Friday 2009-11-20 Screenshots Update discussion thread

[Oleg Maddox]

Please don't post anything untill I'll finish loading new shots.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

S~! Oleg

Good lighting. I like it.
Cockpits very good as usual. Transparencies are well done as is stuka dive markings on window. Luftwhiners will be happy.

Trees looking better.

Please take higher resolution screenshots if possible. Thanks for update and welcome back :cool:

[Insuber]

Good images Oleg, thank you for posting. The shadows are gorgeous especially inside the cockpit, they add a lot to the realism.

Question: when will we see a movie ? ;-)

Tentative month of the first video release would be great, without any engagement of course ...I'd love to see that Stuka plounge in video for instance ...

Regards,
Insuber

[Feuerfalke]

It's so cool to see your simulation coming together piece by piece - thanks for sharing.

The view from within the StuKa looks great. The new trees, the faint haze and the shadows give a great impression of height and the shadows inside the cockpit are awesome!

:cool:

[Oleg Maddox]

I promised first video to post on SimHq...
However there is a problem to make it now due to great changes of textures and some of the tech- replacements. There is some glitches that I don't like to show to escape any usual speculatings :)
Its why I still don't post any videos.

Also, I was posting this update from home. I'm still in vacation :) Repairing my flat a bit. So I really haven't time to produce some more interesting shots with greater resolution.

[Viking]

PULL UPP! PULL UPP!

You are waaaay to close to ground, if you chrash that Stuka ou might delay the relase of BOB for weeks! You realese how much one of those babys costs?


Viking

[13th Hsqn Protos]

Rgr. Working on my house today as well. Woman is breaking them with small hammer :rolleyes:

Thanks for taking time to post. Looking forward to better images next week. Have good weekend with family (son). :)

[Omphalos]

Very surprising how quickly you fixed the trees Oleg!

Looking forward to the video on Simhq when you get everything worked out!

Good luck with your house and tell the wifey the fans said hi!!! :-P

[sport02]

I am more and more impressed by your work .

[Skarphol]

Now I'm even looking forward to fly training missions in the Stuka!
Just bombing on a target range without oposition from enemies looks fantastic now!
This sim is going to cost me my marriage...

Skarphol

[lep1981]

I love the Stuka development so far, shadows are great and the cockpit looks amazing...

I can see the bomb's arm extended in the image, is that going to be animated? I suppose it will considering it is extended in the image, but I thought i'd better ask ;)

Great work so far Oleg.

[furbs]

very, very nice cockpit on that stuka!

things are coming together!

Oleg...one of the things i always thought could be better in IL2 was the smoke, fire and weapon hit affects...has much time and thought gone into improving these in SOW?

cheers.

[lep1981]

Originally posted by furbs
Oleg...one of the things i always thought could be better in IL2 was the smoke, fire and weapon hit affects...has much time and thought gone into improving these in SOW?

cheers.


I TOTALLY second this question... something I've always believed as well and would be great to see improved.

[McHilt]

Been away for a while but I have to say:

No words to describe what Oleg and friends are creating,
simply stunning!

Keep it up... ;)

[TheGrunch]

Beautiful as usual! Looks like SoW will have a bit of an actual 3D sense of altitude, which has always been missing from games.

[csThor]

Very very nice. I wonder about the target specifications for Stuka missions, though. In Il-2 you need to designate "enemy objects" (= tanks, artillery etc) as target to get the AI to dive-bomb like it's supposed to be. However Stukas were often used to soften up very specific geographical areas like a fortified hill or deny the enemy the use of important road or railway systems (with a well-placed bomb on a crossroads or railway line). Will such things be possible to specify?

Second question: In real life Stukas were often tasked with "individual attacks" from within a larger formation. This means the unit (Staffel or Gruppe) makes a wide circle over the target area and individual crews pick out specific targets to dive down and attack. This was often used against camouflaged enemy positions or tanks and allowed the Stukas to keep the pressure on enemy formations for quite some time - time which german ground units often used to approach and attack such targets. Will such things be possible?

PS: Now show us how my Stuka emblems look on those. :mrgreen:

[mark@1C]

hi.BOSS,
After I have seen some updated screenshots these one or two months.I've got a feeling.Don't you think that the whole background(the whole scenery)is a bit "clean"?
I mean if the sky is clean,maybe it's beautiful.But it seems that the ground needs some more "dirty" and "soil" feelings.I think you have done this very well in planes modeling.Sometimes I think "god,what a worn plane".
The plane looks realistic,while the ground scenery looks like we are just flying over an EA SIMS 3 city.
Maybe BOSS,you have already seen the ARMAII,"To surpass ARMAII" is my best wishes to your NEW SERIES.

