Experts in Realism, Household Name Synonymous With Quality - Conversation With Heatblur Team
F-4E Phantom II – the revolutionary module for DCS World from Heatblur studios is right around the corner. On this occasion, we had a 3-hour conversation with the studio's CEO and some key developers about how they create flight simulators.
Heatblur Studio, highly recognized producers of realistic airplane simulators, have been very busy as of late. Recently, together with the IndiaFoxtEcho team, they worked on a conversion of their F-14 Tomcat from DCS to Microsoft Flight Simulator, immediately raising the bar for all military aircraft add-ons in MSFS. But the main effort for the past three years has been focused on another project – a realistic simulator of the famous F-4E Phantom II – the most produced supersonic aircraft in the USA, used since the times of the Vietnam War up until Persian Gulf War, in some countries still serving to this day.
Heatblur are also creators who add features to their modules that no one has thought of or even tried to implement before. What's more, they smuggle some "soul" into the lines of soulless programming code or photorealistic pixels – jokes, Easter eggs, ingenious mechanics that increase immersion, which other creators would probably consider a waste of time. This was the case, for example, with the release of a simulator of the iconic F-14 Tomcat plane, which Tom Cruise flew in the first part of the movie Top Gun.
For many aviation enthusiasts, including the CEO of Heatblur himself, it was this image and this machine that ignited their passion for war airplanes, often at a very young age. Looking and flying just like a real-life Tomcat, it lets you feel and experience the same thrills as the movie heroes and real pilots operating on aircraft carriers. The team will be releasing their next project soon, and we can be sure that there will be all sorts of surprises and easter eggs in F-4E.
On the occasion of the upcoming launch of Phantom, we conducted a long, three-hour conversation with Heatblur's CEO, Nicholas Deckard, and several developers from the Phantom team about what it's like to work on flight simulators and how unique the DCS F-4E Phantom II module will actually be.
Cleared for take-off – the beginning of Heatblur Simulations
Darius Matusiak (Gamepressure): How did Heatblur even come into existence? How did it all start and can we really say that the studio is mostly from Poland?
Nicholas Dackard, CEO, Lead Artist, Heatblur Simulations: My parents are Polish, although I was born in Sweden and lived there until I was eighteen. It was only then that I partially moved to Poland, where my father opened a company, and over time Heatblur became part of it. Generally, we were established in 2014, but at that time we were more a part of the Leatherneck studio. In 2015, we made the decision to part ways with the existing team that created the MiG-21, and change the name to Heatblur Simulations.
Krzysztof Sobczak, Technical Director. Lead Programmer, Heatblur Simulations: In a human context, we can say that we are an international studio, because everyone works from where it's most convenient, without moving. We are constantly looking for various specialists who not only program well, but are also interested in aviation, can translate the operation of an aircraft into code algorithms, and with whom it is easy to cooperate – there are few people who meet all these criteria, finding them is not an easy task.
The composition of the team often depends on the project we're currently working on. Back when the Swedish Viggen flight simulator was being developed, we had a bunch of Swedes. Now, we've got a few Germans. Everything is happening very organically, and that's how Poles ended up in the company. I reckon they now make up a bit more than half of the main team. Despite the company's somewhat "international" nature, all the business operations actually take place in Poland.
Counting us isn't that easy, you know, because there's also a big group of us working part-time or doing odd jobs. They usually do something else, but they're pitching in on this project when they can because they have the necessary knowledge or skills. Such people are hard to consider as full-fledged team members, but we always have a few. These are various specialists, testers, and together with them, it can be said that dozens of people work on each Heatblur project.
"Game with a complicated economy" – how making a flight simulator differs from making other games?
DM: Have you had any experience with games other than simulators before? And how much does working on a virtual airplane differ from working on other genre games?
Krzysztof: Personally, I didn't. From the very beginning, after my studies, I got involved with flight simulators, because simulators always seemed cool to me.
Nicholas: I started out creating graphics for RPG games, but it wasn't for a large, recognized studio. These were rather online projects. In this way, I learned the trade, then I entered the world of movies, and only then the world of simulators. From these experiences, I can say that making airplanes is very similar to "ordinary" games, except that some of the gameplay mechanics, plot, or narration have to be replaced with engineering elements, algorithms describing the work of various systems instead of combat or building. This somewhat resembles creating a game with a very complicated and complex economic system.
