Friday 2009-11-06 Screenshots Update discussion thread

[Oleg Maddox]

Please don't post anything untill the update is online.

[HFC_Dolphin]

I'd buy a "fisherman's" sim with that quality!!!

Seeing the ships' pictures, the planes seem ugly to be honest.

All I can say is that ships' pictures are like painted photographs.
I can't imagine them getting any better with today's technology!!!

Just my first impression on this update.

[JG53Harti]

time to save money to buy a new pc

[Oleg Maddox]

I'd buy a "fisherman's" sim with that quality!!!

Seeing the ships' pictures, the planes seem ugly to be honest.

All I can say is that ships' pictures are like painted photographs.
I can't imagine them getting any better with today's technology!!!

Just my first impression on this update.

Really aircraft are with more detials and better quality. Simply you don't see the ships from so close distanse like aircraft.

In reallity all is balanced for the proper distances of view - from aircraft :).

[Sunchaser]

Thank you.

[TheGrunch]

Wow, the water transparency and the ships look amazing...also, the trees look a hell of a lot better than in the last few shots.

[Oleg Maddox]

Wow, the water transparency and the ships look amazing...also, the trees look a hell of a lot better than in the last few shots.

I told that there was bug of LODs

[Skarphol]

I'm exctremely impressed of the level of details you are putting into this game!
It's more and more obvious that this piece of software will be used to a lot more than flightsimming.
I'm really astonished and amazed by these pictures!

Skarphol

[Omphalos]

Terrific update Oleg.

Level of Detail in the ships is top-notch! Will there be people in them ingame?

can't wait to strafe one in my Spit.

[HenFre]

How many faces do the ships have? Texture size?

Thanks for the update. Everything is coming along nicely :-)

[Omphalos]

time to save money to buy a new pc

agreed

[Tbag]

Amazing detail, thanks a lot Oleg&Team! I just saw a AMD directX11 trailer and was impressed by the tesselation feature. Does this feature make sense in Flight simulations? Are you thinking about implementing it in SoW?

[Foo'bar]

How many faces do the ships have? Texture size?

Thanks for the update. Everything is coming along nicely :-)

Henrik is going to build ships ;)

[HenFre]

I have a few blueprints in stock. And lots of spare time on my hands :grin:

Are you Foo'bar going to leave the shipbuilding at the Ferry you allready made? I read somewhere that someone was looking for drawings of riverbarges :cool:

[TheGrunch]

I told that there was bug of LODs
I remember, just pointing it out. :) If the ground detail is as amazing as I'm beginning to think based upon the screenshots we've seen so far, this engine could easily manage to produce a game where players can participate in conflict from the air right down to ground or sea vehicle combat all at the same time online, given enough time and 3rd-party developers. Even infantry-level combat, if it was a bit less graphically detailed at that level than a dedicated FPS...it's a pity game developers haven't tried that kind of thing more often, like with Silent Hunter II and Destroyer Command.

[erco]

Hi Oleg! Beautiful work! As usual, it seems you've paid attention to getting the light 'right'. I particularly like the ship/7 shot, with the ship partially blocking the sun's reflection- excellent!

Two questions: 1) Will you have large ocean swells and larger waves (possibly breaking?) and interaction between wind and wave?

2) Looking at the Spitfire cockpit you posted two updates back (it's my desktop) I noticed that the instrument needles weren't throwing a shadow on the instrument faces. Also, that the instruments looked flat- no depth behind the glass instrument face- do you plan on having the reflective effect off of instrument faces and modelling depth of instrument (shadows on instrument faces, etc)?

Thank you for the look at your work!

[Foo'bar]

I really like the lighting and the shadows cast. Even the ship's reflection on the water is looking excellent.

[PeterPanPan]

Wow - 3 Fridays in a row Oleg! Yippeeeeeeeeee. Loving the pilot in the Spit.

Are you planning any interaction between rescue (or enemy) boats and downed airmen in liferafts?

Keep up the great work.

Cheers

PPanPan

[HFC_Dolphin]

I have a question, maybe silly.
It is for this picture: http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/ship06.jpg

In the front-left of the ship, in the sea, I see the red reflection.
Where does it come from? I think a ship of that height would not reflect so far away, so I guess it's something else. Is it the sun? Is it some object we don't see?

Just curious.

[Baron]

Thx very much Oleg.


Nice to finally see the water and whats gonna be in/on it. :)

[Foo'bar]

I have a question, maybe silly.
It is for this picture: http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/ship06.jpg

In the front-left of the ship, in the sea, I see the red reflection.
Where does it come from? I think a ship of that height would not reflect so far away, so I guess it's something else. Is it the sun? Is it some object we don't see?

Just curious.

It's the small barge, about 100 meters ahead. On other screenshot you can see it better.

[Oleg Maddox]

I have a question, maybe silly.
It is for this picture: http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/ship06.jpg

In the front-left of the ship, in the sea, I see the red reflection.
Where does it come from? I think a ship of that height would not reflect so far away, so I guess it's something else. Is it the sun? Is it some object we don't see?

Just curious.

Small Barge is behind

[Oleg Maddox]

Hi Oleg! Beautiful work! As usual, it seems you've paid attention to getting the light 'right'. I particularly like the ship/7 shot, with the ship partially blocking the sun's reflection- excellent!

Two questions: 1) Will you have large ocean swells and larger waves (possibly breaking?) and interaction between wind and wave?

2) Looking at the Spitfire cockpit you posted two updates back (it's my desktop) I noticed that the instrument needles weren't throwing a shadow on the instrument faces. Also, that the instruments looked flat- no depth behind the glass instrument face- do you plan on having the reflective effect off of instrument faces and modelling depth of instrument (shadows on instrument faces, etc)?

Thank you for the look at your work!

1. We will have waves, but i don't think we will be able to make all the physics.
Maybe in time we will be able to add new effects. However all we have now is way more that we had in Il-2 for the fligth sim.

2. My guys said following thing: All needles may drop a shadow. If the distance beween the scale and neddle is more than 3 mm (in real scale ).
However its a question to make it finally due to overloading of too many other things in a cockpit. We will see.
In pronciple any detail may drop the shadow in our engine. Simply sometime we need to go for compromise that to get better FPS.

[Mat72]

Wonderful images, can almost hear the gulls!! Thank you for all the work done so far.

[rakinroll]

Thank you very much Oleg, impressive water detail. S!

[HB252]

Hi Oleg and teamwork guys!! :grin:

Excellent work, very nice update.

Only one thing:

The Spit Pilot´s seems too fat, i think.

I think that is very wide between chest and back. (not because clothes).

Thx. (keep on working well,and success will be complete :grin: )

King regards.

[TheGrunch]

Oleg, do you plan to animate the pilots' head movements to follow the view the player uses in the cockpit, TrackIR or otherwise? I thought that was a very nice detail in the Rise of Flight videos I saw. A bit pointless, perhaps, but the guy is our little virtual avatar.

[Oleg Maddox]

Oleg, do you plan to animate the pilots' head movements to follow the view the player uses in the cockpit, TrackIR or otherwise? I thought that was a very nice detail in the Rise of Flight videos I saw. A bit pointless, perhaps, but the guy is our little virtual avatar.

In Il-2 there was such a feature for AI pilots. In Rise of flight there is simple animation of pilot that instead of radio may give some commands by hand. However animation there is not like in FPS games when we look close up.

I can't tell you now what we plan to have... because we have some limited time. But you will see something more than in Il-2 :)

[csThor]

I can already hear my PC howling for mercy. And I mean the PC I have yet to buy for SoW. ;)

[Feuerfalke]

Lovely shots.

As always the nicest things are off the focus ;)

- The transparent water looks great and pretty realistic!

- The lighting of the trees is great. They also look very detailed and diverse, not like the same tree just cloned over and over again.

Lovely!

[PeterPanPan]

Hi Oleg

The boats and water look simply fantastic.

A couple of questions:

1. Will there be any animations or crew on the boats themselves?
2. Will the boats be able to go move on rivers and estuaries and right up to the shore, unlike IL2?

Thanks again for all you and the team are doing.

PPanPan

[Bobb4]

In Il-2 there was such a feature for AI pilots. In Rise of flight there is simple animation of pilot that instead of radio may give some commands by hand. However animation there is not like in FPS games when we look close up.

I can't tell you now what we plan to have... because we have some limited time. But you will see something more than in Il-2 :)
Every time I read you mention limited time it dawns on me that SOW is getting closer faster.
I know you will not entertain speculation on when you will release the game, but just hearing you mention a time limit is fantastic.
Great water effect way better than Silenthunter 4.
Awesome!

[AdMan]

yes! there was another update coming.

you're spoiling us Oleg, not that I'm complaining. :)

[Oleg Maddox]

Hi Oleg

The boats and water look simply fantastic.

A couple of questions:

1. Will there be any animations or crew on the boats themselves?
2. Will the boats be able to go move on rivers and estuaries and right up to the shore, unlike IL2?

Thanks again for all you and the team are doing.

PPanPan


1. This I alsready answered in the past. At first the work over pilots and crew of AAA. Then we will see... We really did a lot, but not all things may go in final release. If not going - then if all will be fine with the sales we wil add new features. Sounds something like this.
2. Will. At least now can.

[Schuetz]

In Il-2 there was such a feature for AI pilots. In Rise of flight there is simple animation of pilot that instead of radio may give some commands by hand. However animation there is not like in FPS games when we look close up.

But in Rise of Flight is possible to see the head movements from a pilot, even online. (TrackIR)

Would that be also possible in SoW?

[akdavis]

Very beautiful vessels, but will they have complex damage models? (Slow flooding, fires, damage to engines, damage to bridge, no huge explosions unless carrying ammo, etc.) I think anti-shipping missions are one the most exciting possible in Il-2, but the over-simplfied DMs of ships make it very disappointing in the end.

Also, will there be a possibility of players being awarded credit for damage to ships? Can damage to ships (particularly capital ships) carry over from mission to mission?

[Oleg Maddox]

1. Very beautiful vessels, but will they have complex damage models? (Slow flooding, fires, damage to engines, damage to bridge, no huge explosions unless carrying ammo, etc.) I think anti-shipping missions are on the most exciting possible in Il-2, but the over-simplfied DMs of ships make it very disappointing in the end.

2. Also, will there be a possibility of players being awarded credit for damage to ships? Can damage to ships (particularly capital ships) carry over from mission to mission?


1. we have complex damage and this will depens of the ship type. As more greater ship - more details of damage.
2. Can't answer this question. Can about credit - yes it is possible.

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Terrific update Oleg.

Level of Detail in the ships is top-notch! Will there be people in them ingame?

can't wait to strafe one in my Spit.

You probably shouldn't because most of them will be british lol. Again...for all those waiting I recommend to read some books about BoB.

[Bloblast]

Oleg,

Nice water effect and nice boats.

Oleg, I wonder what might happen when aircraft
lands on the water, might it stay afloat for a while?

[PeterPanPan]

1. This I alsready answered in the past. At first the work over pilots and crew of AAA. Then we will see... We really did a lot, but not all things may go in final release. If not going - then if all will be fine with the sales we wil add new features. Sounds something like this.
2. Will. At least now can.

Many thanks for your answers Oleg. Given the massive anticipation of this release, the existing IL2 fanbase and growing Bird of Prey fanbase, I cannot believe "all will [not] be fine with sales". I'll eat my flying hat if BoB SoW doesn't sell like hot cakes.

Sorry to have repeated a question. It is very hard to check all your answers :).

PPanPan

[Oleg Maddox]

Oleg,

Nice water effect and nice boats.

Oleg, I wonder what might happen when aircraft
lands on the water, might it stay afloat for a while?

Yes.

[airmalik]

Thanks for the fantastic update Oleg!

I'm afraid with the high level of detail shown in the sea vessels you're raising our expecations of the level of interaction with them :)

Can we expect, perhaps not in the first release, the crew of boats to be going around, merrily performing their tasks and scurrying for cover when they're strafed? Maybe even try to take pot shots back at the aircraft? Perhaps wave at friendly aircraft when they fly by? Imagine their shock when they're shot at by friendlies :)

I can see myself crashing quite a bit as fly around at low level admiring the gorgeous boats. In such a scenario, can we expect to be able to kick out the canopy, struggle up to the surface through the bubbles and contemplate excuses to give the HQ for the crash as we bob in the waves surrounded by the crash debris in our Mae West waiting to be rescued?

[Oleg Maddox]

Guys,

I'm sorry, I really should run at home.
Last week I was really sick and come in office today to make some news and shots.

I will take a look on Monday this topic. And will answer interesting or these that I can already now answer questions.

Also probably next development update you will see on SimHq. I promised this week, but got unexpected illness.


Till Monday

[PeterPanPan]

Thanks for the fantastic update Oleg!

I'm afraid with the high level of detail shown in the sea vessels you're raising our expecations of the level of interaction with them :)

Can we expect, perhaps not in the first release, the crew of boats to be going around, merrily performing their tasks and scurrying for cover when they're strafed? Maybe even try to take pot shots back at the aircraft? Perhaps wave at friendly aircraft when they fly by? Imagine their shock when they're shot at by friendlies :)

I can see myself crashing quite a bit as fly around at low level admiring the gorgeous boats. In such a scenario, can we expect to be able to kick out the canopy, struggle up to the surface through the bubbles and contemplate excuses to give the HQ for the crash as we bob in the waves surrounded by the crash debris in our Mae West waiting to be rescued?

Great post airmalik - I agree on all counts. I would also add the possibility of crew jumping overboard when under attack or even just when buzzed by a very low friendly. Now that would be fun!!

PPanPan

[Richie]

The little fishing boat reminds me of the one in the movie "Guns Of Navarone". Great update.

[PeterPanPan]

Guys,

I'm sorry, I really should run at home.
Last week I was really sick and come in office today to make some news and shots.

I will take a look on Monday this topic. And will answer interesting or these that I can already now answer questions.

Also probably next development update you will see on SimHq. I promised this week, but got unexpected illness.


By!

Get well soon Oleg - take it easy(ish!!)

PPanPan

[sport02]

since recent updates take in game , independetly of the great details for all objets and now for the ships , I note how the lighting take a actual or real look

one question : light reflections beetween objets will be implemented or not ?

for exemple in ships screens , the ship reflect in the sea but the sea don' t reflect on the ship

[JG27CaptStubing]

I understand it's been mentioned a handful of times that the sim will take use of multicore CPUs. I'm curious as to what you're impressions are of having this extra processing power. Does it really allow your developers to do more?

I'm also curious as to what you think on the other side of the coin. Do you see all these amazing graphics to be more GPU dependant?

The only reason why I ask there is little doubt you got the IL2 engine to scale and even by today's standards I consider it to be top notch. CPU or GPU dependant?

The way I see most of the newer SIMS they seem to be more CPU dependant.

[ALien_12]

I've got a question I didn't noticed earlier: Will leafs of trees move due to wind?