[zaelu]

The cockpit look very nice but something is missing even more now... the pilot. :(

Please Oleg, due consider including a animated pilot like DCS Ka50 or other racing games today have... even toggle-able is good enough.

[mark@1C]

The cockpit look very nice but something is missing even more now... the pilot. :(

Please Oleg, due consider including a animated pilot like DCS Ka50 or other racing games today have... even toggle-able is good enough.

I think in such a game,pilot is the last thing to exhaust the system resources...

[airmalik]

Some great details in those pics. Love the windows and shadows.

Looks like SoW will have a bit of an actual 3D sense of altitude, which has always been missing from games.

Exactly! Looks great!

Oleg, I know the focus of this update is the Stuka but I couldn't help but notice the abrupt transition from land to sea. Is this something that we can expect to be improved?

Also, there's a mysterious shadow in 0021.jpg and 0022.jpg just above the gun sight. Doesn't seem to be attached to any of the trees.

[Jaws2002]

Great shots.:grin:

I bet he didn't pull up un time and that beautiful stuka was ruined by the bomb blast. :mrgreen: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

[HenFre]

Wow.. Great looking pictures, Oleg.. Amazing how the view from the cockpit gives an actual feeling of depth..

To bad that this bird will be such an easy target for the hurricanes and spitfires, but guess it will also look absolutely smashing whilst on fire and hitting the ground :grin:

[Foo'bar]

hi.BOSS,
After I have seen some updated screenshots these one or two months.I've got a feeling.Don't you think that the whole background(the whole scenery)is a bit "clean"?
I mean if the sky is clean,maybe it's beautiful.But it seems that the ground needs some more "dirty" and "soil" feelings.I think you have done this very well in planes modeling.Sometimes I think "god,what a worn plane".
The plane looks realistic,while the ground scenery looks like we are just flying over an EA SIMS 3 city.
Maybe BOSS,you have already seen the ARMAII,"To surpass ARMAII" is my best wishes to your NEW SERIES.

In 1940 the world was much cleaner than today ;)

[ramstein]

In 1940 the world was much cleaner than today ;)

just how old are you?

[hiro]

That was great!

Seeing the game in action with bomb drops . . . and the detail in the cockpit is awesome.

Enjoy your vacation and have fun.


What elements are getting updated for the 3D engine?




As for the arma detail, that's a FPS based kind of game. And Oleg just said WIP . ..

Remember about the posts way back? This Amra has to look good up to around 2000 m or so . . . because most of flying there is supporting ground . . . BOB SOW has to look good on the ground all they way up to space. Well just shy of space.




The Stuka is close enough for a safe pull out if its using IL-2 AI.

[whatnot]

I've been silently monitoring the progress of this sim after falling in love with IL-2 less than half a year ago. But after seeing these shots I simply couldn't be a silent partner anymore!

I thought I found a cheap pick for a bit of entertainment from the discount bin getting the IL-2 e just for 16€ or whatever, but after a while of heavy duty flying and my investment in HOTAS, pedals and TrackIR I am simply ADDICTED to aviation!

The shots looks simply GORGEOUS!! Especially the 0021.jpg blows my mind!

I can't wait to get my hands on that thing!

Also another thing I just love is the involvement with the player base and the updates to keep us drooling! Sure there was a period of radio silence, but dialogue like this between the players and developers is just not happening with most of the game studios.

Keep up the good work!

[tagTaken2]

. . . BOB SOW has to look good on the ground all they way up to space. Well just shy of space.




The Stuka is close enough for a safe pull out if its using IL-2 AI.

:)

Interesting thought about how high we might be able to go. If SoW engine is truly designed for addons, then we should be able to get to black sky. Space shuttle mod might be pushing it, but NF-104..?

[Insuber]

It is very nice to see those beautiful trees shadows, they add a lot of 3D and realism (I'd say tree-D, eheheh). It means that they are full 3D objects ... with all the implications.

BTW I just peered at some RoF screenshots, and there trees don't cast shadows, if I'm right. Just wanted to point it out ;-)

Regards,
Insuber

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Hi Oleg,

One question arise seeing the cockpit of the Ju87. We will have to use a SHIFT-F1 view to use the gunsight on german planes or we we´ll be able to use the gunsight with track IR and 6 DoF?
I assume both, for those with and without track ir, but it doesn´t hurt to ask? :)

Beautiful cockpit! Almost photorealistic! :)

[Necrobaron]

For some reason I've always been drawn to the Stuka, warts and all. I spent a great deal of time flying the Stuka in IL-2 and look forward to getting back in the cockpit in the skies over Britain. I just hope my gunner can shoot straight and keep those pesky RAF flyers off my tail.;)

Will we see both the B-1 and B-2 in SoW?
________
Body Science (http://bodyscience.ws/)

[gflinch]

Never been able to 'Hear' a screenshot before. These are amazing! I can just hear that stuka siren screeming

[AdMan]

trees!!