Dominik Glowacki, Senior Programmer, Heatblur Simulations: I joined Heatblur almost immediately after graduation, so there wasn't much room for maneuver prior to that. The topic of my engineering thesis was the cockpit and its extensions in flight simulators, so I already had experience in this field and basically found a job consistent with my education, straight after graduation. And I came across an advertisement on a Polish website.
Szymon Skarzynski, Senior Programmer, Heatblur Simulations: I'm still a student and Heatblur is my first job, so I had no previous experience. I saw an ad on Facebook, wrote an email and it just kinda went on from there. I knew the company, I knew DCS, but it was not my initiative, I wasn't looking for such a job. It was more like a spontaneous reaction when I saw the ad to try doing something I'm passionate about – and it worked out!
Krzysztof: So we must be looking hard for people on the domestic labor market, since there are so many advertisements!
Nicolas: It may seem strange, but we often choose people with little experience, even those still studying at university, because it's much more important for us that they're interested in simulators, have the knowledge of how DCS works, and play such games a lot. We'd rather work with someone like that than an experienced aviation engineer, because knowing how a computer simulator works, what's good about it, what's not, and what people expect from it – all of that is way more important to us than just knowing how to write code. Sometimes it's hard to cooperate with someone who might be a talented programmer, but completely doesn't understand what to expect from a simulator, why people fly in simulators and why it can be such a great passion.
"It's easier to become a programmer than a virtual pilot"
Krzysztof: We all play a lot here after work and have a lot of experience, even if we haven't worked in studios making games in other genres before. So, naturally, we do have some professional comparisons, even just from the angle we look at games, thanks to the same or very similar tools we use. We are well acquainted with Unreal Engine, we know various methods used in this type of projects and I can also confirm that the work methods, tools and stages are very similar, whether it's a flight simulator or an action game.
As for the recruitment and creation of simulators, I think it's much easier to learn programming than to learn to be a virtual pilot, to think like a pilot in an airplane during a mission. This includes technical aspects like how and why the plane behaves in the air, how its systems work, and above all, how to utilize all this during combat missions. One needs to know and understand how and when all these elements and systems cooperate with each other, complement each other, how to use them.
It's very difficult to describe this, to convey my expectations to a person from the outside, without a passion for aviation, even if they were a programming genius. So it's best to already have the experience, the interest in this field, know the basics, know how to take off, land, etc. People who are passionate and knowledgeable about this, even if they're hobbyists, are a real treasure to us. When creating an airplane, you're its first tester – you need to know if what you've done makes technical sense, if it works as it should. We're really lucky with everyone we work with, and Szymon and Dominik are perfect examples of that. Every new person gives us a positive boost, comes in and suggests how we can do things better, bringing in fresh ideas that push everything forward.
Just to touch on the differences and working on the plane, one of the coolest parts is when I have to figure out how something works in the simulator and find the right information. Sometimes I have to ask around, look through available materials, or even hunt for additional sources. Everything leads to building an image in your head of how a given device or part of a device works and why it works that way. These instructions that are on the internet often are not enough and sometimes you have to go through a lot of trouble to get to the gist of something.
Simon: In many cases, you gotta play a bit of a detective, you know, rummage through various documents, compare some info, because there's some ambiguity here, a bit more precise info there, and you need to connect these fragments of information. Sometimes the solution is in some YouTube video with 80 views, which nonetheless contains exactly the element that you need, an explanation if how something actually works. And this is very engaging – conducting research, gathering various sources in the depths of the internet, looking for notes from years ago.
Sky is the limit? Or is it the DCS engine?
DM: What do you never do in realistic flight simulators, which elements do you never touch, or conversely, which of these you'd like to touch, but can't – for example for technological reasons?
Nicholas: The DCS engine is very open, and that's the advantage that allows us to do all these new things. For this reason, in terms of technology, we really have very few limitations, to be honest. So, it's stuff like what Krzysiek mentioned about those circuit breakers that are shaking in the cockpit and eating up too many frames. But this is something related to every graphics engine. There are so many such objects that they create performance problems everywhere. Each of the switches overloads the processor way too much. This is the only reason why we had to put it aside for now, but honestly speaking, technologically, I don't think anything was limiting us.