[Tata]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloblast
Oleg,

Nice water effect and nice boats.

Oleg, I wonder what might happen when aircraft
lands on the water, might it stay afloat for a while?

Yes.

And plane will wave together with surface of water?

[JtD]

These ships look really nice! I sure hope that there will be some warships, too. :)

Can you please tell a bit more about the more complex damage model you've already mentioned?

Thanks for the update, all you guys are doing a great job!

[Skarphol]

Ok, now I'm back on whining again, but I really think a lot of people ask very many unnessesairy questions. Questions that are really hung up in details!! MINOR details!
Why don't you just wait and see, and then be amazed by the all the little things that MG has put into this game instead of trying to get Oleg to answer all of these rather unimportant things?

Well, just my two cents..
The game is going to flabergast us anyway!

Skarphol

[Flyby]

PC component sales will go up for sure when SoW_BoB hits the shelves. I wonder how long before technology be available to will allow this sim to run with everything turned on? Perhaps by then there will have been several add-on releases! :D
Flyby out

[airmalik]

Great post airmalik - I agree on all counts. I would also add the possibility of crew jumping overboard when under attack or even just when buzzed by a very low friendly. Now that would be fun!!
PPanPan

I'd absolutely love that! I can see myself spending a LOT of time making the sailors jump off from different positions on their boats. I predict the guy up high on the mast rigging sails would make the most entertaining dive :lol:

Oh while we're dreaming, and I'd LOVE a character to be based on Captain Haddock - he is English after all :) I can imagine him pulling himself back up on the boat in his soaked uniform, his smoking pipe dripping water, a broken bottle of whiskey in one hand, shaking the other at the attacking aircraft! I think there's a scene like that in 'The Red Sea Sharks'.

[hiro]

Sahweet! Thanks for the update.

Sim HQ gets the next set?


so true about a PC . . . I was going to build a dual core to replace my 3 ghz (since duals are cheaper with the new quads and octas), but maybe I'll just hold off for the 8-12 cores.


I like the detail, those ships look photogenic! Also there is one where you can see the propeller and rudder under the water, awesome!

And they are WIP, so finished is going to be better. The pictures keep improving . . .

Remember the aircraft are as detailed / more than the ships. The ships look nicer because they are commercial and airplanes have more drab. But look at the spit cockpit or the spit pilot, and the bf-110, the me-109 pix, and they are just as well done as the ships.

The pilots are pretty detailed, i know its s WIP. WIth their hand positions as they look like they are driving (the br20 they have yokes, so it's ok).



Its cool how BOB SOW updates coming out, and seemingly coordinating with wings of prey on PC release.

Get new people into WOP, then hit them with BOB SOW. Kind of a taste of things to come. IL-2 1946 people are already into BOB SOW.




A question, is the damage model universal for all vehicles or do aircraft get something extra (more complex, like a 4 engine bomber, more complex the damage model) ?

Also is there a damage progression set of pictures?


Final one, when Wings of Prey is released, will we be seing a big update (like a in game video, or video examples of the flight / damage / ballistics model)?

[Feuerfalke]

PC component sales will go up for sure when SoW_BoB hits the shelves. I wonder how long before technology be available to will allow this sim to run with everything turned on? Perhaps by then there will have been several add-on releases! :D
Flyby out

Well, Oleg posted before that he plans SoW to be an engine for the next decade. He possibly already has a neural implant interface integrated ;)

[AFJ_rsm]

Hi Oleg, hope you get well soon (or whoever in your family is ill).



I only have a small question based on the water transparency.

I know its WIP, but still thought I'd ask:


The part of the boat that is underwater, and that we can see through the water, seems not to be affected by refraction. I know it's nit picking but I think it takes away from the overall realism of the image.

Are you planning on adding refraction to light passing through transparent materials?


Thanks! And again, I know it's nit picking, and if it doesn't make it in the final it wouldn't change my mind about getting and enjoying this game!

[Kurfürst]

One small question regarding last update about a minor detail.

Bf 109E had mechanical landing gear position indicators sticking out of the top of the wing skin when undercarriage was lowered (similiar to those seen on Il-2 Sturmovik aircraft). Hopefully this detail will be present..? Would be cool.

Can provide photographic reference if needed.

[BigC208]

Someone was asking about instrument needle shadows.... I've been flying for about 30 years now and I have never noticed this before. Something to watch out for on my next flight.

If the object details are going to get any better it's going to look spooky without a lot of people moving about and doing their thing.

I have MS Ship simulator and these ships look as good or better. Can,t wait to "interact" with those vessels.

December of 2010 is going to be expensive. Keep the updates coming Oleg.

[Mr.Fox]

Guys,

I'm sorry, I really should run at home.
Last week I was really sick and come in office today to make some news and shots.

I will take a look on Monday this topic. And will answer interesting or these that I can already now answer questions.

Also probably next development update you will see on SimHq. I promised this week, but got unexpected illness.


Till Monday


get better! you've given us more goodness to drool over. thanks! cant wait for more!

[Romanator21]

I agree that needle shadows are not going to be noticeable in real life. The instruments are not flat though, check out this video of the Su-26 where the panel is rotated. You can see reflection in the glass, and the depth of the gauges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHz3TnehmY

Someone asked about refraction in the water already. I wonder, will it be possible at some time in the game engine to have refraction of the gun-sight and armored glass?

[SlipBall]

The water and the boat's look GREAT!...I'm a commercial fisherman, so for a minute I felt like I was back at work.:)

[Snuff_Pidgeon]

Water and boats look great!

[13th Hsqn Protos]

The barge could be a little sharper, but not bad.

[steeldelete]

Very beautiful. It's amazing what one can do. Ok I think I exagerated, with "one" I mean a whole team.

This might allready have been asked bevor, I'm wondering if the fog is implemented in the game. Since in England there is a lot of fog. But then again why, one doesen't want to fly in the fog. But still....

[imaca]

PC component sales will go up for sure when SoW_BoB hits the shelves. I wonder how long before technology be available to will allow this sim to run with everything turned on? Perhaps by then there will have been several add-on releases! :D
Flyby out
At last, a reason to go multi-core.
I work as an engineer using 3D CAD. Sadly Solidworks does not really take advantage of multi core CPUs (except for a few functions). My latest work PC is only dual core, I spend a lot of time watching the CPUs maxed out at only 50%.
If AMD and Intel had any sense they would be pumping money into projects like this.

[MorgothNL]

jeez, what is the average computer according to you guys :P. 90% of the players will have to buy a new one I think... inlcuding me :(.
If you can hold up the release untill 2015, I will have the money for a computer :)

[BadAim]

I can already hear my PC howling for mercy. And I mean the PC I have yet to buy for SoW. ;)

LOL! The good news is you'll never need to heat the computer room again, perhaps the whole floor.........

[Necrobaron]

Well I've got an Intel i7 but I'm not at all convinced my rig will be enough! The game looks like it'll be stunning!

I'm wondering about modelling ship crew members because if you strafe those guys there's bound to be a gory mess unless they just disappear, which would be a bit unrealistic. I do seem to recall Oleg mentioning that flocks of gulls would not produce blood splatter when hit, so it would stand to reason that people wouldn't be treated any differently.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing "blood n' guts" depicted as long as it was done in a realistic way...
________
MARIJUANA STRAIN INDEX (http://strainindex.com)

[Necrobaron]

Stukas have got to have something to bomb in the Channel!
________
WEED VAPORIZERS (http://weedvaporizers.info/)

[proton45]

Ok, now I'm back on whining again, but I really think a lot of people ask very many unnessesairy questions. Questions that are really hung up in details!! MINOR details!
Why don't you just wait and see, and then be amazed by the all the little things that MG has put into this game instead of trying to get Oleg to answer all of these rather unimportant things?

Well, just my two cents..
The game is going to flabergast us anyway!

Skarphol

It doesn't really seem like people follow the updates (a lot of repeat questions), and some people don't seem to get what Oleg & crew are trying to create. And yet, some other people seem obsessed with the idea of turning a great "flight combat sim" into a "first person land/sea/air combat sim"...Oleg has already stated his feelings on the issue, but I guarantee we will read (yet another) question that relates to the issue.

[TheGrunch]

And yet, some other people seem obsessed with the idea of turning a great "flight combat sim" into a "first person land/sea/air combat sim"...Oleg has already stated his feelings on the issue, but I guarantee we will read (yet another) question that relates to the issue.
I think you're confusing people commenting on capabilities of the engine and people commenting on the game. Bear in mind that what Oleg and company are working on is first and foremost a game engine, and sales of the engine are likely to be nearly as important as sales of the game itself. I think the number of comments relating to that sort of thing are more because it's the first engine that looks like it might be capable of producing a semi-decent simulation of a number of different types of fighting all at the same time than because they expect Maddox Games to do so themselves. I don't think anyone's expecting any departure from the flight-sim genre from Oleg and co.

[Necrobaron]

I agree. Some of the questions seem to be a little nit-picky in nature, but I think people just like to know what the new engine's capabilities are. I think most people agree that Oleg makes a quality product (the best WW2 flight combat sim out there), so I wouldn't rule out anything as far as what SoW might offer. It's the little details that can really make a difference.
________
Lovely Wendie (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[<George>]

i see an explosion of updates and many time dadicated from athors...
it seems that BOB is going to be out at last...:grin:

anyway,great work..

[PanzerAce]

Dang. Had to register finally to ask some questions.

Seeing these boats raised the following questions for me...


1a) Are we going to be getting flyable seaplanes/floatplanes/flying boats?
1b) If so, will there be possible missions rescuing shot down flyers?

2a) Will we get to run anti-shipping patrols/convoy attack missions?
2b) If yes, will the ships take evasive actions to avoid torpedoes, or try to dodge level bombing attacks (Presumably this could be scaled to depend on visibility as well)?

3) Is it possible in the future that we will get to see guided anti shipping weapons like the Germans used on the Fw-200s (and other planes, but that's whats on my mind right now).


Can't wait to see the next update :p

[_ITAF_UgoRipley]

For a moment I heard seagulls...

[PVT.Roger]

Thanks for the update Oleg. And thank you team too.

PR

[tityus]

Thanks for the update.

A couple of questions:

- I hope the stopped propeller when pause is pressed is configurable. It may not be always wanted when taking screen shots and so.

- Will it have a resource to export aircraft data so we can link with other peripherals and apps (as devicelink did, but more comprehensive - simpit intended)? Will it work also online?

- Could one watch a recorded track from another pilot PoV (inside his cockpit)?

From the past preview we saw, it will have moving air masses. so...

- Will it have gauges to provide windspeed, temperature and pressure? (high level precision bombing intended)

thanks
tityus

[erco]

I agree that needle shadows are not going to be noticeable in real life. The instruments are not flat though, check out this video of the Su-26 where the panel is rotated. You can see reflection in the glass, and the depth of the gauges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHz3TnehmY

Someone asked about refraction in the water already. I wonder, will it be possible at some time in the game engine to have refraction of the gun-sight and armored glass?

Thanks for the video, Romanator, it answered a couple of questions for me. As for the shadow an instrument needle throws, it is noticeable. The cockpit shot of that Spit is a perfect example of the lighting necessary. Much more important is Oleg's reply- objects with as little as 3mm of separation will throw shadows! That is amazing resolution!

BigC208, who you flying the Caravan for?

[proton45]

I think you're confusing people commenting on capabilities of the engine and people commenting on the game. Bear in mind that what Oleg and company are working on is first and foremost a game engine, and sales of the engine are likely to be nearly as important as sales of the game itself. I think the number of comments relating to that sort of thing are more because it's the first engine that looks like it might be capable of producing a semi-decent simulation of a number of different types of fighting all at the same time than because they expect Maddox Games to do so themselves. I don't think anyone's expecting any departure from the flight-sim genre from Oleg and co.

Well...I'm not really sure that, "first and foremost", game engine sales are as important as game sales. Its my understanding that they started working on the new game engine because the future development of the "Sturmovik" series was compromised by the limitations of the existing game engine. Oleg has said that the "add-ons" that will be developed by 3rd party's are important for the future growth of the series...but I don't think that is the same thing.

Now...all that being said, I too understand the allure of the fantasy. I don't think that their is a single "war history buff / gamer" out their that wouldn't love a realistic, all encompassing, FPS / aircombat / armor / sea battle / simulator...BUT, we better hope that a huge gaming corporation picks up the idea, because the amount of time it would take to develop a good product would be monumental (even with Oleg's amazing engine as a starting point).

[TheGrunch]

Well...I'm not really sure that, "first and foremost", game engine sales are as important as game sales.
That's probably why I didn't say that. ;) I said that what they're working on is first and foremost a game engine.

[proton45]

and sales of the engine are likely to be nearly as important as sales of the game itself.

I was referring to this part of your statement...

[TheGrunch]

I was referring to this part of your statement...
Engine sales or licensing are big, big money. I don't see how that couldn't be important. Of course it's not the main objective, but then neither was licensing the engine the main objective in the development of the Quake or Unreal engines, and look how widely they were licensed, and how well id and Epic profited financially. Licensing is far less common outside the FPS genre, of course.

[proton45]

Engine sales or licensing are big, big money. I don't see how that couldn't be important. Of course it's not the main objective, but then neither was licensing the engine the main objective in the development of the Quake or Unreal engines, and look how widely they were licensed, and how well id and Epic profited financially. Licensing is far less common outside the FPS genre, of course.

It will be interesting to see how much of that goes on...but I might point out that the FPS games and the "flight combat sims" have a very different audience, and a very different demographic. Oleg could license his game engine to other flight combat maker, but it could have the undesirable effect of reducing the overall "SoW" sales. Oleg's engine would need a lot of development (I assume) to make it into a competitive FPS, so I can only assume that a developer looking to make a WW2 based shooter might start with a different engine.

p.s. I didn't mean to gloss over your closing statement..."Licensing is far less common outside the FPS genre, of course."

[Insuber]

Does anyone know the final planeset ? For instance, there will be the G.50 and CR.42 ?

With all these questions about seagulls, seamen crawling back and forth, bycicle rides etc., I have lost sight of the main subject of this flight sim ....

Bye,
Ins

[Romanator21]

I think Oleg originally planned 9 planes, later 11...

If I'm not mistaken we will have these either in the box, or in the first patch:

G-50, BR-20

Bf-109 E1, E-3. Bf-110. Ju-87 B-2. Ju-88 A-1. He-111.

Spitfire MkI, Hurricane MkI, Bristol Bolingbroke.

Su-26

Probables:

Gloster Gladiator, Tigermoth.

AI, including probable AI: Dornier 17, Beaufighter, Wellington, Walrus, Ju-52, BP Defiant, Fiat CR 42, Bristol Blenheim, Bf-108, Autogyro, Fw-200 Condor, Avro Anson, 2 German seaplanes which I can't name, Short Sunderland.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

Does anyone know the final planeset ? For instance, there will be the G.50 and CR.42 ?