[Oleg Maddox]

Oleg...one of the things i always thought could be better in IL2 was the smoke, fire and weapon hit affects...has much time and thought gone into improving these in SOW?

cheers.

of course. Simply it is too early to show.

[Oleg Maddox]

Hi Oleg,

One question arise seeing the cockpit of the Ju87. We will have to use a SHIFT-F1 view to use the gunsight on german planes or we we´ll be able to use the gunsight with track IR and 6 DoF?
I assume both, for those with and without track ir, but it doesn´t hurt to ask? :)

Beautiful cockpit! Almost photorealistic! :)

I think both

[genbrien]

Hi Oleg!

Was wondering if sudden depresurization would be simulated ?
if so, how do you plan to do it ?
Thank you

[Oleg Maddox]

Hi Oleg!

Was wondering if sudden depresurization would be simulated ?
if so, how do you plan to do it ?
Thank you

Don't know yet will be or not. If you mean the high altitude and pressured cockpits.

[Insuber]

Hi Oleg,

Glad to see you here. I had a question, which will be the size of the map of BoB ? Will it include Wales and Scotland, to play the Luftwaffe attacks from Norway ? And on German side, Northbound will it include Belgium, Holland and maybe the Norway bases ? And maybe Paris, Bordeaux ...

Thanks,
Insuber

PS: Did I say you that I like your work ? ;-)

[C6_Krasno]

Hi Oleg,

I have a question about the modelling of the trees. Their graphics are already superb (and WIP I understood) ; my question is, will they stop all bullets / shells fired at them, like in IL2 ? Or will they let some projectiles pass through them ? It's maybe too early to say that, but as we'll have beautiful forests, it would be good to be able to shoot at ground troups hided behind a line of trees, for example. I can't remember any hint about this point.

[SlipBall]

The Stuka look's very real to life, I notice in #3 .jpg small white caps on the water. Will those white caps remain the same all of the time, or are the wave heights connected somehow, to the weather engine in the game?...hope that you had a good rest:)

[major_setback]

Hi Oleg.

Thanks for all your hard work, and for taking the time to come here! I'm happy to see things start to fall into place now.

It's nice to see that the trees have shadows :-)

I'd like to ask about the user tools that will be released after SoW:BoB:
Would it be possible for those people with modding experience to move parts of the IL2 aircraft into the SoW series? For example - would it be possilble to use the Gladiator cockpit from IL2, or even to import a whole aircraft like the Ju52?
I know that some elements wouldn't work properly (for example cockpits are not 3D), but I just wonder if the game engines are similar enough to allow for this, or is it impossible?

[Kurfürst]

Just one quickie :

It would be nice if some reflections, sun shining on the plexiglass would be present. The shadows on the instruments are nice, but the plexiglass somehow lacks life-likeness... its like in Il-2 completely transparent.

If possible, some distortion of objects where the glass curves would be nice... it would make the feeling of the aircrafts motion far more believable!

Third, the weathering/aging of the cockpit instruments and the cockpit in general is nice, but it would be great if not only the external view would show such an effect, but also the the cockpit instruments... all the screenshots I've seen show only greatly used cockpits, where the paint is chipped etc.. in reality, many of these planes were practically brand new, fresh from the factory, and lifespan at the frontline for aircraft was only a couple of dozen hours.. they simply did not have time to age so much. So greatly weathered cocpits looks a bit unrealistic, and it would be possibly better if the instruments would weather only gradually to brand new to used one... I take this is simply solved by gradually overlaying brand new/used textures?

[philip.ed]

Just one quickie :

It would be nice if some reflections, sun shining on the plexiglass would be present. The shadows on the instruments are nice, but the plexiglass somehow lacks life-likeness... its like in Il-2 completely transparent.

If possible, some distortion of objects where the glass curves would be nice... it would make the feeling of the aircrafts motion far more believable!

