Do you see VR ever coming to CloD and do you think 1C will continue the partnership?

[Mysticpuma]

Having read various comments across the forums it does appear hard to believe that CloD will ever get VR and if in the slight chance it does, it certainly doesn't look like it will be anytime in 2021. Also, will 1C continue letting TFS work on CloD?


From Buzzsaw:

August 15th 2020:



Addition of the TrueSKY weather engine, with new cloud system, as well as weather effects, and water effects.

We had a working beta of this new weather system tested in December 2019, but it needs improvement and the addition of additional features and was not ready for release.

The expectation is we should have this new weather system in place in Fall/early Winter of 2020.

Addition of a Virtual Reality viewing system.

This is a larger project, and will take a great deal of work and development. At earliest, it will be added in early 2021... and it is more than likely it will be some time into the new year."


69th_Spiritus - October 7th 2020:

"VR is a long ways off. We are focusing on finishing tessellation, seeing if we can give the option of 4k textures for aircraft, and implementing the new clouds/weather system.

Then we can start messing around with VR."



October 8th 2020:
9./JG52_J-HAT

"Is the original timeframe for VR still current, i.e. early 2021?"



ATAG_Pattle:

"VR timeframe is likely to be pushed back at this time."




November 13th 2020:


Buzzsaw:

"VR is a priority for the development of the game.

It has not been pushed back... all development is proceeding on the plan as listed in the following post:


https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/64 ... gs-tobruk/

At this point VR is between six and nine months away assuming the work goes as planned."


December 11th 2020:

Mysticpuma:

"Over a year since a single image of TruSky was shared. Any news?"

Buzzsaw:

"We are currently in an Alpha... when we have material we can share Pattle will post it in an update."


December 22nd 2020

Buzzsaw:

"We licensed the software approx. 13 months ago and only got full access to the support we needed at that time.

And we created a proof of concept Alpha after about 2 months. We then put TrueSky development aside to complete TOBRUK. Otherwise TOBRUK would have been a 9 months later release.

We only re-started work a few months ago.

Plus as mentioned, Simul has changed the background programs which support TrueSky to new versions and updated which meant we needed to start again."


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Next we have the comments about discussions happening with 1C:

December 11th 2020:

"Assuming we are able to continue with our work, VR will be in the list of elements we will add."

Buzzsaw - December 17th 2020

"Hello All
Once we finish our discussions with 1C there will be an update on the planning for our next module."

"There will be an update on upcoming developments and TF 6.0 once TF has finished its discussions with 1C."

Buzzsaw on the Steam forums:

""Hello Super Hans

We will be introducing the FW-190A in our next module, assuming we can go ahead and do that."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To summarise the way I read that. TrueSky was in Beta a year ago but is now back in Alpha. VR is not coming until TrueSky is implemented. It's a year since TrueSky was in Beta and now back in Alpha, so it's most likely another 6-months before we get the new weather and then development begins on VR, which at that rate will be another year-and-a-half after, so around the middle of 2022?



However, with very little communication about what is going on with the TFS roadmap, also the odd comments about "if" we are allowed to continue, very little being shared of the work in progress, all we can do is speculate, so that's all this is.
Thing is when no-one says anything, people start asking why.....and this is my why?

Cheers, MP

[Jackman]

Thanks for that Mystic
With VR getting more and more popular within ACG and the flight SIM community it's becoming very clear TF have done a big mistake in not working on VR and to prioritise it. I fair ACG will never return to cliffs
and do a meaningful campaign if VR is not implemented
Also It would be a great pity if C1 and TF part ways that would be the death nail.
But as you say it's only a guess and no facts as of yet.
For me personally I would love to go back to Cliffs and do a Fall of France campaign but we would lose to many members who are 100% VR users and I'm about to become one.

Jackman

[Paddy]

...but we would lose to many members who are 100% VR users and I'm about to become one.

Can we clear this with actual stats, because until I see numbers, I’m unclear exactly how many people have VR in ACG. They seem like the loud minority rather than the overwhelming majority?

[Ginger]

VR is not the holy grail of flight sims yet! what you gain immersion you lose in eye candy , even though i have VR and think it's great , i would have no problem flying in 2D like i have for the last 20 years and enjoyed every minute of doing so. If people a willing to spend £3000 + for the VR experience then great , but i don't think that is the way forward when planing future ACG campaigns or we are going to run out of idea's fast!

[Konaber]

I'm with Ginger on this. If the campaign team decides a dip into Tobruk, even without VR, is the next step, I will be there.

Just because I spend a ungoodly amount of money, I don't expect someone to take that into account for the next campaign.

[Cule]

My experience with 1C is that they are always extremely open to make more stuff, anything that gives good return on investment especially with partners who they worked with before.

So I strongly suspect if there's discussions it may be because goals for Tobruk were not reached, and 1C wants to tighten their publishing conditions, or it may also be because TF wants a budget or something up-front which 1C has to think over to see if there's good ROE on that.

In any of the cases, I wish TF best of luck and I hope they get the approval to continue making the great product they are doing. Most of the negative remarks, such as the price, are out of their hands and they deserve to succeed.

[Jaydog]

TF has made great improvements to the game and I hope they continue their work.

....but I'm sorry, I just can't go back to a flat screen. It's the equivalent of asking people who fly with TrackIR to go back to using just a hat switch. No thanks. Once Tobruk has VR support, I will be all in again and dust it off the Steam Library shelf.

[Kit Pepper]

If flying in VR is a huge step forward (and I believe it is) then flying without it is a huge step backward.
That said, I'll go wherever the ACG goes. Having a mediterranean campaign would be great. But a dozen missions without VR would be about all I could stand. I'd rather see the ACG do a Great War Flying Circus campaign with VR then Tobruk without VR.

[Trystan]

I'll have to disagree with Ginger in that I don't think you lose much eye candy in VR, it's just different eye candy. From an ACG point of view, to me the biggest difference between head trackers and VR is that the head trackers allow you to see more of what is around you since you can turn your "head" more than 180 degrees and look around the seat back, etc., giving the head tracker users a slight advantage.

But as far as future campaigns and Cliffs, I do hope the work on Cliffs continues. There are still parts of Cliffs that I like better than BoX and if to experience those means going back to head tracking, I'm ok with it.

But for that matter, I wouldn't be opposed to 1942/43 France campaign with Spits and P-47s in DCS.

[Jaydog]

I'll have to disagree with Ginger in that I don't think you lose much eye candy in VR, it's just different eye candy. From an ACG point of view, to me the biggest difference between head trackers and VR is that the head trackers allow you to see more of what is around you since you can turn your "head" more than 180 degrees and look around the seat back, etc., giving the head tracker users a slight advantage.

But as far as future campaigns and Cliffs, I do hope the work on Cliffs continues. There are still parts of Cliffs that I like better than BoX and if to experience those means going back to head tracking, I'm ok with it.

But for that matter, I wouldn't be opposed to 1942/43 France campaign with Spits and P-47s in DCS.

I agree, some things such as DM are better than BoX's DM. Just imagine how awesome Cliffs would be in VR. I look forward to making some videos in VR over London in contrails escorting bombers, or even in the desert attacking ground targets.