With all these questions about seagulls, seamen crawling back and forth, bycicle rides etc., I have lost sight of the main subject of this flight sim ....

Bye,
Ins

+1

Thankfully there are some new sheriffs coming soon to clean up the 'banana mess'

[Foo'bar]

2 German seaplanes which I can't name

He 115 and He 59

[Skarphol]

With all these questions about seagulls, seamen crawling back and forth, bycicle rides etc., I have lost sight of the main subject of this flight sim ....


Very well said! Totally agreed.

Skarphol

[TheGrunch]

Oleg could license his game engine to other flight combat maker, but it could have the undesirable effect of reducing the overall "SoW" sales.
I would assume that the guys will keep a very sharp eye on what the developers who use their engine will be using it for. Seems to me that Oleg himself has no interest at this time in heading the development of anything other than projects based upon WWII aviation (I might be COMPLETELY wrong, of course :) ) In terms of me personally, there's no way I'm NOT going to buy any of the WWII SoW projects, but I'll definitely buy Project Galba, and if a third-party developer creates a sim based upon late 50s/early 60s jets like the F-105 and the F-4, I would definitely buy that as well in a heartbeat.
I imagine that the same could be said of anyone regarding some particular area of aviation outside WWII. I would assume that the engine would be licensed to other people like Ilya who want to create projects outside the WWII-timeframe, or even outside the aviation genre. The fact is, though, the main team's sales are likely to be hard to compete with, because the majority of combat sim players want their own little hit of the WWII aviation drug, it's not a niche interest within the combat sim market.

Oleg's engine would need a lot of development (I assume) to make it into a competitive FPS, so I can only assume that a developer looking to make a WW2 based shooter might start with a different engine.
Hmmm, I was thinking more about the possibilities of this game engine for producing a ground vehicle based combat game. That seems to be something the engine could be adapted for. Oleg has mentioned that the engine supports skeletal animation, so the presence of convincingly-animated infantry should be possible in any game based on this engine, if not necessarily playing from their perspective.

[HFC_Dolphin]

Does anyone know the final planeset ? For instance, there will be the G.50 and CR.42 ?

With all these questions about seagulls, seamen crawling back and forth, bycicle rides etc., I have lost sight of the main subject of this flight sim ....

Bye,
Ins

Well, actually the community discusses what is available in each update.
In latest update we saw some fantastic sea and ships and this is definitely a plus for a flight sim taking place over the sea.
In IL-2 we had the Russian land to flight over, in BoB we'll have the Channel sea to fly over and we all hope it's not going to be some empty blue landscape.

So, yes, seagulls, seamen and ships are important for this game coming and thankfully OM & Team understand this and deliver the best as we see in this update :grin:.

With regards to planeset, there has been a reply in original announcement, but I guess OM will update us when time is suitable (I pretty think that we'll see a bit more than original announcement).

[TheGrunch]

Well, actually the community discusses what is available in each update.
In latest update we saw some fantastic sea and ships and this is definitely a plus for a flight sim taking place over the sea.
In IL-2 we had the Russian land to flight over, in BoB we'll have the Channel sea to fly over and we all hope it's not going to be some empty blue landscape.

Exactly! Have those guys even SEEN what's IN the update? :confused: Are we not allowed to discuss the actual content of the updates any more if the screenshots aren't of planes?

[virre89]

Hmmm, I was thinking more about the possibilities of this game engine for producing a ground vehicle based combat game. That seems to be something the engine could be adapted for. Oleg has mentioned that the engine supports skeletal animation, so the presence of convincingly-animated infantry should be possible in any game based on this engine, if not necessarily playing from their perspective.

While it might be possible i doubt it would be very effective , or for that matter look and handle any good.. i'd say stick with aviation for that engine which it is mainly adapted for.

Leave the Infantry and vehicle combat warfare to TripeWire Interactive (Red Orchestra) they handle it excellent and besides they've got the Unreal Engine 3 up and running for their new project RO : Heroes of Stalingrad which will be awesome for any realism fps fan.

[Insuber]

Exactly! Have those guys even SEEN what's IN the update? :confused: Are we not allowed to discuss the actual content of the updates any more if the screenshots aren't of planes?


LOL I've peered into this forum every and each day, several times a day, since the latest stream of updates, and used to do it every other day before the Oct 23rd and since I joined this forum YEARS ago ... In fact May 22nd is a date I'm very familiar with ... :-) I guess you as well ... or not ?

Fact is, that I'm pleased that bycicles and hyperdetailed fishing boats made their way into this sim, but still my main focus is flight and warbirds, and I'm eager to see more of those. It looks like this thread lost a little bit interest for planes, in favour of divagations and sometimes eccentrical requests.
Do not see my point as a critic, all contributions from veterans and newcomers is more than welcome, of course.

Have a nice day,
Insuber

[Insuber]

Well, actually the community discusses what is available in each update.
In latest update we saw some fantastic sea and ships and this is definitely a plus for a flight sim taking place over the sea.
In IL-2 we had the Russian land to flight over, in BoB we'll have the Channel sea to fly over and we all hope it's not going to be some empty blue landscape.

So, yes, seagulls, seamen and ships are important for this game coming and thankfully OM & Team understand this and deliver the best as we see in this update :grin:.

With regards to planeset, there has been a reply in original announcement, but I guess OM will update us when time is suitable (I pretty think that we'll see a bit more than original announcement).


Thanks for the answer Dolphin. It has been so long since the original announcement that I almost forgot the announced planeset; by heart the CR.42 was in, but I'm not sure. I'll ask Oleg next time he will pop in here. It would be funny to discover that seagulls and fishing boats stole programming time to some good solid old plane, wouldn't it be ? ;-)

Regards,
Insuber

[furbs]

I agree...people are asking for such small details that dont really matter and would take up CPU power...people will complain if we dont see good FPS with lots of planes in the sky.


All i care about is seeing lots of planes, a great FM, a great DM with nice eye candy on the planes and landscape.

[erco]

We all want that, but, too, it's the little things that make it seem real.

[Foo'bar]

Don't you guys think that in a sim the level of details of every single object has to correspond to each other?

I wouldn't like a game where only the planes are looking phantastic while all other environment looks like Lego.

[HFC_Dolphin]

I agree...people are asking for such small details that dont really matter and would take up CPU power...people will complain if we dont see good FPS with lots of planes in the sky.
...

In this I totally agree and I've said it before that we shouldn't be asking for unnecessary things that will make the flight experience difficult due to low FPS.
Of course, the sea and ships are not unnecessary.
They are actually things much needed in the total experience.

Anyway, I think we all agree in same things, but sometimes we misconceive other people's posts. We all want a flight sim (above all), that will exist in a nice environment as Foo'bar is correctly pointing.

[Chivas]

Oleg has long said that he's building a cinematic combat flight sim engine, hinting strongly that the engine will eventually be capable of expanding into land and sea combat.

Not only will the aircraft be cinematic but everything you see from the cockpit will be cinematic. It may not happen in the initial BOB release, due too time restraints, computer, and code capabilities, BUT I have no doubt Oleg will come close to this vision if inital sales of BOB SOW are good enough to allow the team to continue work on the SOW series.

This, along with 3 party enhancements, should give the SOW series a very long life span.

[brando]

Don't you guys thing that in a sim the level of details of every single object has to correspond to each other?

I wouldn't like a game where only the planes are looking phantastic while all other environment looks like Lego.

I totally agree. This especially true for low-level attacks by fighter-bombers. I want the target to look as realistic as the aircraft I'm in.

B

[Feuerfalke]

Bad argument - especially in those high-speed-passes, you won't have much time looking at the objects on the ground. You won't notice if the train-engine between those trees is round or square with a look-like-round texture. You just see it's smoking and at one end of the train, so you shoot it.

But during the replay from a groundbased point of view, grounddetails becomes VERY important.

[furbs]

true...but i dont want to miss my shot in that high speed pass due to stutters and low fps.

[Chivas]

You'll notice more than you think you'll notice. You just have to fly other combat flight sims and few if any have very convincing ground details and objects.

Detailed cockpits are very important to me, but considering that 90% of the time I'm accessing details outside my aircraft, makes the enviroment you fly in, no less important.

[proton45]

Bad argument - especially in those high-speed-passes, you won't have much time looking at the objects on the ground. You won't notice if the train-engine between those trees is round or square with a look-like-round texture. You just see it's smoking and at one end of the train, so you shoot it.

But during the replay from a groundbased point of view, grounddetails becomes VERY important.

You have a point...however I might point out that the increased level of detail and the reflections/shadows will help with targeting and identification if your hardware is up to the task. I'm talking about "split second" glimpses of the targets on the ground...the mind can register an image in a split second and hold the "brains impression" of those details for a short time. We have all had the experience of looking out the cars window, as we speed down the road, and catching a "frozen moment" of someone walking down the road as we focus on them for a second...most of the outside world is blurred, but as our eyes dart around the landscape we catch short "pictures" of what is happening. Am I clear?

This detail could add to the experience...on a side note, my experience could be a "little" different then most, because I'm "far-sighted", I find that I'm frequently pointing out small details my friends missed.

[Foo'bar]

Bad argument - especially in those high-speed-passes, you won't have much time looking at the objects on the ground. You won't notice if the train-engine between those trees is round or square with a look-like-round texture. You just see it's smoking and at one end of the train, so you shoot it.

But during the replay from a groundbased point of view, grounddetails becomes VERY important.


No difference to what we already know from Il-2. All models we've seen the last couple of weeks so far are LOD0, the highest levels of detail a model knows. This only will be seen from very close, wich will be a very rare view from a plane's cockpit. You will still have your square-like smoking "something" at one end of a train because it's a LOD 2 or LOD3 model of an engine.

But, and that's the differnce, if you would step closer to each model in SoW, you will see much more details than before.

All will be fine ;)

[Feuerfalke]

No difference to what we already know from Il-2. All models we've seen the last couple of weeks so far are LOD0, the highest levels of detail a model knows. This only will be seen from very close, wich will be a very rare view from a plane's cockpit. You will still have your square-like smoking "something" at one end of a train because it's a LOD 2 or LOD3 model of an engine.

But, and that's the differnce, if you would step closer to each model in SoW, you will see much more details than before.

All will be fine ;)

That's exactly my point.

Who cares if it's painted bricks on the ground when you are flying at 30,000ft? Sure the landscape is important, but that's what the LOD is for and you don't need to have every valve on a train-engine so you can make out the type when divebombing from medium altitudes.

And ID-ing groundtargets is not only limited by your graphics card, but at those altitudes even more by your monitors resolution. ;)

[SlipBall]

That's exactly my point.

Who cares if it's painted bricks on the ground when you are flying at 30,000ft? Sure the landscape is important, but that's what the LOD is for and you don't need to have every valve on a train-engine so you can make out the type when divebombing from medium altitudes.

And ID-ing groundtargets is not only limited by your graphics card, but at those altitudes even more by your monitors resolution. ;)


Your assuming that only pilots will be buying/using the sim...I believe that there are grander dreams at work here.

[Foo'bar]

That's exactly my point.
you don't need to have every valve on a train-engine so you can make out the type when divebombing from medium altitudes.

There won't be each valve be modelled in SoW anyway ;)

[Lucas_From_Hell]

You don't NEED to have each valve modeled.

But if you CAN model each valve, it won't kill it, anyway...

It adds to immersion. Flight simulators, and games in general, don't have their realism level determined by the major stuff. In this field, they are all very close to each other (when you talk about modern games) - nice graphics, good effects, immersive sounds... The difference is in detail. For example, you wouldn't even notice if in Rise of Flight the gun parts didn't move in external views when they are reloaded. But they do. Do you actually NEED to see a stupid gun moving? Or to see that AK-47 inside the truck and besides the driver on DCS? No. Can you do this without causing any major trouble? Yes. Will it add to immersion? Yes. So, why not to do it?

It's just my opinion, anyway, but I really think that, if you want to model something, model it to the maximum level of detail you can. It won't be perfect, but at least is the closer you can get to perfection.

[proton45]

You don't NEED to have each valve modeled.

But if you CAN model each valve, it won't kill it, anyway...

It adds to immersion. Flight simulators, and games in general, don't have their realism level determined by the major stuff. In this field, they are all very close to each other (when you talk about modern games) - nice graphics, good effects, immersive sounds... The difference is in detail. For example, you wouldn't even notice if in Rise of Flight the gun parts didn't move in external views when they are reloaded. But they do. Do you actually NEED to see a stupid gun moving? Or to see that AK-47 inside the truck and besides the driver on DCS? No. Can you do this without causing any major trouble? Yes. Will it add to immersion? Yes. So, why not to do it?

It's just my opinion, anyway, but I really think that, if you want to model something, model it to the maximum level of detail you can. It won't be perfect, but at least is the closer you can get to perfection.


I have to admit that I don't really "get" the "too much detail" argument...MORE detail is always better.

I also don't understand the "why bother with so much detail, you can't see it at 30,000 feet"? My thought is...Right, so you can't see that much detail at 30,000, but you can see detail at 1000 feet. Why not make the argument about night flying and ask something like, "I can't see the ground at night, so why bother modeling it?"

[zakkandrachoff]

I was hoping a cockpit screenshot in game of a Bf 109, Bf 110, Blenheim Mk.IV or a Gladiator Mk.II
Buth anyway, good ships, so very detailed. (i think will need SLI 4890:()

[KG26_Alpha]

Well we get doors and hatches opening up etc, would be interesting to know if rework on overall lod is being done from 0-10 maybe to smooth out the jumpy/blocky rendering.

A lot of online war "closed pit" pilots fly 800x600 16bit with lowest graphics.

You see ground targets with no buildings/scenery in the way.
You see air target lod's like a brick from further away.


Personally I want the ground detail scaling done correctly this time around.

[DoolittleRaider]

If I'm not mistaken we will have these either in the box, or in the first patch:

....

Su-26

...

Is this an inside joke?

[Necrobaron]

I agree. As computers become more powerful and technology advances you have to expect to see more time spent on the little details. To hear the arguments of some here, sims would become pretty stagnant. To me the ultimate goal is photorealism in every way coupled with dead accurate physics and flight modelling. In another 15-20 years, I think we could be pretty darn close if the same level of progress continues. SoW is looking to be a nice rung in the ladder toward that goal.;)

I have to admit that I don't really "get" the "too much detail" argument...MORE detail is always better.

I also don't understand the "why bother with so much detail, you can't see it at 30,000 feet"? My thought is...Right, so you can't see that much detail at 30,000, but you can see detail at 1000 feet. Why not make the argument about night flying and ask something like, "I can't see the ground at night, so why bother modeling it?"
________
Kitchen Measures (http://kitchenmeasures.com/)

[Insuber]

I think Oleg originally planned 9 planes, later 11...

If I'm not mistaken we will have these either in the box, or in the first patch:

G-50, BR-20

Bf-109 E1, E-3. Bf-110. Ju-87 B-2. Ju-88 A-1. He-111.