Third, the weathering/aging of the cockpit instruments and the cockpit in general is nice, but it would be great if not only the external view would show such an effect, but also the the cockpit instruments... all the screenshots I've seen show only greatly used cockpits, where the paint is chipped etc.. in reality, many of these planes were practically brand new, fresh from the factory, and lifespan at the frontline for aircraft was only a couple of dozen hours.. they simply did not have time to age so much. So greatly weathered cocpits looks a bit unrealistic, and it would be possibly better if the instruments would weather only gradually to brand new to used one... I take this is simply solved by gradually overlaying brand new/used textures?

To an extent I agree, but I think the modelling of the canopies already looks good from these pics IMHO. If you look at the internal shots, you can see the tinted reflection from the gunsight. Now that is a nice feature! ;)

[nearmiss]

Been watching the WW2HD on History channel.

One thing that has always been an issue. Everything is too pretty and pristine in the IL2 and SOW pictures. When I view the old war films there are no pretty or pristine battlefileds.

Progressive destruction, if possible would make a difference. By progressive, I mean a timeline of destruction. Not mission only, but if battle destroys a town it stays destroyed throughout timeline of campaign.

Airbases, roads and railways could be repaired within the campaign and in some cases they should be repaired during the mission.

The US Navy seabees built and maintained airbases very quickly. They had bulldozers and equipment to fill bomb holes within hours on airbases. They also used the mesh strips and replaced sections very quickly.

All armies on all battlefields, I'm sure scrambled like crazy to make airbases servicable first and roads second. Especially, when they had aircraft in flight that would soon return.

Roads and railways were critical for ground traffic movement so they were also repaired within days. Buildings were not reconstructed, they were left as is until after the war.

I don't know what it would take for creating such a progressive destruction package, but progressively destroyed towns and other infrastructure are a big part of the viewing experience. War machinery that was destroyed should also remain, except on runways, road and railways. Damaged war machinery was just pushed to the side or in heaps at airbases, roadways and railways. The war carried on.

We do have burned out sections in IL2 in town areas, which works well enough for the towns. The burned out sections do have to be reconstructed with each mission over the same towns.

Anyway, not trying to solve the issue with what I think should be done. Just trying to explain what I meant by progressive destruction.

[T}{OR]

Love the bomb 'cradle' on the last shot. :cool:

[AdMan]

Third, the weathering/aging of the cockpit instruments and the cockpit in general is nice, but it would be great if not only the external view would show such an effect, but also the the cockpit instruments... all the screenshots I've seen show only greatly used cockpits, where the paint is chipped etc.. in reality, many of these planes were practically brand new, fresh from the factory, and lifespan at the frontline for aircraft was only a couple of dozen hours.. they simply did not have time to age so much. So greatly weathered cocpits looks a bit unrealistic, and it would be possibly better if the instruments would weather only gradually to brand new to used one... I take this is simply solved by gradually overlaying brand new/used textures?
this I can agree with, to only have cockpits that look like they've already survived a war and none that look fresh from the factory would be a little disappointing

[mark@1C]

Been watching the WW2HD on History channel.

One thing that has always been an issue. Everything is too pretty and pristine in the IL2 and SOW pictures. When I view the old war films there are no pretty


This is part of my view about Realistic Soil and Dirty enviroment,especially The Ground.
To say it again and further more.
Some of my first impressions of the ground scenery,an EA SIMS 3 city, an Enhanced LEGO city,and so on.
BOSS,I noticed that you have done the work excessively focusing on every Single object.When we put them alone,it looks great.But when we put them together,something wrong.
It seems that Things are simply added into a scenery,just like a theatre stage scenery.But Things should be mixed,to build a Living Enviroment,not simply a stage scenery.
Maybe,modeling single object is your first step,and modulating whole enviroment is the next step.

[Sprain]

Yes yes, the graphics are astounding. But what about the gameplay? We don't need another Rise Of Flight destined to be forgotten.

"The gameplay's the thing"

[Chivas]

Yes yes, the graphics are astounding. But what about the gameplay? We don't need another Rise Of Flight destined to be forgotten.

"The gameplay's the thing"


I wouldn't write-off ROF just yet. ROF was released as a work in progress, and will be improved as time goes on. We will be very lucky if SOW isn't released without a lot of features delayed. I can see both these sims having very long lives with constant updates over the next 10-15 years.

[AdMan]

I think peple are panicking way too much. Everything that I've seen that is even close to complete looks amazing, especially going back and looking at all the screens and vids then combining them is quite impressive.

as far as reflections on the gauges, they can bee seen in this vid, and this isn't even in the engine yet. So I'd imagine they will reflect well when hit by direct sunlight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHz3TnehmY

[sport02]

the look of the forest is very good but generally with forest we only see the crown or the top of the trees , the look is more like cauliflower for exemple , and we have complete trees with all branchs only on one face in the edge of the forest

[13th Hsqn Protos]

I can see both these sims having very long lives with constant updates over the next 10-15 years.

