR I absolutely recommend at least committing to SOME things being clickable, like gear, flaps etc. Things you need but you don't really want on your stick. It's not very many things but binding on your keyboard is just awful in VR. Just a thought.
“Uses Unreal Engine 5+” may not be a good thing. While virtually all game environment scales are able to be handled by the leading game engines due to increased memory and better streaming, flight sims are still at too big of a scale if things are being rendered and calculated based on “correct” data and calculations and not pretty ones that are faked. Maybe that is what CAP aims to do - be a visual blast, have fun gameplay, while convincing enough world accuracy.
It wouldn’t be correct to call DCS a dated engine. It’s an engine that is actively worked on and goes through major version updates - hence, that’s why sometimes module integrations break. I’m just saying - if you’re gonna critique DCS for breaking certain effort, you should understand what is being gained. DCS has Vulkan rendering, dynamic campaign (why the mission editor is constantly getting updates and missions break…they are changing it necessarily), and even a global map is a “far out there” goal.
As far as fidelity: it’s WWII? “Full fidelity” for that era is a far easier. The planes don’t have autopilot, radar, GPS/INS, jammers, data link, or missiles. All you have are engines, guns, and radios. I say this because it’s what’ll allow them to “succeed” for that space, but also curb the silliness that they would do “DCS better.”
I just invested in some decent VKB flight controllers. I bought most of IL2 Stalingrad DLC, and was just thinking how much I miss CFS2, and even how few decent Combat flight games there are out there. Colour me excited about this! I am however quite tentative still, and reserve judgment until we can see an EA version which we can buy. Let’s see how this one pans out….
That said, I’d buy an Early Access version today if it was out 😊
Greatly looking forward to both this and IL-2 Korea. As a simmer since sims started back in the 80's i've seen (and owned) just about everything ever produced. I still fly BMS Falcon for it's dynamic campaign, and if someone offered something similar (26 years later...finally?) I would buy it in a heartbeat.. not that I won't buy it anyway.. 😆
The most impressive thing I saw from the demo (aside from the fact that it exists at all with such a short time in development) is how the propellers believably transition from being able to count them individually to becoming a blur. I guess most would consider this a minor detail but still, I didn't think it'd take this long to figure out how to do that. (If another sim has already done it then I'm not aware of it, since I mostly look at flight sims the same way some people look at EVE online: from a safe-ish distance.)
My main issue with the project right now is the abbreviation is... quite unfortunate. As long as attack and bomber planes don't take a back seat then I'll be happy since I don't think I could ever really function in a fighter role.
Looks very promising! I really hope they take a page from pacific fighters for settings and 1942 for dynamic campaigns. Pretty big asks, but accessibility for flight Sims is so important for building the community. Great battles and DCS are great, but the barrier to entry is brutal for people who are new to Sims and don't have a full set up.
I'd rather them spend time on other immersion aspects outside of full fidelity cockpits. Being able to walk around an airbase and climb into your own plane would be incredible.
Basically what DCS envisioned with the supercarrier module and then never followed through on.
Besides, most of the time the pilots didn't start their own engines in the first place, so running out of the ready room/PBR to the plane on the flight deck as others are beginning to launch would be absolutely incredible.
Personally id rather them not bother with the clickable cockpit. It is way to much work for little reward.
I simply don't see them being able to make a substantial amount of clickable cockpit aircraft with any kind of realism.
But this is also coming from someone who has been around and flown warbirds and will nickpick just about every aspect of the module.
For those who will look past a lot of inaccuracies because they just don't catch them then sure I guess its cool
“Uses Unreal Engine 5+” may not be a good thing. While virtually all game environment scales are able to be handled by the leading game engines due to increased memory and better streaming, flight sims are still at too big of a scale if things are being rendered and calculated based on “correct” data and calculations and not pretty ones that are faked. Maybe that is what CAP aims to do - be a visual blast, have fun gameplay, while convincing enough world accuracy.
Wish IL-2 46 still had a huge community. Heck I wish the CoD blitz servers were more populated as well. Cut my teeth in IL-2 forgotten battles and road it into 1946 before I left with the military. By the time I came back the community was nonexistent
I don't need to be able to click all of the buttons. I do want full fidelity when it comes to FM, systems functionality, etc. Everybody binds those 100 buttons to Hotas anyway.
A bit late but, did they say anything about mod support? ForceFeedback implementation? Player strategy/Carrier command slot for multiplayer?
Unreal Engine is a bummer for me, since it's VR performance is shite (even compared to DCS). Let's see how good it works, in the meantime there is IL2 Korea which should work great in VR
Thank you for reporting on this! I have to admit I'm a fanboy of jets but even I can understand how important such projects are for the *whole* (combat) flightsim world.
A big waiting time for me: for RTX 5090 to get full benefits from my PC to fly VR in DCS, for IL-2 Korea and for Combat Pilot, can't wait for this all😁
I hope there will be more than just one set of controls for everything tho. This drives me nuts in IL2 controlling everything with the same settings without the option to tune for specific aircraft.