Spitfire MkI, Hurricane MkI, Bristol Bolingbroke.

Su-26

Probables:

Gloster Gladiator, Tigermoth.

AI, including probable AI: Dornier 17, Beaufighter, Wellington, Walrus, Ju-52, BP Defiant, Fiat CR 42, Bristol Blenheim, Bf-108, Autogyro, Fw-200 Condor, Avro Anson, 2 German seaplanes which I can't name, Short Sunderland.



Romanator,

Thank you very much for the answer !... I hope that sometimes they will add the beautiful Cant Z.1007 of the 172ª Squadriglia Ricognizione Terrestre, used by the CAI as reconnaissance planes.

regards,
Insuber

[C6_Krasno]

Is this an inside joke?
Not at all. The Su-26 will probably be included, as an aerobatics aircraft. We already saw the cockpit IIRC. It seems they use it to test their FM, as they know very precisely the behaviour of this plane.

[fuzzychickens]

Not at all. The Su-26 will probably be included, as an aerobatics aircraft. We already saw the cockpit IIRC. It seems they use it to test their FM, as they know very precisely the behaviour of this plane.

This will be awesome. First thing I will try to do is hang it on its prop. Oh yea, I wonder how quick you can black out in the thing too!

I can see some awesome virtual airshow movies comming out of this.

Gotta have something besides killing eachother sometimes. I'm sure there are quite a few radio control airplane 3D and aerobatics enthusiasts who will pick up SOW just for the SU-26.

[Skoshi Tiger]

This is not specific to the 2009-11-06 screen shots, but in many of the pictures there are vehicles that combine many objects. The truck trailer carrying the bicyles, truck carrying drums, fishing boat carrying lifeboat/dingy (I assume this one is just one model). My questions are:

1) Are these objects one model or can the vehicle be loaded up with different cargoes?
2) (assuming that they are created using multiple objects) Are the composite vehicles static or can they move?

Thank you!

[Necrobaron]

I wonder if the Ju 87B1 will make an appearance? I think they were more numerous than the B2 during the Battle of Britain?
________
Vaporizing With A Heat Gun (http://vaporizerinfo.com/)

[Romanator21]

Detail is always nice. I think the ships we are seeing right now are perfect. I'll bet you my copy of the game when it comes out that there will be people manning them.

But, when the request was made for seamen crawling around on the deck, tying ropes, etc, I had to laugh. That is what I call going 'overboard', if you'll excuse me. This is something a strafing aircraft is never going to see.

If you notice, a lot of the details are shown through bump mapping rather than true 3D. This reduces polygon counts, while still giving a very accurate impression of the object. This is perfect in a flight sim where you need the detail of ground objects that are being strafed, etc, but also to give the player a realistic field of view, which is on the order of several tens of kilometers.

For example, BoP has pretty scenery, but there is always thick 'mist' at just 10 km or so. It's impossible to see anything beyond this point, because the game doesn't render it.

SoW is going to have to render these things nearly to the horizon in some instances. But the pretty frame-rate hogging grass is not going to show up beyond, say 1 km, so it's not as big of an issue as some of you are making it out to be.

I have to say, that at times the ground models of some objects in IL-2 is not adequate, even at high speeds. A square train engine with a round texture doesn't cut it.

What I am seeing is a good compromise between FPS quality, and the realism of a true flight simulator. This has enough detail to look/feel real from any situation in the cockpit.

-Rant mode: Off-

[zapatista]

Don't you guys think that in a sim the level of details of every single object has to correspond to each other?

I wouldn't like a game where only the planes are looking phantastic while all other environment looks like Lego.

exactly !!

and obviously you will only see that level of detail when you are close enough to a few specific objects in your nearby visual field, and that is when it is important for immersion/quality that the objects look good enough to match the rest of the game. when you are seeing the closest LoD models in all their glory, yes it is important how detailed they look

when you are flying 1000 or 5000 meters over those same objects your pc only processes the distant low cpu/gpu LoD models which have very little or no detail and are just a generic shape, and it makes absolutely no difference to your pc how pretty they might look from 20 meters away

its a bit weirdo that some new visitors here now start to complain some of the ground/sea objects look to good ! there is a purpose to what oleg does in creating some of those detailed objects right from the start, which the old timer fan's already know, in that the game engine right from the start allows air/sea/land combat with planes, ships and ground vehicles (and for the teenagers who have trouble grasping complex idea's, no that doesnt mean a first person shooter !). neither does it mean that those additional sea/ground combat functions will be included right from the start, those are elements that will be worked on further once the game is released (and 3e party's can get involved in further).

right now those boats/ships have to be good enough to match the general detail of the rest of the game, and they do. once the sea/ground elements of the game are developed and become available, i am sure the ships will be worked on further to match the detail of the aircraft (which if you look closely, you can see they dont right now).

if you bail out of your aircraft and land in the channel, and have one of those fishing boats steam towards you to pluck you out of the water, then they look great ! nice work oleg :)

[proton45]

Someone is going to call me a "ki$$ a$$", but I have faith in Oleg...I have faith in the fact that Oleg has made one of the best (if not the best) flight combat sims ever. I have faith in his ability as a game designer. Oleg will not create a game that is so bogged down in detail and extras that it is unplayable. Olegs a smart guy and he will do right by us...we are not loosing anything with the addition of these "pretty" ground objects.

[airmalik]

Zapatista,

All my sympathy to you my friend, but as an "old visitor" and first hour fan of the IL2 series, apart from sharing Romanator's arguments, I feel entitled to clarify a couple of points:

1. OK for extreme detail everywhere: the more the better, but in real life you cannot have everything and now. Money, people and and time are finite quantities (my wife doesn't yet agree on the latter). Briefly, I prefer an additional flyable plane at the cost of a less detailed bycicle, or no bycicle at all ... not to speak about seamen tying ropes or other oddities.

2. I've nothing against posters asking about seamen crawling back and forth or dying in a gorefest of blood spatter, only I wouldn't like them to drive the focus away from planes, their DM, FM etc... But again, new visitors are most welcome, fresh blood for flight sims...


As one of the authors of the posts about activity on shipping vessels, I feel I should clarify. I don't expect sailors on boats to be tying reefing knots, coiling neat piles of rope, knitting nets etc. What I would love to see is SOME activity on boats, airfields and cities. Sailors diving off boats when strafed isn't that far fetched if you consider that we had troops running away from convoys when attacked 10 years ago!

The fact that Oleg has mentioned busses that follow routes lead me to think that adding 'life' to the environment is something that he's interested in as well.

Lastly, I'm sure Oleg is quite capable of managing his priorities - posts by his fans may give him a sense of what we'd like to see but I doubt this would 'distract' him from his focus.

[HiWeee]

Great!~

[Oleg Maddox]

Thanks for the update.

A couple of questions:

1. - I hope the stopped propeller when pause is pressed is configurable. It may not be always wanted when taking screen shots and so.

2. - Will it have a resource to export aircraft data so we can link with other peripherals and apps (as devicelink did, but more comprehensive - simpit intended)? Will it work also online?

3. - Could one watch a recorded track from another pilot PoV (inside his cockpit)?

From the past preview we saw, it will have moving air masses. so...

4. - Will it have gauges to provide windspeed, temperature and pressure? (high level precision bombing intended)

thanks
tityus

1. Yes we will solve this in future by one or other way.
2. We will have new device link. Probably it will work online as well.
3. Proabbly. Can't say now.
4. If it is in a cockpit - then we model it. In Sow now most gauges are working, if not all.

[Oleg Maddox]

The fact that Oleg has mentioned busses that follow routes lead me to think that adding 'life' to the environment is something that he's interested in as well.



I'm interested, but we can't make the sim another one year-two. So will be minimum at the beginning.

[Oleg Maddox]

Hi Oleg, hope you get well soon (or whoever in your family is ill).


The part of the boat that is underwater, and that we can see through the water, seems not to be affected by refraction. I know it's nit picking but I think it takes away from the overall realism of the image.

Are you planning on adding refraction to light passing through transparent materials?




Can't answer now. Maybe yes, maybe in future. There are different reasons to make it and to do not make. All such effects eat some time too much resources of computation. But our goal at first to get the realistic picture in air and what is really visible from air on the ground. There must be compromises becasue at first it is flight sim, and then - all other is secondary.

Even when I tell that AAA is controlable... this is not only for gameplay... this is for these that can't fly, but would try... and at least will be satisfied playing online for the AAA.

[Oleg Maddox]

The barge could be a little sharper, but not bad.

What do you mean under term "Sharper" ?

[zapatista]

what I would love to see is SOME activity on boats, airfields and cities. Sailors diving off boats when strafed isn't that far fetched if you consider that we had troops running away from convoys when attacked 10 years ago!

The fact that Oleg has mentioned busses that follow routes lead me to think that adding 'life' to the environment is something that he's interested in as well.

yeps i am all in favour of those to, and i hope most of that is included right from the start

- civilian and military traffic on roads
- civilian and military ships going from point a to b
- ground activity at airfields, like fuel trucks, mechanics driving about, few jeeps with pilots heading to aircraft, emergency vehicles, food and drinks truck serving tea and sanwiches maybe
- ai aircraft taking of and landing if normal for that airfield, eg training flights for new pilots, a lost or damaged aircraft from another airfield making an emergency landing, new replacement aircraft being flown in etc..
- yes maybe even the odd bicycle with a pilot or mechanic on it
- men on the ai AA guns, first aid and fire trucks rushing to damaged aircraft coming in to land etc

in short, not the dead empty lifeless airfields we have now in il2, but an environment that gives a sense of life and vitality


Insuber, you must have put your sensitive pink nickers on today, because my previous post wast aimed at you but the person who was complaining oleg was including land/sea warfare elements and stated he'd prefer to play with other games instead (thinking amongst other things that oleg was making a 1e person shooter right now)

[Oleg Maddox]

Engine sales or licensing are big, big money. I don't see how that couldn't be important. Of course it's not the main objective, but then neither was licensing the engine the main objective in the development of the Quake or Unreal engines, and look how widely they were licensed, and how well id and Epic profited financially. Licensing is far less common outside the FPS genre, of course.

Perfectly right

[Mat72]

Hi Oleg,

Was just wondering if by having ground crew killed during raids will it reduce the effectiveness of an airbase's ability to re-arm, re-fuel, AA etc? If so, will this be modeled in terms of reduced numbers of aircraft available for scrambles etc.

Thanks

[zapatista]

hi oleg,

could we please have multiple monitor support right from the start ? but please a version that allows us to use multiple monitors of different sizes, like this ....

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8929/dell3007wfp04uy2.jpg

in that that example you could use a 27 or 25' lcd in the middle, with a 19' lcd in landscape on either side (note: this is good because you only need your gfx card to push 2x the pixels 1920 x 1200, and not 3x like you would for a normal 3 monitor setup like this

http://www.home-designing.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/83-495x294.jpg

that much more expensive 3x 24', or 3x 27' or 3x 30' would cost a fortune and only very few people could afford it.

the example i gave above that i would like included allows
1x 24' + 2x 19' (or you can use a 25 or 27' for the center monitor to, keeping a 19' in landscape mode on either side)
or
1x 22' + 2x 17' in landscape mode etc (using a lower resolution and less pixels to push)

most westerners flying flightsims have upgraded from their small initial lcd to a larger widescreen in the last few years (either 22', or 24' or 25') so we still have a 17' or 19' lying around, allowing us at a small cost of 1 more small lcd to have a 3 monitor setup which DOUBLES our field of view in il2

new ati and nvidea gfx cards are starting to support a 3 monitor setup without having to buy a matrox 3HTgo (which only works with 3 monitors the exact smae size, and can only max work with 3x 22')

software multi monitor might be possible but is a huge drain on cpu/gpu, so not a realistic option

please consider :)

[Oleg Maddox]

While it might be possible i doubt it would be very effective , or for that matter look and handle any good.. i'd say stick with aviation for that engine which it is mainly adapted for.

Leave the Infantry and vehicle combat warfare to TripeWire Interactive (Red Orchestra) they handle it excellent and besides they've got the Unreal Engine 3 up and running for their new project RO : Heroes of Stalingrad which will be awesome for any realism fps fan.


You are propably right.

Also we need render great square (area) at once and this limit us to make more detailed buildings or even cars, etc And we need to go for great optimization, like it was at a time when we were developing Il-2 two years before its release.

Shooter is possible on our engine, but then there should be added in a code some additional features of collisions, changes of buildings models inside, etc...

So we optimize at first for a flight sim - that is the most important to make right things in a flight and how everything looks from/near aircraft.
When we or third party will add infantry controlable, with the posiblilty to driev cars of other vechicles in engine musbe present some other features for the ground action.
And we put there now intital things that will help to expand in future.

[Oleg Maddox]

Hi Oleg,

Was just wondering if by having ground crew killed during raids will it reduce the effectiveness of an airbase's ability to re-arm, re-fuel, AA etc? If so, will this be modeled in terms of reduced numbers of aircraft available for scrambles etc.

Thanks

Something will be. But what really I can tell more close to final

I can tell you that I want more than you listed, but what we will have is depending of many factors, that will limit my own dreams.

[Oleg Maddox]

I was hoping a cockpit screenshot in game of a Bf 109, Bf 110, Blenheim Mk.IV or a Gladiator Mk.II
Buth anyway, good ships, so very detailed. (i think will need SLI 4890:()

Gladiator will be AI.

[Tbag]

Hey Oleg, I hope you feel better today!

A couple of years ago there were rumors about a cooperation between you and Akella (Knights of the Sea). Could you shed some light on this?

[Oleg Maddox]

Hey Oleg, I hope you feel better today!

A couple of years ago there were rumors about a cooperation between you and Akella (Knights of the Sea). Could you shed some light on this?

They used our models of aircraft only.
In general cooperation was with 1C, not personally with me.

The part of our source code, my guys, models as a basis used in many games of 1C and othes.
This a bit help us to make BoB better than Il-2 :).

[Oleg Maddox]

Ok.
I will read-answer more tomorow. No time at the moment.

[Mat72]

Something will be. But what really I can tell more close to final

I can tell you that I want more than you listed, but what we will have is depending of many factors, that will limit my own dreams.
Hi Oleg,

Thanks for your reply. It will be great to keep the offensive against airfields going, knowing that the damage being done will affect the next raid etc.

Hope you feel better.

Mat

[Insuber]

Hi Oleg,

Thank you for the attention and the beautiful updates. My questions:

1. Do you plan to include CR.42 as AI only, or it will be flyable from first release ?

2. CANT Z.1007 Alcione was used by the CAI as recon plane, and despite its limited quantities in BoB (5 or 7) it was a beatiful plane and extensively used in other theaters; do you have plans to include it in future ?

3. I asked it already, but ... what's your idea about the training section, and namely about the deflection gunnery training (predictive pipper only as a training tool) ?