Constant payed updates. Lets be clear.

[Abbeville-Boy]

Constant payed updates. Lets be clear.



sow will be free updates / paid add ons, to be clear

[Chivas]

Constant payed updates. Lets be clear.

They'd be out of business within a year if most of the updates weren't paid. That should be clear to everyone.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

From what I've got, this will work just like IL-2. If a new title is released, it's paid. If it's just a patch, it's free.

The only difference will be that we won't get any new planes of maps with the updates, but these can be made by other users and etc.

Am I right?

[robtek]

Updates are fixes also called patches -> must be free
Upgrades, also called add-ons are usually paid for.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

They'd be out of business within a year if most of the updates weren't paid. That should be clear to everyone.

We will see how well your model works out for RoF.......

[Necrobaron]

RoF updates are free. The ability to fly additional planes does cost money, although the planes themselves are in the game regardless. I think we've all been spoiled by Oleg's generosity during the IL-2 era.;)
________
Weed Vaporizers (http://weedvaporizer.info/)

[13th Hsqn Protos]

RoF has failed.

There is a lesson there for Oleg.

but I of course will bow to your much greater wisdom .....

[Chivas]

RoF has failed.

There is a lesson there for Oleg.

but I of course will bow to your much greater wisdom .....

Maybe ROF failed for you because you failed to realize that it was released as a WIP. I see ROF having a very bright future. Both ROF and SOW are being developed by fellow combat flight simmers, who have a love for the genre, without them the genre would be dead.

[Necrobaron]

Sorry if you have no idea what you're talking about.


RoF has failed.

There is a lesson there for Oleg.

but I of course will bow to your much greater wisdom .....
________
Box Vaporizer (http://boxvaporizers.com)

[zapatista]

Maybe ROF failed for you because you failed to realize that it was released as a WIP. I see ROF having a very bright future..

RoF is a buggy piece of junk that was released to early as a product in beta stage, and the "gaming model" is completely flawed and deserves to be a flop. nowhere on their product box or webpage does it openly and clearly state it is an unfinished beta product which was prematurely released because they ran out of money, you personally might not mind that, but the rest of us surely do.

the RoF game world is empty and lifeless and dead, no ground life or activity, plane flight models are scripted and not real physics (note for ex planes without wings flying around as if nothing has happened to them, untill they "bug fixed" it by adding "no wings = dead plane and fall to ground" etc..), no real online play (lacks dogfight and coop servers), lacks offline play (non existent), etc..

the main RoF forums have long lists of complaints and unhappy people (even if RoF has bribed several forum owners to censor open discussion), sales have slumped after their initial con trick of selling an unfinished product got realized. and now they want to keep charging you for the patches to fix it ? sure, pull the other one and see if we can laugh some more !

and why are you here again advertising it in a BoB forum ? keep that junk crap out of this forum

[zapatista]

Oleg,

thanks for the new stuka pictures :)

Question 1: in the dynamic campaign, will we be able to take of from an airfield and then request from the local area "command center" an update on aircraft activity in our sector ? with information on approximate numbers of suspected enemy planes, and their heading and altitude ?

this would mean
- not just having limited information on the one specific mission we are flying, but getting an overview of all activity in that sector
- at very busy times this could have low information detail, just giving approximate numbers of formations and aircraft types
- at less busy times it could give more precise information, like enemy reconnaissance plane in sector X, or damaged enemy bombers returning home at low altitude in sector Z etc..

question 2: can we have some type of visual feedback on the damage status of our own aircraft ? in real life we get much more information on the damage to our aircraft because we feel the hits it takes and we feel the changes in how the plane behaves in the air when it is damged (for ex increased vibrations when we slow down, more sluggish to turn left then right etc..). sitting behind a monitor in our livingroom removes a lot of those clue's
- ? is it possible to have a "visual damage report" that either with an image or text gives us a damage status ? (something we can turn on/off to have a quick report and see our status). you can add some uncertainty to it to make it more realistic so it isnt 100% precise, for ex "right wing root multiple hits, possible structural weakening" etc..
note: this would be an option you can turn on/off in the setup, so people who prefer not to get this information can continue to fly uninformed

[erco]

Love the cockpits! I wanted shadows, I got shadows!
Thanks Oleg and Crew!