There are definitely things we want to include, but sometimes we just can't get to them in time. You often have to compromise. Unfortunately, when creating games, not everything you would like to include will be ready in time for the premiere. Gamedev is a compromise. Otherwise, with a big budget, we'd sit on this for 5 years, constantly adding new stuff, delaying the release, and maybe never launching the product because it wouldn't be ready. But there always comes a point when we have to say: "okay, here's the compromise – we launch this, and add the rest after release."
This was the case of features like the option to do a walk-around of the Phantom, which will be introduced later, or the appearance customization of the pilot. For now, this functionalty will be limited, allowing the player to change colors of the helmet and gloves, but the full version will have a three-dimensional character editor, arriving after the premiere. Some things have to be left for later. There isn't much sense in delaying the whole premiere for trifles like that, if the whole plane is ready, everything works, is stable, and about the only thing missing is character customization. We always try to choose a moment where all the most important parts are there, with the remaining, promised elements coming later.
Krzysztof: We are very lucky, I think, and maybe we are also so stubborn, because when you look at Phantom, at all the things we wanted to accomplish, we managed to do most of them at a sufficient level in the end. I don't remember any big issues with finding information that would seriously block some part of the airplane.
I guess we didn't hold back at all and went all out, especially with those circuit breakers and electrical connections. We really simulated each part of the generators in the engines, and they all work realistically from a technical standpoint. Considering the programming tools or the code we have, I think we did quite well with it and we didn't have any major limitations. Internally, we feel satisfied and fulfilled with Phantom.
"Oh no! "We're doing it!" – Top Gun icon in DCS and MSFS
DM: Where did the idea come from to recreate the F-14 Tomcat, known from Top Gun? Quite a surprising choice after the previous Soviet MiG-21 and Swedish Viggen.
Nicholas: It started when we were connected with the Leatherneck studio team and were making the MiG-21 together. We wanted to create the MiG-23 next, but it was not possible for various reasons. And I've always been a fan of Top Gun. Since childhood, I must have watched it about a thousand times, I know every scene by heart and the F-14 has always been my dream. During one brainstorming session, I casually suggested: "Why not make a Tomcat?" And it turned out that there were many arguments to the contrary – primarily two-person crew, which required the creation of an AI companion, executing the necessary player commands.
But one night, I didn't go to sleep. Instead, I wrote down everything about how it should roughly look and I told myself, "No way! We're going to do it!" And just like that, everything moved quickly. Eagle Dynamics immediately agreed, and I didn't even have a moment to consider the magnitude of the project I was diving into. A moment later we already had the required agreements and signatures. And all thanks to my own passion and childhood dreams!
Krzysztof: Passion and dreams are probably an important factor of our work and the decisions that shape it. I landed a gig at Heatblur while working on Tomcat and it was beyond words! If I had to pick a plane to make a simulator of, I wouldn't choose any other. It would always be the F-14 Tomcat. A truly Iconic airplane. Of course, Top Gun played an important role here, but the machine itself, its significance during the Cold War as a defender of the US fleet, is also noteworthy. Besides, this airplane has a specific cult-like atmosphere around itself. Its appearance, for example, is quite significant and probably appeals even to many people who are not interested in aviation.
I really liked it, so for me it was the perfect project. I am more than happy that I managed to join the team while still working on this machine and that I had my contribution to it. I thought that was already the pinnacle of my dreams, but it turned out that I still wanted to do even more, set the challenge higher. When I found out that we were doing Phantom II, I was in heaven again – the second plane, which had great historical significance, was extraordinary and legendary in so many ways!
"We are also partly artists"
DM: In the DCS community, you're known for creating experimental novelties and mechanics that we expected from the creators of the entire sandbox, i.e. Eagle Dynamics, and not from a studio that only makes planes. Meanwhile, it was Heatblur who created Jester, which is the AI of the second crew member that talks to us. In Phantom, we'll get a virtual crew chief, pilot customization options with the addition of mustaches and glasses like in an RPG, an interactive guide explaining each cockpit element during flight, and many other features.