Thank you in advance,
Insuber

[zakkandrachoff]

Gladiator will be AI.

ok... i prefer first the Gladiator, but is okay;)

I have a question that I don’t know if is already answer. If it was answer already, sorry, ok?
Is about maniobrability of the airplane. My question is if this is going to be more like LOMAC or like Il-2.
I put the example the maneuver of the Messerschmitt bf 109 version G, That was impossible of controlled the aircraft: when I turn Left (in the Joystick, not pull so strong), the plane go very strong to the right and stall and do crazy things. Result: For me, this is Impossible to fly.
Is for this only and particularly think that i fly very more hours LOMAC. Have more best control of the aircraft.
somebody please correct me if I am wrong

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Zakkandrachoff, I don't think that's possible at all, unless you want a Spitfire with fly-by-wire :mrgreen: .

I also fly Lock On, so I know what are you talking about. Yes, you do have more control. But that's because of the FBW. Of course it's easier to control an Su-27, when compared to an Bf-109G. It was made 40 years after the 109, so basically it has 40 years of technology improvements built in, including computer systems that make the aircraft easier to handle. It's the evolution.

About your Gladiator, don't worry. With all these third-party development stuff, I think a Gladiator cockpit will be released within a month after the release :mrgreen: .

[cmirko]

hi oleg,

could we please have multiple monitor support right from the start ? but please a version that allows us to use multiple monitors of different sizes, like this ....

.....


most westerners flying flightsims have upgraded from their small initial lcd to a larger widescreen in the last few years (either 22', or 24' or 25') so we still have a 17' or 19' lying around, allowing us at a small cost of 1 more small lcd to have a 3 monitor setup which DOUBLES our field of view in il2

new ati and nvidea gfx cards are starting to support a 3 monitor setup without having to buy a matrox 3HTgo (which only works with 3 monitors the exact smae size, and can only max work with 3x 22')

software multi monitor might be possible but is a huge drain on cpu/gpu, so not a realistic option

please consider :)


this is a super question/request :) - would very much like to hear Oleg's thinking on this subject :)


cheers

[proton45]

ok... i prefer first the Gladiator, but is okay;)

I have a question that I don’t know if is already answer. If it was answer already, sorry, ok?
Is about maniobrability of the airplane. My question is if this is going to be more like LOMAC or like Il-2.
I put the example the maneuver of the Messerschmitt bf 109 version G, That was impossible of controlled the aircraft: when I turn Left (in the Joystick, not pull so strong), the plane go very strong to the right and stall and do crazy things. Result: For me, this is Impossible to fly.
Is for this only and particularly think that i fly very more hours LOMAC. Have more best control of the aircraft.
somebody please correct me if I am wrong

It took me a few hours of practice to get the feeling of the BF109 (it will stall if not handled well)...BUT maybe your problem is with your joystick setup? Have you tried adjusting the sensitivity bands, and stuff?

[proton45]

Hello Oleg...

1). I'm curious if you can tell us more about the new damage model? Along with the (great) new up-dated visuals, I think it will be one of the most important aspects of the new game play. How many different types of ammunition will be modeled in the new game (HE, AP, incendiary?), and will the player have the option of selecting the ammo type?

2). Will their be a (off-line) "player-stats/log" feature so that we can review or "hit statistics"?

Thanks for taking the time to read my questions.

[zakkandrachoff]

Zakkandrachoff, I don't think that's possible at all, unless you want a Spitfire with fly-by-wire :mrgreen: .

I also fly Lock On, so I know what are you talking about. Yes, you do have more control. But that's because of the FBW. Of course it's easier to control an Su-27, when compared to an Bf-109G. It was made 40 years after the 109, so basically it has 40 years of technology improvements built in, including computer systems that make the aircraft easier to handle. It's the evolution.

About your Gladiator, don't worry. With all these third-party development stuff, I think a Gladiator cockpit will be released within a month after the release :mrgreen: .

you can call me Zak;)
first: proton45, my jostick is very well config, is the microsoft. (I will change it in 2010)
2° lucas: i dont mean only LOMAC ( flying A-10 or Su-25 don't append that) , because I fly Laggs and is very similar to the Bf 109 problem. And, like you said, the Spitfire is a Dream compared to the 109. Only I hope is Balance a little both. Not so Dream and not so Hell maneuver.
I remember the Jane´s Attack Squadron, (old simulator, low compared whit il-2, whit crappy mission builder) that Bf 109G don´t have that problem.

and when i put "first the Gladiator", i was saying compared whit the Tiger mod:-)
But good your point, so manny fans will build so many aircraf and mods in some months after the release jaja. SOW BOB 1946 I can only imagine :rolleyes:

And I hope too that the AI will be more "noob" and slow movements that is in Il-2 In average skills. the computer kick my ass:eek: in average, dont tell you in good or expert.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

With this great ship models, sea with depth, and transparent water, i know that now we'll be able to see submarines that are submerged but close to the surface. My question would be, how will SoW will handle bombs that explode on water. Since in reality a bomb exploding on water close to a submarin could cause some serious damage. But on all the sims we all been flying, all require a direct hit to a submarine, or ship, in order to damage it or sink it.
I would like to know if SoW will be the first aircraft simulator, at least that i know of, that will simulate damage by bombs that hit close to a submarine, but not directly.

Thanks, and the models are excellent, like all the models that have been showed to us since SoW was announced. :)

[Insuber]

Zapatista,

Maybe I'm wrong, but Oleg already answered you in the 23-10 thread:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=114821&highlight=Monitor#post114821



hi oleg,

could we please have multiple monitor support right from the start ? but please a version that allows us to use multiple monitors of different sizes, like this ....

in that that example you could use a 27 or 25' lcd in the middle, with a 19' lcd in landscape on either side (note: this is good because you only need your gfx card to push 2x the pixels 1920 x 1200, and not 3x like you would for a normal 3 monitor setup like this

that much more expensive 3x 24', or 3x 27' or 3x 30' would cost a fortune and only very few people could afford it.

the example i gave above that i would like included allows
1x 24' + 2x 19' (or you can use a 25 or 27' for the center monitor to, keeping a 19' in landscape mode on either side)
or
1x 22' + 2x 17' in landscape mode etc (using a lower resolution and less pixels to push)

most westerners flying flightsims have upgraded from their small initial lcd to a larger widescreen in the last few years (either 22', or 24' or 25') so we still have a 17' or 19' lying around, allowing us at a small cost of 1 more small lcd to have a 3 monitor setup which DOUBLES our field of view in il2

new ati and nvidea gfx cards are starting to support a 3 monitor setup without having to buy a matrox 3HTgo (which only works with 3 monitors the exact smae size, and can only max work with 3x 22')

software multi monitor might be possible but is a huge drain on cpu/gpu, so not a realistic option

please consider :)

[zakkandrachoff]

http://i80.servimg.com/u/f80/12/20/20/81/grab0010.jpg
already whit High brightness glass and metal, still very camufled, nice

[Insuber]

Nice one Zack ! Where did you find it?

Ins

[Skoshi Tiger]

With this great ship models, sea with depth, and transparent water, i know that now we'll be able to see submarines that are submerged but close to the surface. My question would be, how will SoW will handle bombs that explode on water. Since in reality a bomb exploding on water close to a submarin could cause some serious damage. But on all the sims we all been flying, all require a direct hit to a submarine, or ship, in order to damage it or sink it.
I would like to know if SoW will be the first aircraft simulator, at least that i know of, that will simulate damage by bombs that hit close to a submarine, but not directly.

Thanks, and the models are excellent, like all the models that have been showed to us since SoW was announced. :)

As someone who is a keen advocate of skip bombing in IL2, it would be interesting to see how attacking sub surface targets would work and how it would effect skip bombing.

I assume the same method of setting a time delay on the bomb would be in place. I expect there would have to be some sort of rule (programming code) in place that would look at the angle that the bomb hits the water, the speed that the bombs going, and the height it was released at to see if it skips accross or penetrates the water.

I hope that they still have the skip bombing because I am absoluetly useless at dive bombing :(

[TheGrunch]

I hope that they still have the skip bombing because I am absoluetly useless at dive bombing :(
I'm pretty sure it's planned to be included if possible. Luthier was looking for information on water ricochets, if you remember.

[Oleg Maddox]

Hi Oleg,

Thank you for the attention and the beautiful updates. My questions:

1. Do you plan to include CR.42 as AI only, or it will be flyable from first release ?

2. CANT Z.1007 Alcione was used by the CAI as recon plane, and despite its limited quantities in BoB (5 or 7) it was a beatiful plane and extensively used in other theaters; do you have plans to include it in future ?

3. I asked it already, but ... what's your idea about the training section, and namely about the deflection gunnery training (predictive pipper only as a training tool) ?

Thank you in advance,
Insuber

1. As AI only. We simply have no time to make all nice to fly planes flyable.
2. I know, but same as 1... No Cant because no time. There is a lot of other plance that were in a small amount present in BoB from any side... but we simply unable to make them all or even part. I think it will be the work of third party and fans of one or another aircraft in future.
3. We have many ideas for the training and did great part of code for this. But to say what there will be finally I can't now. We have in mind the things that never was done in any sim for this purpose. And it isn't like in MS or RoF. We will try to make finally simply by other way, that will be very comfortable for any kind of users. And in the part even for advanced simmers will be interesting. At least I hope to get all these ideas in my mind working in final release. The main part of code for all these features are done, however the relase of all these features may take more time than the initial main code for this. So just becaseu of limits of time I'm afrade to tell the features of training.

I only agree that the training mode is very helpfull for beginners, that never play before any good sims... Arcade games and simulator with the gameplay - its too different things

[TheGrunch]

Oleg, do you plan to animate wing-flex during maneuvering?

[Oleg Maddox]

ok... i prefer first the Gladiator, but is okay;)

I have a question that I don’t know if is already answer. If it was answer already, sorry, ok?
Is about maniobrability of the airplane. My question is if this is going to be more like LOMAC or like Il-2.
I put the example the maneuver of the Messerschmitt bf 109 version G, That was impossible of controlled the aircraft: when I turn Left (in the Joystick, not pull so strong), the plane go very strong to the right and stall and do crazy things. Result: For me, this is Impossible to fly.
Is for this only and particularly think that i fly very more hours LOMAC. Have more best control of the aircraft.
somebody please correct me if I am wrong

In Il-2 I prefer to fly exactly Bf-109 beginning from letter G...
You simply move joystick too much on too slow speed for Bf-109. You may also switch off the torgue effect that understand effect than to have.
Remeber always - keeping the speed is a success of dogfight. As soon you lose the speed - you begin to look like sitting duck. Making any sharp maneuvers on some aircraft isn't possible on the speeds close to stall. Or fly biplanes and mybe you will be successfull like some do it in CRs, I-153(especially with guns), Gloster or even some japanese planes

Recommended by me settings of curves for joystic (exponential curve) is the most right for the feel of the flight and aircraft control if to compare it to real control column.
You will get other behaviour of aircraft using even great movement of joystick

Exponet control curves in Il-2 also was recommended by one of American WWII pilots, that played Il-2 and several modern pilots.

So try it.

[Oleg Maddox]

Oleg, do you plan to animate wing-flex during maneuvering?

Can you tell the term by other words?

[hiro]

Oleg, do you plan to animate wing-flex during maneuvering??

Can you tell the term by other words?


I think he means wing warp / wing twist / washout when the aircraft is stressed (like under a sharp / high g turn).

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/dynamics/q0055.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_twist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_warping




The spitfire had thin wings and this had an effect on it, but I'm no spit expert . . . others could elaborate exactly what happened.

[TheGrunch]

I think he means wing warp / wing twist / washout when the aircraft is stressed (like under a sharp / high g turn).
Exactly that, to use an extreme example, like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFEs-DatuHs

[Oleg Maddox]

I think he means wing warp / wing twist / washout when the aircraft is stressed (like under a sharp / high g turn).

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/dynamics/q0055.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_twist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_warping




The spitfire had thin wings and this had an effect on it, but I'm no spit expert . . . others could elaborate exactly what happened.


Ok.
Visually we don't plan to model at the moment. They are not so visible by eyes on the planes that we currently put in a sim as flayble. The feel of effect - yes. Partially it was done even in early Il-2.
However early spits had other effect on aielerons at high speeds that we plan to tune in FM with effect on some aircraft.

[Oleg Maddox]

I'm pretty sure it's planned to be included if possible. Luthier was looking for information on water ricochets, if you remember.

He was asking about info - ricochet of bullets and shells under a great angle of hit to water surface. With the small angle it is all clear, however with angles of 30 to 60 degree is also possible ricochet - it is very well visible on some videos of WWII time.

We simply need the explanation of physics of such ricochets, because it is not clear by using normal formulas.

We did it, but need more info, say some sources with formulas when it is and for which shells (size, diameter, mass, form of the bullet/shell, speed at hit, etc)
All such things with ricochets from the water surface under great angles of hits are out of simple understanding using common physics... there are acpects that need to be using for more precise modeling and understanding. Because some may say that it is impossible (like I said when I saw the modeling of effect by my guys), but we may see it very well on WWII videos....

In common words the ricochets of hard surface are not the same as for luguid surface and depending of too many factors that we need to model approximatelly that to do not overload real time calculations. I would say that ricoshets of water surface is totally different to hard surface and angles of hits

[SlipBall]

Speaking of wings, could a ground crew person be placed to sit on a wing???

[Oleg Maddox]

Dang. Had to register finally to ask some questions.

Seeing these boats raised the following questions for me...


1a) Are we going to be getting flyable seaplanes/floatplanes/flying boats?
1b) If so, will there be possible missions rescuing shot down flyers?

2a) Will we get to run anti-shipping patrols/convoy attack missions?
2b) If yes, will the ships take evasive actions to avoid torpedoes, or try to dodge level bombing attacks (Presumably this could be scaled to depend on visibility as well)?

3) Is it possible in the future that we will get to see guided anti shipping weapons like the Germans used on the Fw-200s (and other planes, but that's whats on my mind right now).


Can't wait to see the next update :p

1a. Currently we have just spitfire with gear-boats that we did just for one purpose - tuning of physics and feel of landing-take off. This isn't MKV like it was in reality... we simply used existing model of our spit.
1b. Probably it will make third parties in the future. In Campaign I planned some feature... After he was shot down, landed in water, pilot waiting in the water for the rescue aircraft and we did for both sides such aircraft. I don't know yet if it will be finally possible to program due to limit of time.

2a. If we are making ships with damage model then this means only one thing - yes.
2b. Can say now just one thing. AI of ships is present :) It isn't like in Il-2 - movements just by waypoints.

3. It is possible in Il-2 1946 with X-4 rockets. It is the same feature. So when we or third party will be ready to make such things in a new sim, then it will be. The differences in Air to Air and Air to Ground/ship guided rockets is minimal in programming.
The other things is by wire guided or by RC-guided. In programming it is almost the same... but visually... wire and its behavior is to make very hard, including collision of wire in case with own aircraft... So variants with wire we probably will not model... or ar least visals and collisions of wire itself. Of course.. I thing some of third party may do even such things using our base code for this purpose.