[Chivas]

RoF is a buggy piece of junk that was released to early as a product in beta stage, and the "gaming model" is completely flawed and deserves to be a flop. nowhere on their product box or webpage does it openly and clearly state it is an unfinished beta product which was prematurely released because they ran out of money, you personally might not mind that, but the rest of us surely do.

the RoF game world is empty and lifeless and dead, no ground life or activity, plane flight models are scripted and not real physics (note for ex planes without wings flying around as if nothing has happened to them, untill they "bug fixed" it by adding "no wings = dead plane and fall to ground" etc..), no real online play (lacks dogfight and coop servers), lacks offline play (non existent), etc..

the main RoF forums have long lists of complaints and unhappy people (even if RoF has bribed several forum owners to censor open discussion), sales have slumped after their initial con trick of selling an unfinished product got realized. and now they want to keep charging you for the patches to fix it ? sure, pull the other one and see if we can laugh some more !

and why are you here again advertising it in a BoB forum ? keep that junk crap out of this forum

Sure there are a few whiners with no vision, but most ROF simmers see the potential, and understand that the alternative was no WW1 sim at all. ROF will have a bright future and we should see substantial improvement in the next free patch.

[zapatista]

Sure there are a few whiners with no vision, but most ROF simmers see the potential

do you work as a marketing drone who misleads people for a living ? your trying to turn reality upside down and pretend the emperor is wearing invisible clothes.

customers complaining about an unfinished buggy product with very very limited gameplay are not "people who lack vision", they are dissatisfied customers who have been misled and conned

the very few who "see the potential" as you put it, are a small minority off diehard fans who would have been happy to send RoF 50$ to keep their project development going without it being released for another year.


we should see substantial improvement in the next free patch.
yada yada yada, the same old excuses have been going on now for 6 months, and still nothing major has been fixed, yet people are already paying extra money for one or 2 new planes that should have been included from the start, wow how fantastic is that. and RoF has already made statements about the next game they are about to release, which will be sold in exactly the same way again, they just add a couple of new planes and replace the scenery and wham bam you got another 50$ game.

what you see is what you get with RoF, and obviously its crap, if that is the future of flightsimming, no thanks,

[mark@1C]

Oleg,

Question 1: in the dynamic campaign, will we be able to take of from an airfield and then request from the local area "command center" an update on aircraft activity in our sector ? with information on approximate numbers of suspected enemy planes, and their heading and altitude ?


I imagine it further more.
We can play different roles in the game,a Radar soilder,an Air traffic controller,and so on.Those dynamic tactical imformation will not apply by AI,but by ourselves.
(For such AI can hardly do well in their work.For example,maybe Silent-Hunter Series.To use Wolf Pack Tactic by AI Information looks like a fantasy still.)

[Chivas]

Like I said some have no vision. Its amazing that people expect a work in progress features and bugs to be completed in a few months on projects that take years to develop. The development has no finish line as its planned to be adding new and innovative features over atleast the next 8 to 10 years.

[TheGrunch]

Like I said some have no vision. Its amazing that people expect a work in progress features and bugs to be completed in a few months on projects that take years to develop. The development has no finish line as its planned to be adding new and innovative features over atleast the next 8 to 10 years.
I think the major sticking-point is that most people expect lots of aircraft to be in a sim release nowadays, whereas I was delighted that the DCS series decided to go the study-sim route in the hope that it inspires more developers to do the same. I like the sound of a handful of meticulously well-modeled flyables, and a decent few AI aircraft. Seems like you might be the same - rather a few aircraft very well-modeled than many to an average standard.
The only problem is that where you don't have many flyables, multiplayer can get quite predictable.

[Necrobaron]

This really isn't the thread to be debating this but while RoF is not perfect, so many of the negative things the minority say about this upstart sim are either blown out of proportion or simply not true (scripted FM? Oh, please...) and then they get in a huff when people challenge them on it. If you feel the game is lacking, put it away and come back to it in 6 months and see if anything you feel is lacking has been added. It's not like they're charging for the updates and the only thing that it costs you is time. I really don't understand the anger and vitriol some people spew toward this sim. I echo Chivas in the belief that RoF has a lot of potential and has a development team that really seems to want to make it all that it can be. I look forward to seeing what the future holds and hope they succeed.