On top of that, you add some easter eggs to your realistic, serious simulator that surprise and make us smile, like references to Top Gun in F-14 Tomcat or the ability to play the classic Asteroids on the cockpit screen. Why is it that you're the ones creating all these innovations – doesn't the fact that you generally raise the bar and mobilize others to put in more effort cause any friction with Eagle Dynamics?
Nicholas: It can get a little boring to create such a plain, basic plane that always has the same things and features every time. For both our customers – the players, and for us. Because even if we are mainly engineers, I think that we're also partly artists. These are still games, after all, partly artistic creations, and as such they inherently contain parts of ourselves, things we want and desire to be part of simulators. We could just sit down and program a plane. Not to do anything fancy, exciting, cool, nothing that would push the entire platform forward. We could say that it's beyond our responsibility or that it's too expensive. But that would be super boring. It wouldn't give us the feeling that we're creating something awesome – at least that's how I would feel. That's my approach and unfortunately, the guys here later complain that I'm forcing them to realize my "shower thoughts" on Slack, saying "Let's do that, it will be cool." And then we have to deliver it somehow.
We just have this approach. We're also dealing with some stress because of this, there's financial risks, and complaints that we're doing extra stuff, which causes delays and seem pointless. We could do garden-variety stuff, just for the sake of it, get it out of the way – go on vacation and chill on the beach. On the one hand, some things shouldn't be our responsibility indeed, we don't really need to come up with them and in a way, we do waste time on them, we sometimes take too much stuff to handle. But on the other hand – you should always aim high! We will probably never abandon this approach, because otherwise our work would become boring and repetitive. It's probably better to do new things, have fresh ideas, set new challenges.
Dominik: Our approach probably results partly from the fact that each of us has also flown on simulators and everyone has certain expectations from them. You're playing, flying, and at some point you think: "Oh, it would be nice if something like this existed." And right there you have a real opportunity simply make your ideas of flying come true.
Nicholas: Such elements often appear very spontaneously, dynamically. A good example is saluting before taking off from an aircraft carrier. We were a week ahead of the first big trailer for the F-14 Tomcat, from October 2018, when the pre-orders launched. It was the middle of the night. I was tossing various pilots into the cockpit, then I looked at it and said, "Okay! I will sit all night if I have to and add animations to pilots." I made myself a coffee and finished after a few hours. Later, I wrote to the programmer Daniel on Slack, and sent him my work. When I fell asleep and woke up, the pilot in the trailer was already saluting before takeoff. It's also interesting that we often don't wonder if something will be possible – we just try it out right away. And very often these things just spontaneously occur to us. I don't know if we are lucky or just stubborn, or maybe it's a combination of both.
DM: The F-14 Tomcat was full of various easter eggs – are they also coming for Phantom?
Nicholas: Honestly, we're planning that, but we haven't gotten around to it yet. There are probably a few even in Jester's new voice files, because we have new lines that will be added and there are probably already about 2 thousand new pieces of commands. But I don't think we've added any programming easter eggs yet. On the other hand, we have ideas that will be relatively easy to add, so there should be something there. If not at launch, then shortly after release. We have cool ideas, like for example, a multiplayer Pong between the front and rear radar screen.
Krzysztof: After the release, it all goes downhill, because then things unfold naturally. I remember it was exactly like that with the F-14. In many places, such as community groups and technical support requests, people called Jester "Chester." So, I added a piece of code that would change Jester to Chester in the game's interface the next April 1st. It was a minor egg that had to wait several months to be discovered. So far we've been a bit boring and we've been doing our job very intensively, that's all.
Are consoles and Microsoft Flight Simulator the future?
DM: Recently, together with the IndiaFoxtEcho team, you released a conversion of your F-14 Tomcat from DCS to Microsoft Flight Simulator, also available on Xbox. And this "Heatblur quality" was immediately visible in the community response, because, even though the F-14 was already in the game at that point, your plane was hailed as the new quality standard on the Microsoft platform. Was this just a one-off experiment, or do you have more plans for this platform?
Nicholas: No, I don't think it was just an experiment. We have big plans for creating a new base code, which will encompass numerous modern platforms. Simulators are a niche, there's no denying it. Planes don't sell as well as niche FPS games the like of Ready or Not. As a company, we should strive to ensure that our investments make sense, because they determine what we can do in the future. I think we should publish on various platforms because it's good both for us and the customers. The more opportunities we have to ensure a financial success, the more it will benefit the company. And this translates to size and scope of our products, allowing to fulfill our dreams such as elements of RPG systems or the AI crew, for example.