[Oleg Maddox]

Speaking of wings, could a ground crew person be placed on a wing???

That to make scene with smokiong on the wing pilot and ground crew and with recorded sound of the post flight speech? :)

I dont' know. Your question corresponding to the other my answers about humans in a sim. Please try to find.

[Oleg Maddox]

Very beautiful. It's amazing what one can do. Ok I think I exagerated, with "one" I mean a whole team.

This might allready have been asked bevor, I'm wondering if the fog is implemented in the game. Since in England there is a lot of fog. But then again why, one doesen't want to fly in the fog. But still....


Yes. Fog will be. It is really in Il-2, but in Sow will be better visuals at all:)

[SlipBall]

You make many referance to "time limit"...sounds like you have release date in mind...share?:-P

[TheGrunch]

With the small angle it is all clear, however with angles of 30 to 60 degree is also possible ricochet - it is very well visible on some videos of WWII time.
Are you sure this isn't due to the shell ricocheting just past the crest of a wave in heavier seas? It seems to be a bit too complicated to model with a high degree of accuracy without huge amounts of processing power, though, apparently :
"Naval gun and armor
manufacturers use very powerful computers with computational fluid dynamics
programs to get approximations of how artillery rounds will perform against
ships and other hardened targets.
As you have learned empirically, angle and velocity are important factors
in ricochet, but there are many others; mineral content of the water,
temperature, shape of the projectile, rate of spin of the projectile,
hardness of the bullet, any deformations or imperfections on the surface of
the bullet, etc."
I tried searching my university's ejournals selection but unfortunately the most relevant study was that of ricocheting a 9mm bullet from shallow water, but I believe it was more concerned with the depth of penetration before the ricochet occurred. Another study was concerned with ricocheting of non-spinning projectiles. I can dig those up if you guys want.

[Oleg Maddox]

Are you sure this isn't due to the shell ricocheting just past the crest of a wave in heavier seas? It seems to be a bit too complicated to model with a high degree of accuracy without huge amounts of processing power, though, apparently :
"Naval gun and armor
manufacturers use very powerful computers with computational fluid dynamics
programs to get approximations of how artillery rounds will perform against
ships and other hardened targets.
As you have learned empirically, angle and velocity are important factors
in ricochet, but there are many others; mineral content of the water,
temperature, shape of the projectile, rate of spin of the projectile,
hardness of the bullet, any deformations or imperfections on the surface of
the bullet, etc."
I tried searching my university's ejournals selection but unfortunately the most relevant study was that of ricocheting a 9mm bullet from shallow water, but I believe it was more concerned with the depth of penetration before the ricochet occurred. Another study was concerned with ricocheting of non-spinning projectiles. I can dig those up if you guys want.

I will clear right now my box, so you will be able to post there email

[TheGrunch]

I will clear right now my box, so you will be able to post there email
What would your e-mail address be, Oleg?

EDIT: Never mind, Dolphin pointed me in the right direction, give me a shout if you need it sending again. Hope this helps! :)

[Bobb4]

I was wondering if the time had not come for a seperate SOW game thread in the Official 1C Company Forum...
May I dare ask if the sim is currently in the early Alpha phase or has it already reached early Beta?

Lol
While I doubt you will answer the above maybe you can indulge me with the following question.
Will glass shatter when hit or will the canopy damage be the same as in il2.
I am in particular thinking about the Heinkel 111 with its massive glass nose section?
I know this has been asked before but will different positions be manable in a bomber and more importantly will a gunner 1) be able to move around from position to position and 2) will the gunner be able to reload guns?

[Oleg Maddox]

I was wondering if the time had not come for a seperate SOW game thread in the Official 1C Company Forum...
May I dare ask if the sim is currently in the early Alpha phase or has it already reached early Beta?

Lol
While I doubt you will answer the above maybe you can indulge me with the following question.
Will glass shatter when hit or will the canopy damage be the same as in il2.
I am in particular thinking about the Heinkel 111 with its massive glass nose section?
I know this has been asked before but will different positions be manable in a bomber and more importantly will a gunner 1) be able to move around from position to position and 2) will the gunner be able to reload guns?


We have no Alpha in principle. We are going for Beta. Same was with Il-2. it isn't like with other games in industry.

Separate thread will be. But later. We will ove in other office, atc. So utill that time there will be no chnages and we will all post here.

Yes, will be possible. Without animations.
Yes, reload also possible.

[PanzerAce]

1a. Currently we have just spitfire with gear-boats that we did just for one purpose - tuning of physics and feel of landing-take off. This isn't MKV like it was in reality... we simply used existing model of our spit.
1b. Probably it will make third parties in the future. In Campaign I planned some feature... After he was shot down, landed in water, pilot waiting in the water for the rescue aircraft and we did for both sides such aircraft. I don't know yet if it will be finally possible to program due to limit of time.

2a. If we are making ships with damage model then this means only one thing - yes.
2b. Can say now just one thing. AI of ships is present :) It isn't like in Il-2 - movements just by waypoints.

3. It is possible in Il-2 1946 with X-4 rockets. It is the same feature. So when we or third party will be ready to make such things in a new sim, then it will be. The differences in Air to Air and Air to Ground/ship guided rockets is minimal in programming.
The other things is by wire guided or by RC-guided. In programming it is almost the same... but visually... wire and its behavior is to make very hard, including collision of wire in case with own aircraft... So variants with wire we probably will not model... or ar least visals and collisions of wire itself. Of course.. I thing some of third party may do even such things using our base code for this purpose.

Cool, thanks for all the info :D (though I'll have to look up which anti shipping munitions were wire guided, and which were radio guided...)

I guess my only real concern was the issue that many anti shipping weapons were un-powered, but I'm guessing that won't be much of an issue in the long run.

I'm really glad to hear you say that the ships will finally react with more than just AAA. Some guys like to do 8 hour bombing runs...I'd rather do an 8 hour patrol over the atlantic.

[kendo65]

Hi,

Would be interested to know if RAF aircraft will fly in Vics as standard in BOB as they did historically.

This was very difficult / impossible to achieve when modelling early-war RAF in il-2 (though I am aware that il-2 never really attempted to cover this theatre/time.)

So I would hope that there will be a means of choosing formation type in the mission parameters so that RAF can fly vics in 1940 then move to finger four in 1941, etc.

Also, one of my pet peeves with il2: wingmen who abandon formation and charge headlong at the enemy on first sighting! Would like to see an ai pilot spotting a distant enemy formation call out clock and height postion while maintaining discipline and formation. (possible exceptions being some rookies and Polish!)

[zapatista]

Would like to see an ai pilot spotting a distant enemy formation call out clock and height postion while maintaining discipline and formation. (possible exceptions being some rookies and Polish!)

without the polish pilots in BoB it would have been the slaughter of Britain instead, and you'd all be speaking german now

aside from that, whatever pilots broke the V formation instruction were the smart ones, and were much more likely to survive for longer (free historical fact for you there)

so no, no artificial imposed V formations plz Oleg !! by all means have the AI take of and loosely assemble like that, for SOME flights but then also have human instructions to AI that lets them form up in pairs of 2, and groups of 4

kendo, read "the most dangerous enemy" (a history of the battle of britain by stephen bungay), which is one of the most accurate week by week accounts of the BoB. V formations were not uniformly adhered to from day 1 by the brits, even if that was still considered the official instruction. the initial brittish pilots that had encounters with the germans over france quickly learned to improvise and find better solutions then the V, and by the time the official BoB started many of the experienced pilots (ie those with high flighing hrs, even without combat experience at that point) did not stick to the V. yes some units did and quickly were decimated, but to artificially impose that on all the brittish flights would be most unrealistic.

[kendo65]

Hi Zapatista,

I wasn't asking that vics be made compulsory, but merely available as an option.

I have read the Bungay book and agree it is excellent, but what i took from it was the undeniable historical fact that in the early war period (39-40) the standard RAF training and tactics (flying in vics) placed them at a disadvantage to the Luftwaffe. You are absolutely right that units and individuals were forced to learn and adapt as they gained experience and that often the ones who survived were the ones who ditched the old tactics soonest.

But the fact remains that this was a historical feature of the battle and as this game will be a 'simulation' surely it would be inaccurate if it were left out completely. (if the ai is good enough in SOW, this could be a fascinating part of the game - modelling the effects of different formations on pilot's abilities to scan the sky and react. Possibly allowing us to model the evolution of the RAF tactics with the use of 'weavers' , etc).

Again, I'm not asking for it to be compulsory, just available as an option

Also, my comments about the Polish pilots was not meant to be derogatory - I'm fully aware of their contribution to the battle and their bravery and fighting spirit - my words were a (maybe too flippant) comment on their gung-ho aggressive spirit which sometimes amazed accompanying British pilots.

[Zorin]

Oleg, would you mind taking a look here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=116704&postcount=241

[ALien_12]

I know it isn't so important, but I would like to know if I cut someone's radio wire will he lose it? It would be cool in online when you tell: ,,He's firi..." and stop because of wire cut.

[drafting]

I know it isn't so important, but I would like to know if I cut someone's radio wire will he lose it? It would be cool in online when you tell: ,,He's firi..." and stop because of wire cut.

Wow... I bet that'll never happen, but it's a great idea! :grin: Especially if the game had voice comms built in (instead of using outside ventrillo or teamspeak servers).

You'd be talking with your buddies and one of em would get shot up and go silent... You'd fly up next to him and he'd waggle his wings to let you know he's ok.

[SlipBall]

I don't know but I think this is very possible with the DM in game, I like the idea...maybe he will comment on this

[Romanator21]

But then to counter it, someone will just use TS anyway, unless SoW blocks use of these programs!

[ALien_12]

I wanted to ask if there will be effect of cutting off enemy propeller after ### ###### lucky shot, but I know it's impossible to have this due to death from being too excited ;)

[Skoshi Tiger]

But then to counter it, someone will just use TS anyway, unless SoW blocks use of these programs!

We'll just have to ask Oleg to include a Radio_OK() parameter in Devicelink and then get the makers of TeamSpeak to patch their program to disable the com's system if it's false!

Only a low dog would use an older version that didn't disable your wireless! That would be like using Team speak in ROF!

[Romanator21]

That would be like using Team speak in ROF!

People do it! :)

[zakkandrachoff]

Nice one Zack ! Where did you find it?

Ins

That pic… oleg give it to me. He sends me all de screenshots to me first, and them he post here. I remember, in the 80’s when he design the sukhoi 27, I give some references. Mather of facts, when he was producing il-2, I teach oleg some secrets thing of aces , you know, air combat staff, and essentials and difficult Maneuvers and movements in dogfights,.:cool:




Okey, lie, I am a fraud :o... I stolen that pic , ok?

[Oleg Maddox]

I know it isn't so important, but I would like to know if I cut someone's radio wire will he lose it? It would be cool in online when you tell: ,,He's firi..." and stop because of wire cut.

probably when radio station is damaged it may happens, but not when wire... We are on the way to modle many things... :)

However I may say that with radio chatter the quality depends of the distance between the planes or plane and ground control. Same should be for the game internal voice online channels (at least programmer told me he did it by my request...)

[Oleg Maddox]

But then to counter it, someone will just use TS anyway, unless SoW blocks use of these programs!

We don't plan to block any of external programs. But there always may present possible conflict with drivers when two programs using it simultaniosly.

[Oleg Maddox]

Hi,

Would be interested to know if RAF aircraft will fly in Vics as standard in BOB as they did historically.

This was very difficult / impossible to achieve when modelling early-war RAF in il-2 (though I am aware that il-2 never really attempted to cover this theatre/time.)

So I would hope that there will be a means of choosing formation type in the mission parameters so that RAF can fly vics in 1940 then move to finger four in 1941, etc.

Also, one of my pet peeves with il2: wingmen who abandon formation and charge headlong at the enemy on first sighting! Would like to see an ai pilot spotting a distant enemy formation call out clock and height postion while maintaining discipline and formation. (possible exceptions being some rookies and Polish!)

Will and not...

[Oleg Maddox]

without the polish pilots in BoB it would have been the slaughter of Britain instead, and you'd all be speaking german now

aside from that, whatever pilots broke the V formation instruction were the smart ones, and were much more likely to survive for longer (free historical fact for you there)



We plan to have Polish and some other countries fighting on British side. However the problem at the moment - I don't know if we will be able to record all speeches (especially for example mixed some bad English + Polish speech)

Anyway I will probably post later the request for community to record for us (better to say for users) some waves sounding in Polish, Czech, etc. Of course will need Italian...

[Feuerfalke]

probably when radio station is damaged it may happens, but not when wire... We are on the way to modle many things... :)

However I may say that with radio chatter the quality depends of the distance between the planes or plane and ground control. Same should be for the game internal voice online channels (at least programmer told me he did it by my request...)

Wow!

This would be really cool!

I always felt like: "Hey, give them some time, the longer it takes, the better it will be." Considering your goals, it's really just a matter of time, it seems, and I'm really looking forward, not only to the initial release, but also what things you will add after that, when you and your team have the time and the reassurance, that SoW will be rocking the simulation genre. ;)

[Oleg Maddox]

Oleg, would you mind taking a look here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=116704&postcount=241

What do you mean:
1. Battle order in action?
2. Types of columns?
3. Both?


What I can say for now:

We made the feature that user can build own columns in aditional to standard sets. Almost no limit in amount of units in columns.
We made new AI for the movement, parking, search, fire, etc...
We keep battle order like in Il-2 as it is done using Guderian's tactics... that were in use commonly (Really the basis was developed by russians, however Stalin killed/repressed allmost all real talent commanders before the war.... Germans were learning military skill tactics in Russia for a long enough time before the war... That is not so much widely known fact.)


Why we did so much for BoB, where it wasn't in use?
Simply we should think about online gameplay and future of the project expanding.

[ZaltysZ]

What do you mean:
1. Battle order in action?
...

He probably means "Боевой порядок"., i.e., relative positions of various units on the battlefield, partitioning of battle force into divisions and etc.

[Oleg Maddox]

He probably means "Боевой порядок"., i.e., relative positions of various units on the battlefield, partitioning of battle force into divisions and etc.

probably I did the answer for his question in edited later message.

I only can say that when columns has finish waypont that don't move in a pre-battle parking - this is too complex to make for the unknown for program locations. This is possible in other types of games like stategy that developed escpaecially for such puropses and have just special fixed locations on the maps for such sets. In our case they may origanize battle order movement right from the columns. And it is the best solution for the fligth sim - free ability to place the AI interacting ground units to any locations of the map.