Now back to SoW...;)
________
Box vaporizers (http://boxvaporizers.com)

[AdMan]

question 2: can we have some type of visual feedback on the damage status of our own aircraft ? in real life we get much more information on the damage to our aircraft because we feel the hits it takes and we feel the changes in how the plane behaves in the air when it is damged (for ex increased vibrations when we slow down, more sluggish to turn left then right etc..). sitting behind a monitor in our livingroom removes a lot of those clue's
- ? is it possible to have a "visual damage report" that either with an image or text gives us a damage status ? (something we can turn on/off to have a quick report and see our status). you can add some uncertainty to it to make it more realistic so it isnt 100% precise, for ex "right wing root multiple hits, possible structural weakening" etc..
note: this would be an option you can turn on/off in the setup, so people who prefer not to get this information can continue to fly uninformed

do you have a force feedback flightstick? Even in IL-2 with my saitek I always know when and where I have taken damage and if you're not flying cockpit-only view a quick external check will show damage to tail sections. Damage to a wing will cause the stick to pull to one side and with the saitek evoforce FF turned up past 70% it will jump right off the desktop if you don't have a handle on it.

[zapatista]

This really isn't the thread to be debating this.........

then dont !

[zapatista]

Its amazing that people expect a work in progress features and bugs to be completed in a few months on projects that take years to develop. The development (*of RoF*) has no finish line as its planned to be adding new and innovative features over atleast the next 8 to 10 years.

it doesnt say that on the game box or RoF website, does it ? your turning facts upside down and pretending it replaces reality

it is sold as a fully functioning and completed game with a whole list of great features, instead of that you get beta crap full of bugs, errors, and incomplete content. your not even denying these flaws, you'r now just relabeling it as some great strategy to eventually get something worthwhile, and that is the part that is so misleading about it.

[zapatista]

do you have a force feedback flightstick? Even in IL-2 with my saitek I always know when and where I have taken damage and if you're not flying cockpit-only view a quick external check will show damage to tail sections. Damage to a wing will cause the stick to pull to one side and with the saitek evoforce FF turned up past 70% it will jump right off the desktop if you don't have a handle on it.

no i havnt used a force feedback stick in il2, but i think that aside from maybe feeling some thumps or jolts when you get hit by larger caliber shells or flack, it wouldnt solve most of the problem i mentioned

being able to only externally view your aircraft for physical damage to the exterior of the plane doesnt solve it fully either, because some important damage might not be externally visible (ex control cables damaged, torn, type of engine damage to electrical controls or coolant/fuel hoses, landing gear damaged while it is retracted, etc to name a few). additionally, external views are often used as a cheat during dogfighting or as a cheat to improve SA during flight. it is also not very realistic to be able in mid air step out of your aircraft and make a visual inspection tour to look for damage (note: if there is a time limit of how often and how long you can on external view inspect your aircrat, then this might still be usefull to also include since many of us enjoy inspecting the detailed damage model in closeup and see exactly what has happened to our aircraft after a close encounter).

whatever solution oleg finds to this, the main aim is to somehow use "visual aids" in a game to obtain or provide the same type of information the pilot would get in real life when flying an aircraft. by sitting in our livingroom behind a monitor we are missing a lot of clue's a real pilot would get. personally i am in favour of a keyboard key that would bring up a schematic of our aircraft, with a colour coded damage status. with for ex black marks where some damage was taken, with yellow marking important damage, and red marking critical damage (coolant or fuel loss for ex, structural damage that can soon lead to complete complete structural failure etc..). as initial damage leads to further deterioration, the colour coding might change over time while we are still flying, engine overheating and seizing etc). there might be other ways to do it, for ex bringing up a notepad with a "damage report" etc..

this information is already available inside the game since the damage model keeps a record of what is affected, it is a matter of finding a good simple way to represent the important parts so at a quick glance you can get an overview of your aircraft status. it is not intended as some unrealistic highly detailed engineering report, but as a usefull visual replacement to provide the player with some usefull information, a large part of which is normally more available by physically being in a moving aircraft where you can feel the resistance of aircraft controls and behaviour

those that dont like a feature like that could simply switch it off in the options and not use it

note: the same "damage report" status info could stay with the aircraft after it has landed, and while the same aircraft stays parked at an airfield over hrs or days, the damage could gradually be repaired and be shown to gradually return to normal. when you are at that airfield and choose a plane from the available list of aircraft, each aircraft could be marked with a summary of its status, eg "100% functional", "structurally sound, refueled, but not re-armed", "damaged left landing gear, but armed and fueled" etc..

note 2: you can take the same concept one step further, for ex returning from a mission with a damaged aircraft, you could land it at the nearest airfield. then select one of the other available aircraft at that airfield, and fly back to your home base (while CO of local airfield yells over the radio, "hey darn fool that is my aircraft, come back immediately !!"). once returned at your home airfield with whatever mode of transport you used along the way, you get roster'ed back on for whatever next flight is due. eventually, once repaired and refueled, your own aicraft would be shuttled back to your own base and become available again

[Necrobaron]

You first...

then dont !
________
MEDICAL MARIJUANA CARD (http://medicalmarijuanacard.info)

[SlipBall]

(quote)
personally i am in favour of a keyboard key that would bring up a schematic of our aircraft, with a colour coded damage status. with for ex black marks where some damage was taken, with yellow marking important damage, and red marking critical damage (coolant or fuel loss for ex, structural damage that can soon lead to complete complete structural failure etc..). as initial damage leads to further deterioration, the colour coding might change over time while we are still flying, engine overheating and seizing etc). there might be other ways to do it, for ex bringing up a notepad with a "damage report" etc..