I also think that there are still too few companies making quality machines planes for Flight Simulator and we should definitely share our passion, our planes, with those simulator fans who may not have had such contact with military machines. It's a wonderful feeling when someone who only flies on Boeing 737s jumps into one of our planes and writes to us about how great it is to fly with it, how well-designed it is. For me, it's really interesting and satisfying that we've shared a part of what we're passionate about.
Krzysztof: Sharing our experience and skills, like we did with Microsoft Flight Simulator, is a good lesson we learned during the creation of Tomcat. It turned out that from the very beginning it was very dense with the DCS interface, which made it very difficult to use any elements of this code elsewhere. And that's exactly what we've learned for the future – to try and build our code from the ground up in such a way that it can be used for the benefit of the company in any possible projects that will be created.
DM: So is there a chance that the F-4E Phantom will follow in the footsteps of the Tomcat and end up in MFS too?
Nicholas: Internally, we don't have such a decision right now, we don't officially plan to do so. It's our ambition for the future more than specific actions we undertake, because at this stage, we're only focused on delivering the best product for the DCS platform. But there are probably chances for that at a later stage.
"Phantom is our 'Black Album' of sorts – born from obstacles and difficulties"
DM: You're on the home stretch before the release of your next, highly anticipated product: the F-4E Phantom II airplane. What are you proudest of in this project and how did Phantom actually come to existence so unexpectedly in your publishing queue? After all, you announced the creation of the A-6 Intruder airplane after the Tomcat, which still hasn't even appeared as non-playable model – it's experiencing many delays.
Nicholas: That's true. Unfortunately, we had bad luck with the Intruder because shortly before the release, we lost the entire model and animation of the chassis. The graphic designers who worked on this are from Ukraine and they lost access to their data after Russia invaded mainland Ukraine. Due to the sudden outbreak of that war, they had to flee their city. The intruder also delayed a certain side project in Warsaw, which we were ramping up at that time – something always pushed it to the back burner.
The F-4 Phantom II was seemingly "reserved" for a long time – another studio was supposed to make it. Later, quite suddenly, an opportunity arose to do ourselves it and we got that contract. We signed all the necessary paperwork and it immediately became our priority. We decided that all these new technologies will be created for it, and then we will base our next projects on them, namely the Eurofighter and the Intruder.
I am generally proud that we managed to complete this project in such a short time (approx. 3 years, ed. note), because it was a road full of complications. I'm not even mentioning how complicated the plane itself and its systems is, and how much we wanted to deliver an even higher level of quality than usual. Various private tragedies and other grim stories have been getting in the way as well. We probably never had such a difficult task, where all the difficulties piled up at once. Phantom is therefore our very personal project, which has absorbed us a lot, it's a project born amidst hardships and obstacles – a kind of our "Black Album." But fortunately, the finish line is already on the horizon.
Krzysztof: I have a few things that I am particularly proud of. The first one is the code related to the AI of the RIO/WSO, which is open for easy editing and thus will enable dynamic development by all external parties. I mostly mean regular users and modders – everyone should be able to customize it to their own needs. It's a very flexible scripting language, offering great possibilities. I am also proud of this core portion of the code, which is extremely stable. Compared to the F-14, we had very few crashes of the game. It's just unbelievable how rarely the plane would just freeze mid-air. This is really something we don't appreciate enough, but I am very happy with this code stability.
The second thing is the fact that we were able to surprise even the experts we worked with, with certain elements and details. And sometimes there are things that really surprise even us, like the landing gear deploying slower if you lower it for the second time in a row. Pilots pretty much never tried this, while we just calculated it based on hydraulic simulation – and it turned out to be the case in reality.
Szymon: It's extremely difficult for me to choose one thing that I would be particularly proud of. I think my general impression is that making all systems work nominally was quite a feat. There's no making things up, no shortcuts, no simplifications. Everything is done thoroughly based on the documentation and I am proud of what I managed to achieve.