[Romanator21]

Hello Oleg,

I just want to confirm if this is accurate, for future reference, as I posted this earlier:

Flyable:
G-50, BR-20
Bf-109 E1, E-3. Bf-110. Ju-87 B-2. Ju-88 A-1. He-111.
Spitfire MkI, Hurricane MkI, Bristol Bolingbroke.
Su-26

AI:
CR-42, Ju-52, He-59, He-115, Fw-200, Bf-108, Do-17 (2 versions), Gloster Gladiator, Boulton Paul Defiant, Bristol Blenheim, Bristol Beaufighter, Avro Anson, Vickers Wellington, Short Sunderland, deHavilland Tigermoth.

[Feuerfalke]

You better ask that, when it's clear what will be in the game and what will not. ATM we've still some time to go, so this list may not be definitely set, yet. ;)

[Mhondoz]

Hi Oleg, and thanks for the updates! :-)

I see you are creating a new devicelink that will probably also work online. A question earlier in this thread asks for logs with gunnery stats available offline too...

So my question is:
1. Will gunnery stats be available from devicelink?
2. Will gunnery stats available offline?

I think it will be a nice feature when practicing offline to have this kind of information available. If it is from devicelink even better. :-)

For IL-2 I made a tool to use with the G15 keyboard (http://mhondoz.net) which has a small LCD screen where I display gunnery stats from the log file. But it would have been much better if it was available directly from the game for example via devicelink...

[Oleg Maddox]

Hello Oleg,

I just want to confirm if this is accurate, for future reference, as I posted this earlier:

Flyable:
G-50, BR-20
Bf-109 E1, E-3. Bf-110. Ju-87 B-2. Ju-88 A-1. He-111.
Spitfire MkI, Hurricane MkI, Bristol Bolingbroke.
Su-26

AI:
CR-42, Ju-52, He-59, He-115, Fw-200, Bf-108, Do-17 (2 versions), Gloster Gladiator, Boulton Paul Defiant, Bristol Blenheim, Bristol Beaufighter, Avro Anson, Vickers Wellington, Short Sunderland, deHavilland Tigermoth.

Something like this :) Close to true.

Can add Tiger Moth as a two seater training aricraft for all users. Means we plan to use this one for trainings for beginners as a basis. And probably for online training with real human teacher inside. We have real pilot(my great friend) who flew and can fly this aircraft in Australia that to make this one very close to real behavior.
No German training aricraft. Even I would wish to have it myself. Probably third party may develop any training piston engine aircraft and training itself later.

[Feuerfalke]

I really hope the training-feature will make it into the release. That would be a good start for many players into the simming genre.

[Oleg Maddox]

I really hope the training-feature will make it into the release. That would be a good start for many players into the simming genre.

Its why we would like to make it. Not like in MS or RoF did. More useful. More real.

[Mat72]

Something like this :) Close to true.

Can add Tiger Moth as a two seater training aricraft for all users. Means we plan to use this one for trainings for beginners as a basis. And probably for online training with real human teacher inside. We have real pilot(my great friend) who flew and can fly this aircraft in Australia that to make this one very close to real behavior.
No German training aricraft. Even I would wish to have it myself. Probably third party may develop any training piston engine aircraft and training itself later.

Hi Oleg,

Will there be the danger of attack from marauding German fighters whilst on training missions? Would teach pilots to keep a good look out!! :)

[Oleg Maddox]

Hi Oleg, and thanks for the updates! :-)

I see you are creating a new devicelink that will probably also work online. A question earlier in this thread asks for logs with gunnery stats available offline too...

So my question is:
1. Will gunnery stats be available from devicelink?
2. Will gunnery stats available offline?

I think it will be a nice feature when practicing offline to have this kind of information available. If it is from devicelink even better. :-)

For IL-2 I made a tool to use with the G15 keyboard (http://mhondoz.net) which has a small LCD screen where I display gunnery stats from the log file. But it would have been much better if it was available directly from the game for example via devicelink...

these things we keep for the end of development. So I can't tell you what will be there finally. I can tell you that we have done much more then in Il-2 in principle, but what will be with the release at the moment is a question. However always good basis is a success for future additions, like it was with Il-2. With Il-2 we learned a lot.

I like the things shown me here :)

[Oleg Maddox]

Hi Oleg,

Will there be the danger of attack from marauding German fighters whilst on training missions? Would teach pilots to keep a good look out!! :)

We plan with transfer into real battle, right from the training.
Already told too much.... Because it isn't done yet. Basis in code is done, but in plan the development of training is more later. How much will go in final - we will see.
The basis(basis code) of Training is almost done, but there should be creating of screens, missions and speeches/texts of teacher. I can tell only that we put there some features, that never was done in history of fligth sims. Realistic in a code and useful for real training, like in real military flight school.
I only would repeat. We created the basis in code, but not final taining.

[HFC_Dolphin]

In IL-2 there were some limitations due to the original engine design.

Now I wonder, after the BoB is released, which parts of the engine will be "out-of-discussion" to be amended?

I know it's difficult to tell 100%, but maybe you can give us a rough idea of what's to be "locked" as soon as the game is released.

[Zorin]

What do you mean:
1. Battle order in action?
2. Types of columns?
3. Both?


What I can say for now:

We made the feature that user can build own columns in aditional to standard sets. Almost no limit in amount of units in columns.
We made new AI for the movement, parking, search, fire, etc...
We keep battle order like in Il-2 as it is done using Guderian's tactics... that were in use commonly (Really the basis was developed by russians, however Stalin killed/repressed allmost all real talent commanders before the war.... Germans were learning military skill tactics in Russia for a long enough time before the war... That is not so much widely known fact.)


Why we did so much for BoB, where it wasn't in use?
Simply we should think about online gameplay and future of the project expanding.

Thanks Oleg, exactly what I liked to know and I'm very satisfied by the options you'll provide us with.

[Oleg Maddox]

In IL-2 there were some limitations due to the original engine design.

Now I wonder, after the BoB is released, which parts of the engine will be "out-of-discussion" to be amended?

I know it's difficult to tell 100%, but maybe you can give us a rough idea of what's to be "locked" as soon as the game is released.

1. There will be a complete lock on all changes to the core code. Especially for basic online engine.
The code will be open to external additional modules, for inclusion of new any ground objects or planes flyable or AI. New campaign engines and other possible programs. Basically open interface for many things. Even game menu is designed for such future additions.
2. A tool for such models to be inserted into the engine
3. A tool for non programming, but tuning of aircraft behavior (all data neccessary for FM of that aircraft. You simply put digits and move sliders.)
4. Some 3D models as a basis for learning or rework by third party.
5. Probably totally or partially open code for the programming of cockpits and animations of aircraft details.
6. Editor of maps. Allow to create maps from users made textures, etc. The map will be limited in size. Unlimited in size maps editor - only by a license for third party with agreement.


That isn't a final decision. So maybe some changes in one or other side.

Notice about online gameplay:

All new Aircraft or player-controlable content may not be included in our core online gameplay set without our certification and agreement with third party developer.
In all other cases such content you may play in a single play or probably online on specially created servers, that are not certified (updated in code) by us.
This is the general idea how to escape online cheaters and don't damage fair online gameplay.

To clarify. Let's take the Spitfire for example. Its FM will be completely locked in the "core" set. You will then be able to create your own Spitfire version with our tools, with tuned FM parameters, etc, let's call it the SuperSpit. You'll be able to use the SuperSpit offline whenever you like. When you join an online server with the "core lock" enabled, you won't be able to fly the SuperSpit. You'll only be able to fly our stock Spitfire with all parameters unmodified. Alternatively, when you join a server with no core lock, you'll be able to fly your SuperSpit, or the regular Spitfire, whichever you prefer.
Same goes for all other changes that we'll allow through our user tools.

Attention:

Items 2,3,5 and 6 will be released some time after the relase. We will take time to make user friendly interface and manuals. At the moment the goal it to finish BoB itself and we can't make all things in parallel process. We have just some basis that we using ourselves with totally open source code that all time in changes. its why we can't release many things right with the BoB release.


PS. this post a bit edited by Ilya Shevchenko that to make clear my Olegish English :)

[HFC_Dolphin]

WOW, I'm impressed by the last reply!!!
And as far as I can understand, actually there won't be any engine limitations for you. Meaning, that whatever you want to change, you'll be able to do it (not like the IL-2 maps, for example, which could not be worked after the final release).
This is very promising and thank you for letting us know!!!

[Oleg Maddox]

WOW, I'm impressed by the last reply!!!
And as far as I can understand, actually there won't be any engine limitations for you. Meaning, that whatever you want to change, you'll be able to do it (not like the IL-2 maps, for example, which could not be worked after the final release).
This is very promising and thank you for letting us know!!!

Limitation is always present:
1. Time
2. Money for additional development.

[Abbeville-Boy]

will bullet holes be visable on ground targets such as barrels, buildings, etc?

[Oleg Maddox]

will bullet holes be visable on ground targets such as barrels, buildings, etc?

I can say that they will be visible on aircraft.
But can't say now about such target as buildings.

[Tbag]

Oleg, thank you very much for all your answers! One question concerning clickable cockpits:

If a 3rd party wants to model clickable cockpits for the aircraft, could those be used online in the Maddox-Approved mode of SoW?

[Oleg Maddox]

Oleg, thank you very much for all your answers! One question concerning clickable cockpits:

If a 3rd party wants to model clickable cockpits for the aircraft, could those be used online in the Maddox-Approved mode of SoW?

I can't say it now. The code isn't finished in this part.

However I'm sure that these that will use clicable will have disadvantage in control speed :).

[Caveman]

Limitation is always present:
1. Time
2. Money for additional development.

1) Can't do much about this since it is a "constant" :)

2) We exchanged an email on this years ago; perhaps you remember... I really think there is a segment of users out there in the community like myself that would pay over $100 dollars for "premium user package" that would include additional tweaks or modules that are locked and not provided to all users... Perhaps some advanced flight modeling, tweaked graphical features, etc... I know add-ons can address these needs, but you have such a personal following and people who know sims know you give quality and would be willing to pay more with your stamp of approval. At the very least, I hope you're getting a good kickback % on the add-ons that are produced for SOW. The whole flight sim business model should be different than shooters... Not sure it can withstand a high price for all users, but to make up for lack of total users, price needs to be higher...

In general, it seems shooter folks are starting to get bored of the cheap/fast thrill of shooters and are looking for substance. Perhaps in the coming years, we'll see a ressurgence of interest in simming like there was in the early/mid 80s with the original MS FS which "every" gamer had in there PC collection.

Hope you succeed... IL-2 is still fantastic after all these years... Funny to think we all may be playing SOW + add-ons 20+ years from now...!

[ZaltysZ]

However I'm sure that these that will use clicable will have disadvantage in control speed :).

There is one good method, which I use in DCS: Black Shark. I have programmed one button of my HOTAS to act like left mouse button and I always move mouse cursor to the bottom center part of the screen, so that it is visible, but not interfering with important things. When I look around with TrackIR, camera moves and so mouse cursor moves (in relation to cockpit) also. I can point mouse cursor where I need by using head and then click things by using my HOTAS. This method is very fast. I even enter coordinates into NAV system by using this method.

Of course, using mouse to switch/use stuff which has to be switched/used without looking at it (like flaps/trimer wheel) in fighter is strange, however I think that things like radio, gear are ok for "mouse" interaction.

[Oleg Maddox]

Sorry, it seems it is missed by me.

It is already working. On 2 or 3 monitors.



hi oleg,

could we please have multiple monitor support right from the start ? but please a version that allows us to use multiple monitors of different sizes, like this ....

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8929/dell3007wfp04uy2.jpg

in that that example you could use a 27 or 25' lcd in the middle, with a 19' lcd in landscape on either side (note: this is good because you only need your gfx card to push 2x the pixels 1920 x 1200, and not 3x like you would for a normal 3 monitor setup like this

http://www.home-designing.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/83-495x294.jpg

that much more expensive 3x 24', or 3x 27' or 3x 30' would cost a fortune and only very few people could afford it.

the example i gave above that i would like included allows
1x 24' + 2x 19' (or you can use a 25 or 27' for the center monitor to, keeping a 19' in landscape mode on either side)
or
1x 22' + 2x 17' in landscape mode etc (using a lower resolution and less pixels to push)

most westerners flying flightsims have upgraded from their small initial lcd to a larger widescreen in the last few years (either 22', or 24' or 25') so we still have a 17' or 19' lying around, allowing us at a small cost of 1 more small lcd to have a 3 monitor setup which DOUBLES our field of view in il2

new ati and nvidea gfx cards are starting to support a 3 monitor setup without having to buy a matrox 3HTgo (which only works with 3 monitors the exact smae size, and can only max work with 3x 22')

software multi monitor might be possible but is a huge drain on cpu/gpu, so not a realistic option

please consider :)

[|ZUTI|]

Oleg Hi.

One quick question again from my side: is MAX map size, that users will be able to create themselves already fixed or not yet?

[Oleg Maddox]

Oleg Hi.

One quick question again from my side: is MAX map size, that users will be able to create themselves already fixed or not yet?

Not defined yet. Probably it will be limited in square (km2) but not fixed by constant sides.

[Oleg Maddox]

1) Can't do much about this since it is a "constant" :)

2) We exchanged an email on this years ago; perhaps you remember... I really think there is a segment of users out there in the community like myself that would pay over $100 dollars for "premium user package" that would include additional tweaks or modules that are locked and not provided to all users... Perhaps some advanced flight modeling, tweaked graphical features, etc... I know add-ons can address these needs, but you have such a personal following and people who know sims know you give quality and would be willing to pay more with your stamp of approval. At the very least, I hope you're getting a good kickback % on the add-ons that are produced for SOW. The whole flight sim business model should be different than shooters... Not sure it can withstand a high price for all users, but to make up for lack of total users, price needs to be higher...

In general, it seems shooter folks are starting to get bored of the cheap/fast thrill of shooters and are looking for substance. Perhaps in the coming years, we'll see a ressurgence of interest in simming like there was in the early/mid 80s with the original MS FS which "every" gamer had in there PC collection.

Hope you succeed... IL-2 is still fantastic after all these years... Funny to think we all may be playing SOW + add-ons 20+ years from now...!


I hear you.

[igitur70]

We plan to have Polish and some other countries fighting on British side. However the problem at the moment - I don't know if we will be able to record all speeches (especially for example mixed some bad English + Polish speech)

Anyway I will probably post later the request for community to record for us (better to say for users) some waves sounding in Polish, Czech, etc. Of course will need Italian...

Hello Oleg,

1) Regarding speech files and mission editor : will the creator of a mission/campaing be able to insert various user-made speech files following a particular campaign storyline ? This would add a lot to immersion.
2) If yes, could that feature be coupled with triggers on multiple stages (following an if...then structure) ?
3) If not, would you consider the idea ?


Thank you.

[Bloblast]

Hi Oleg,

Curious about AI behaviour:

-Will AI fly to home base when (slightly) damaged?
-Will AI see trees + other obstacles during emergency landing?
-Will AI switch from target when that other one is more favourable?
-Will AI fly home when out of ammo?
-Will AI try to fly home in a very disadvantageous situation?
-Will AI avoid places/airfields with lot of AAA?