DM: The F-4E is already quite an old aircraft, used at a time when no one could take a small camera into the cockpit and record the operation of systems, appearance of radar screens, the RWR. How do you obtain the necessary information in such cases – especially those that cannot be put translated into spreadsheets?
Nicholas: Oh, it's much harder than in the case of Tomcat, when people took cameras into the cockpit and recorded the interior while flying. In such cases, you could see a fragments radars or other pieces inside and use these bits to complete a fuller picture. In the case of Phantom, it wasn't like that – the plane comes from a different era, when small digital cameras weren't really available and there was no culture of cockpit footage. Sometimes someone just snapped a few Polaroids in the cockpit and that's about it. A similar problem occured with the A-6 Intruder, which was a less popular machine. And for us, such materials, when a pilot films something with a camera in the cockpit, are priceless.
We were lucky enough to receive such footage from a few retired Phantom pilots. They sent us some of their photos and videos from a private collection, and often simply explained various things to us. They watched what we were doing and advised: "Listen, it looked a bit different, this line was longer" – something like that. They provided us with information that was never written down, thus impossible to find.
Museums are not a good source of information, because they usually only house airplanes, without any documentation. We had good help from one museum in America that shared with us the documentation of the A-6 Intruder, as they run their own archives. Exceptions also occur, but we most often cooperate with museums to have access to the aircraft itself and make photogrammetric and laser scans. Especially American museums are keen to collaborate, but we also had great collabs in Poland and Slovakia.
Krzysztof: I have a little tidbit here, which is an example of the radar display in this version of the Phantom, i.e. 4E. This isn't the same display that was fitted in earlier versions of Phantom. The DSCG radar probably appeared in the late 70s or something like that, and the plane entered service sometime in the early 70s: 1972 to 1974, if I remember correctly.
Most of the photos and videos that are publicly available depict Phantom with an earlier radar, which was much more manual in operation and used earlier types of lamps, which retained the image longer after exposure to an electron beam. We needed a radar manufactured by Westinghouse, and on top of that, certain information that is important to us for simulation purposes is not really needed by operators, mechanics, or pilots. Furthermore, things like that are often the manufacturer's own trade secrets.
The first mentions that tell us how this radar was implemented were found in the patent documentation. This means that we seem to have come across certain patents related to this radar and from these patents we have drawn some information that was useful to us in creating the radar. It regarded the bit structure of memory, its handling, information storage, which translates into how the beam is displayed on the screen.
For Phantom and its display, I had to research CRT manufacturers' technical documents from that period to understand their specifications and types. You can really learn some strange facts on such occasions, but it's an extremely fascinating element of working on an airplane.
And the ultimate verification of our work comes later, when the person who really operated the Phantom and this type of radar tells us that it looked exactly the same! It's gratifying to know that our interpretation of the data and its application in creating a universal code, not just replicating a sample image from the manual, aligns with reality and is confirmed by experts. This is really amazing, and we sometimes become real historians of a particular airplane or piece of equipment.
DM: Has this advanced simulation of all systems negatively affected the performance of DCS with Phantom?
Krzysztof: We are observing some impact on performance, but it's all a matter of optimization in these last weeks. This is exactly that one element that was left out until the very end. We will be refining and generally optimizing the code related to the flow of information between instruments, which may have the greatest impact on performance. The most important thing in all of this is that the entire system is relatively easy to optimize because certain core structures are the basis of communication between instruments and individual elements of the entire airplane.
Optimization is easy insofar as it's enough to improve these basic structures to have a significant impact on the simulation of the entire airplane. In addition, there are elements that are a tool for future optimization, i.e. which we are not yet launching, and which we hope will improve performance in the future and allow us to exceed further limits, if we wanted to add something more.
What I mean here is full utilization of multithreading. What we have developed, all our systems, are actually ready to operate on any number of available processor cores, which will significantly improve performance and provide even greater capability. The issue here is that with the release of such a complex aircraft, we delay the decision to launch it in order to have more control over the conditions and limit the number of bugs related to data synchronization and challenges associated with advanced multithreading.
So we look at this optimistically, even though we see some impact on the drop in frames, we have been dedicating the last few weeks to reducing this impact as much as possible, so that this impact is either minimal or not there at all.
Nicholas: We try to balance it somehow, so that the plane is as well-made and complex as possible and the graphics are the best we have ever created. Balancing things out like this is very difficult, because you can often hear complaints about weaker performance. And it's hard to explain to people that nothing is free, and the more complicated the simulation gets, the more code it requires and resources it takes. The good news, however, is that everything is moving forward – not only our simulators, but also the performance. When we released Tomcat in 2019, many people still used GTX 1080 cards with 8 GB of RAM. Today it's different, especially for flight simulators players.
"I don't fly in our modules because everything annoys me"
DM: To wrap up, let's move on to a lighter subject. After so many hours of tinkering with DCS, do you have the energy to fly for pleasure? Are you gamers yourselves and if so, what other games do you play in your spare time?
Nicholas: For now, I unfortunately don't have the time for anything. When it comes to flight simulators, I am generally keener on the Il-2 Sturmovik than DCS, because you can only spend so much time in DCS. And when it comes to other games, practically everything, but mainly RPGs. I have Baldur's Gate 3 on backlog because everyone says it's great, but I had to put it aside and haven't even touched it yet – so it's waiting for me. I think I managed to squeeze in about two hours of Cyberpunk last year and had to put it aside after that. I like practically all genres. We also try to draw inspiration from other games. I think it's important to let loose a bit, and I'm generally up for anything. I don't know about the rest.
When I play DCS, especially in VR, I like to get fly a Hornet or an F-16. Unfortunately, I don't fly in our modules because everything annoys me! Textures annoy me because they're ugly. Animations could be better. Sounds are kind of weak. And so I sit there and I just can't chill out. And when I get into a Hornet or something, even if something is ugly, I still like it. Maybe this makes me more like a regular consumer in this case, not a creator.
Dominik: I am a big fan of Microsoft Flight Simulator, because I also have a background related to civilian flight sims. And besides, I think I'm below average when it comes to games, but that doesn't mean I don't play. I like strategy and sports games, so I play FIFA sometimes. I also love a kind of medieval sim, Kingdom Come Deliverance – hands down a brilliant game.
Szymon: I like racing simulators, such as Assetto Corsa Competizione, and sometimes American Truck Simulator – running convoys with my friends. What else...? Arma 3. Sometimes strategy games or Kerbal Space Program. And when it comes to DCS modules, I also like to fly the Hornet or A-10, and helicopters: Apache, Mi-8, Huey, so theres quite a scope.
Krzysztof: When it comes to games, I play a lot of different things. My Steam library has like 1200 games. I think I recently exceeded that number. Last year I didn't have that much time and I regret it, but I did play big RPG productions like Baldur's Gate 3 and Starfield. I'm also going back to Grand Strategy Games from Paradox, like Hearts of Iron IV. And my passion, which I return to regularly and then rage quit is Rocket League, where I clocked over 1,000 hours.
Sometimes I turn to other simulators. I had a break from railway simulators for something close to 20 years and around Christmas I tried the SimRail and was positively surprised. I am impressed with what they have achieved, namely the very Polish atmosphere, and a few cool solutions, especially in the multiplayer. And in recent days I've only played about 8 hours of Palworld. And then there are racing games – I love iRacing. So I'm pretty up to date and with various genres. In DCS, the F-16 is probably the most important thing, because I can generally launch an F-16 with my eyes closed – I have a very sentimental attachment to this machine.
DM: What's your dream plane in DCS?
Nicholas: The F-14 is here! B-17 or B-25? The list is long, but there isn't a single one... Maybe Saab Drakken, because it's tiny, like a person sitting atop a rocket.
Dominik: It's hard to name a specific machine. Maybe because we make the coolest ones! The F-4E Phantom is missing, but it will be out soon. And I'm also waiting for the A-6 Intruder, which we will be making ourselves.
Krzysztof: I have two that evoke a strong sentiment in me. The first one is F-117, it just makes my inner child more alive, probably because simulators like F-19 and F-117 were the first ones I ever played. And another plane that impressed me, also in reality, is the B-1B bomber.
Szymon: I would love to fly something like the U-2 or SR-71, a strategic reconnaissance plane. It might not really fit DCS, but it would be an interesting experience.
DM: Huge thanks for the conversation and taking the time, especially during such a busy period of fine-tuning Phantom before the release! We're waiting for the next revolutionary product!