[Troll]

Hi Oleg,
First time for me in this forum.
I'm definitly surprised by the quality of your simulator. I'm in the real life a flight instructor and it's amazing to see how it's easy to teach to people who already plays on IL2. I also recomend this sim for all of my students.
If you need some help for the training program in SOW, tell me, it gonna be a great pleasure for me.

[nearmiss]

Why clickable cockpits, there are awesome button command tools available that are a hundred times easier than trying to look around the virtual cockpit to click in a precise place on the screen to raise the flaps in increments, etc.

Clickable cockpits are archaic, haven't made sense in 10 years. We have all kinds of options with joysticks, throttles, controller panels and switch blocks now.

I have an MFP as per below. It has 25 keys that are highly programmable furnished with the basic unit. In addition it has two selectable modes, which allows an additional 25 key commands (which can be scripts as well). You can arrange the keys in any configuration with templates. You can make your own templates and print them out. This is so much more efficient than clickable cockpits.

Clickable cockpits might work for some in MSFT Flight simulator, because everything in flight simulation is procedural and not time critical for the most part. Air combat is on the fly, at speed under pressure. finding the flaps when you doing a high G turn to click just enough for combat flaps, and you've got an FW190 pouring rounds at your six. Then when you're just about done turning you have to find the virtual switch to raise the flaps. LOL --- this is not a best way to do anything.

http://www.chproducts.com/retail/mfp.html

It cost 199$ US.

You can also buy X-Keys with all kinds of interface options

http://www.xkeys.com/

If you are so set on clickable cockpits you might want to check out some fo the cockpits people have made for flight and air combat simulators. They all use controller tools. Some of the serious Falcon 4.0 enthusiats will blow your mind with what they do.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

What do you mean under term "Sharper" ?


More polys. Generally speaking ... I am very pleased with planes and cockpits. IF possible (due to time) would like to see more polys in objects ..... but these can be inserted later under modded content.

Please make sure pilot head is moveable as in example.. Lock On.

[Ernst]

Why clickable cockpits, there are awesome button command tools available that are a hundred times easier than trying to look around the virtual cockpit to click in a precise place on the screen to raise the flaps in increments, etc.

Clickable cockpits are archaic, haven't made sense in 10 years. We have all kinds of options with joysticks, throttles, controller panels and switch blocks now.

I have an MFP as per below. It has 25 keys that are highly programmable furnished with the basic unit. In addition it has two selectable modes, which allows an additional 25 key commands (which can be scripts as well). You can arrange the keys in any configuration with templates. You can make your own templates and print them out. This is so much more efficient than clickable cockpits.

Clickable cockpits might work for some in MSFT Flight simulator, because everything in flight simulation is procedural and not time critical for the most part. Air combat is on the fly, at speed under pressure. finding the flaps when you doing a high G turn to click just enough for combat flaps, and you've got an FW190 pouring rounds at your six. Then when you're just about done turning you have to find the virtual switch to raise the flaps. LOL --- this is not a best way to do anything.

http://www.chproducts.com/retail/mfp.html

It cost 199$ US.

You can also buy X-Keys with all kinds of interface options

http://www.xkeys.com/

If you are so set on clickable cockpits you might want to check out some fo the cockpits people have made for flight and air combat simulators. They all use controller tools. Some of the serious Falcon 4.0 enthusiats will blow your mind with what they do.

I agree. However i would like to see both, clickable cockpit and buttons commands. It ll be amazing see switches moving when you press a button, and pilot hands on coms to hehe :o

[Ernst]

probably when radio station is damaged it may happens, but not when wire... We are on the way to modle many things... :)

However I may say that with radio chatter the quality depends of the distance between the planes or plane and ground control. Same should be for the game internal voice online channels (at least programmer told me he did it by my request...)

Hehe... Would like too see some guys complaining, some planes has no "trasmitters". Ex.: Japanese and Russian fighters. It ll be a bad experience fly without radios or with interference.

This can afford new strategies, like to bomb radio stations to break enemy coms. hehe... Would be amazing!

[AdMan]

OK, this has been asked before by someone else and it was answered but, quite honestly, I didn't understand the answer that was given.

I'm wondering what's with the floating antenna shadows? They are disconnected and makes it look like the antenna mount is floating

Also the dotted shadow of the antenna wire itself, is this part of how the engine displays shadows for wires? does it have something to do with the fact it is a still image, or is it just WIP?

If I missed something can someone please explain it to me.

[AdMan]

Hi Oleg, and thanks for the updates! :-)

I see you are creating a new devicelink that will probably also work online. A question earlier in this thread asks for logs with gunnery stats available offline too...

So my question is:
1. Will gunnery stats be available from devicelink?
2. Will gunnery stats available offline?

I think it will be a nice feature when practicing offline to have this kind of information available. If it is from devicelink even better. :-)

For IL-2 I made a tool to use with the G15 keyboard (http://mhondoz.net) which has a small LCD screen where I display gunnery stats from the log file. But it would have been much better if it was available directly from the game for example via devicelink...

That's very cool Mhondoz, will that also work for a G13?

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Totally against clickable cockpits here. It's a nice feature to use a couple of times on start up f ex, afterwards it becomes just annoying in a combat sim.

[SlipBall]

If a third party offer's it, I will buy it. I'm not talking the mouse, but programed keys:grin:

[AdMan]

The things said about in-game training, user customizations, and the third party tools are just as I imagined they should be - truly innovative not just for the genre but for gaming, cant wait to see where the SoW engine leads us throughout the next decade.

[BadAim]

PS. this post a bit edited by Ilya Shevchenko that to make clear my Olegish English :)

As I was reading the post I was thinking to myself "What did Oleg copy and paste this from something?" Then I got to the above part and had a good laugh. It's nice when Ilya comes along to clarify things, but we really feel at home with your "Olegish". Besides it's half the fun. :)

[Foo'bar]

More polys. Generally speaking ... I am very pleased with planes and cockpits. IF possible (due to time) would like to see more polys in objects ..... but these can be inserted later under modded content.

Please make sure pilot head is moveable as in example.. Lock On.

Compared to all other ground objects the boats I've seen so far have faces enough IMHO.

[PanzerAce]

These images:

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/bf-108b-2_04.jpg
http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/beaufighter_mk_1_wip_01.jpg

make me wonder as to the customization of ground objects. Will we, for instance, be able to place aircraft that have their cowling removed for maintnence, or interceptors with their canopies open and ready for pilots at the start of missions?



EDIT:

One thing in the answers so far does concern me though: the mention of limitations on map sizes in km^2. While in general I love this, as it makes the game more DF friendly, it makes me worried on the 'Battle of the Atlantic' front. With limited map sizes, we won't be able to do long maritime patrols or convoy interceptions.

Also, a friend of mine mentioned naval B-24 variants, and this got me wondering: while I'm guessing that in plane radar will be possible, will aircraft searchlights be possible?

...which brings up the question of sub-surface warfare. Are depth charges going to me modeled in game as usable weapons from aircraft? And will maritime patrol aircraft be able to vector in submarines to a convoy, and then hear/see about the results? (obviously, the visual would only be if they were lucky enough to have a submarine nearby in the first place). This could also be used the other way around, by fighters seeing a Fw-200 or uboat, and vectoring ships away.

[Skarphol]

These images:

With limited map sizes, we won't be able to do long maritime patrols or convoy interceptions.


But do you think long maritime patrols will be of interrest to more than only a very small number of people?
There will be virtually no aerial opposition, just MANY hours of empty ocean, with an odd ship now and then. And maybe a (about one in every 100 patrol or so) german submarine. I think incorporating this gives very little value for the time spent on creating it.
There will probably be enough ship targets if you fly a Stuka over the Channel. And that is well within the map for BoB.

Skarphol

[Tvrdi]

Its why we would like to make it. Not like in MS or RoF did. More useful. More real.

NeoqB guys have so many things to learn from you....currently on some rigs (even on new i7 quad cores!) ROF is not playable as one will expect to be on a new i7 (sometimes heavy microstutters both online and offline, slowdowns when AI planes are near, very often we have a problem with online authentication for online and ofline play etc etc )...they have a problem with optimisation of the sim (Can you help them?...OK Im just kiddin :-) )...

and you are aware how optimisation is important in developing of a modern sim..thank you for that.....

question for you: What do you think, would my i7 920 quad overclocked to 3.3Ghz cope with BOB: SOW? Would SOW run smoothly on this cpu?

cheers

[Insuber]

As far as I've understood, the acreage limitation will regard only the user created maps. No limitations foreseen for the third party authorised licensees.

Ins


One thing in the answers so far does concern me though: the mention of limitations on map sizes in km^2. While in general I love this, as it makes the game more DF friendly, it makes me worried on the 'Battle of the Atlantic' front. With limited map sizes, we won't be able to do long maritime patrols or convoy interceptions.

[PeterPanPan]

Hi Oleg

Can I PM you about a UK TV programme which might be able to use your visuals and help promote BoB SoW?

Cheers

PPanPan

[Mhondoz]

That's very cool Mhondoz, will that also work for a G13?

Thanks AdMan :)

I have never tested it with the G13, so I don't know. But from what I can see of information from Logitech, applets written for the G15 should also run on G13, so there is a chance it would work.

[zakkandrachoff]

waiting for the post of my friend Ilya
I hope will be a Bf 110 or a Hurricane cockpit.
Bf 109 cockpit too

[zapatista]

Sorry, it seems it is missed by me.

It is already working. On 2 or 3 monitors.

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8929/dell3007wfp04uy2.jpg


wow Oleg, you "made my week" if you have included this already in BoB !

to make sure i havnt misunderstood you, you are confirming we will be able to use in BoB at the same time:

1) a central widescreen lcd monitor (for ex a 22', 25' or 27' lcd monitor)
2) together with two smaller size lcd's at the same time on each side next to it, to increase our peripheral vision, and those extra monitors could be a smaller size, like 17' or 19' lcd's for example in landscape mode ?
3) we will be able to use the BoB 3 monitor "mixed size lcd" setup without needing to use a matrox 3H2go unit or a software program like ultramon or soft3H

note 1: this is probably needing some different programming compared to what is needed for using 3x the exact same monitor size, like some other games allow 3x the same 22', or 3x the same 25' lcd's (some current games that allow 3x monitors do not allow a mix of monitor sizes)

note 2: if in BoB we then use for ex a central 24 or 27' (resolution 1920 x 1200 = 2.304.000 pixels) with a 19' lcd in landscape mode on each side (resolution 1280 x 1024 = 1.310.720 pixels, but for both 19' lcd used this is x 2 so = 2.621.440 pixels)
- then our pc grafix card gpu's will in this setup "only" need to push 2.304.000 pixels (for the 24' lcd) + 2.621.440 pixels (for the two 19' lcd's in landscape mode) = 4.925.440 pixels in total ? (and not 3x 2.304.000 pixels = 6.912.000 pixels as you would need for 3x 24' lcd's)

it is much cheaper for us to be able to mix monitor sizes like that (because we can use older cheap lcd's which many of us already have), and our grafix cards do not need to be ultra powerfull and ultra expensive (pushing 4.925.440 pixels in my earlier example is MUCH easier/cheaper then pushing 6.912.000 pixels).

this means we can get 50% wider field of view and MUCH better peripheral vision in BoB, yet only need to push 2x the pixels (instead of 3x the pixels when you use 3x the same widescreen lcd)

many many thanks for including this oleg, this will make using BoB as a true simulator MUCH better for many of us. having good peripheral vision is very important, and doing it in a cheaper smart way like this will make it now possible for many of us !! (instead of only a few very rich people with an ultra expensive 3x 30' type setup)

[Buster_Dee]

I'm one of the "few" who likes long, crew-teamwork kind of scenarios. I'm horrible at fighter tactics/maneuvers. I'm usually the first "change" after the map load--you know, the 1st statistic.

I'd love to see S/SW England and the Bay of Biscay represented, with B-24s seeking subs who ar seeking ships, JU88s who are looking to spoil the snooper's day, and fighters looking to subtract JU88s from Lorient. But there are no diving subs, no maneuvering ships/subs, and no map. And you'd almost have to "hot seat" to other B24s on patrol to keep from going crazy. Still, I would love it.

As an alternative, I'd love to "command" an Atlantic Bogue Class escort carrier, fly one of its ASV-equipped stringbags, or fly one of its fighters to protect the stringbag.

But that is a different sim :(

[Les]

Edit - content deleted as part of routine clean-up.

[KOM.Nausicaa]

I'd love to see S/SW England and the Bay of Biscay represented, with B-24s seeking subs who ar seeking ships, JU88s who are looking to spoil the snooper's day, and fighters looking to subtract JU88s from Lorient.

Again, this is the Battle of Britain guys. Read some books if you are not familiar with the battle.
...the more I read some of the posts here the more I am afraid we will see guys popping up and screaming "where is the Memphis Belle?!" once the game is released.

[TheGrunch]

Again, this is the Battle of Britain guys. Read some books if you are not familiar with the battle.
...the more I read some of the posts here the more I am afraid we will see guys popping up and screaming "where is the Memphis Belle?!" once the game is released.
Replace the aircraft in the quote with the Short Sunderland and the Bf 110 and it's no so unreasonable. :)

[KOM.Nausicaa]

I have the strong impression some here believe America was somehow in the Battle of Britain....

[TheGrunch]

I have the strong impression some here believe America was somehow in the Battle of Britain....
*shrug* More likely, some people here think the Battle of Britain was in 1943.

[robtek]

Yeah,
it will be really refreshing to miss the threads about .50's and p-51 who won the BoB :-D

[Chivas]

The point some people miss is the map can be used after the Battle of Britain, when other aircraft become available. I'm looking forward to ground attack and air missions into occupied France during and after the Battle of Britain.

[Chivas]

Oleg, will their options for the Hurricane and Spits to carry bombs. I know some did later in the war. It would be fun to make some FMB missions into France for a change from constant bomber intercept missions.

[hiro]

Buster Dee is thinking ahead . . . to next theater of operations.

Unless Oleg jumps into Korea after BOB release. That'd be something you'd be scrolling throug the BOB plane set, then the Korea ones show up in there.

What be funny is if Korea had some Italian planes (just joshing / joking ).

Clickable cockpit should be an option you can turn off.

I mean sometimes my non mouse hand is used to hold apples and my cigar.

The .50 cal threads won't show up until P-47, Wildcats, or P-51's show up and when Tiger Tanks are put in the game.




I got a question, were their American volunteers in the RAF in BOB?

[ElAurens]

With the right ground objects a Battle of France scenario is also possible.

Would need French aircraft and armour, but that map has way more possibilities than just the BoB.

[Necrobaron]

I always thought it'd be cool to start off with the invasion of Poland, then Norway, and then the low countries and France and so on. Through expansions, SoW could eventually model all the major aerial conflicts of WWII.
________
Suzuki gt series (http://www.suzuki-tech.com/wiki/Suzuki_GT_series)