This sounds like a Terminator movie, I don't like it. I think that if you have damage, then its time to get out of there and try to get home.

[genbrien]

(quote)
personally i am in favour of a keyboard key that would bring up a schematic of our aircraft, with a colour coded damage status. with for ex black marks where some damage was taken, with yellow marking important damage, and red marking critical damage (coolant or fuel loss for ex, structural damage that can soon lead to complete complete structural failure etc..). as initial damage leads to further deterioration, the colour coding might change over time while we are still flying, engine overheating and seizing etc). there might be other ways to do it, for ex bringing up a notepad with a "damage report" etc..




This sounds like a Terminator movie, I don't like it. I think that if you have damage, then its time to get out of there and try to get home.
agree
it's a sim, not an arcade game... in real life you dont have a nothing indicating what was hit or not.... only gauges, feelings and visual references:rolleyes:

[PeterPanPan]

Hi Oleg,

This post is not specific to Stukas (which look superb BTW) but I wanted to ask an 'environmental' question.

As the summer of 1940 was a hot one, will we see heat shimmer (http://www.flickr.com/photos/3808/198908246/) above the ground, from ground level? Particularly on the concrete runways?

I think this effect would greatly add to the realism and immersion of the airfield environment. Presumably, it could be toggled off if it was too resource hungry for lower spec machines?

Or were all airfields 100% grass in 1940, and so heat shimmer didn't really happen?

Many thanks

PPanPan

[Mysticpuma]

Hopefully Oleg will read this post and skip past the COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC RoF discussion!!

Oleg, the engine you are using for the new Sim, looks like it is made for detail and will (I guess) initially be a challenge for some computers, as Il2 was (and to an extent still can be).

Would you please consider adding a pilot's body for the internal cockpit view for a few immersion reasons.

Firstly it would be great to look down and see a body in the cockpit as you fly rather than just a Ghost flying the interior view.

Secondly rather than clicking on the map button and bringing up the mini view, the player could look to the left or right hip and click the button and the pilots hand would then take a map out, this would allow the head to turn in the cockpit, without the view being blocked by the map overlay but the pilot could glance at the map. A (moving) pencil drawing of the aircraft could show the current position?

Thirdly it could be used to add a completely new immersion experience with body specific injury affecting flight.

Instead of the current aircraft damage affecting flight and the pilots view, when injured, steadily getting redder, why not have a five-point injury mark on the body (invisible to the player....but I'll explain). The body has a damage mark added to the legs, arms and chest and maybe a sixth for the head.

While flying a bullet from an enemy aircraft hits the pilots body (which we can now see if this is included) in the cockpit.

Suddenly it's hard to turn the aircraft left. The Rudder isn't damaged, but looking down you see blood on the leg which is causing the pilot to be hindered in his operation of the aircraft. Similar could be done for the arms, and the chest could mean a steady greying/blacking or redding out?

The pilot has an emergency button which brings out a small medical kit which takes 30-seconds to apply, in which time the pilot is trying to fly and apply a life-saving medical kit. It's immersive!

Lastly, if an injury point was added to the head, as long as the hit wasn't fatal, it would look good to have blood trickling down the screen and the pilots hand wiping it away, but the screen gets smeared, making visibility more difficult, which it would be if you were injured?

After the above, I hope you see why I request that a pilots body be added to the cockpit as it would add so much more scope to the simulation scenario?

Looking forward to seeing the Sim one-day, cheers, MP.

[zaelu]

+1 to what Mysticpuma said!

I heard many saying when they are killed in the plane saying: "my pilot was killed" or "he killed my pilot"... for me is always funny this absence of immersion from others... and always I tell them on TeamSpeak: "It was you who died you silly one!" :D.

It's normal for some to be separated from the avatar of the pilot as the pilot... is missing.

I found very little trouble looking around the body of the pilot in DCS Black Shark and in worst case I temporary remove him with the assigned key. It would be nice if the body would be animated so if you want to look at something that the pilots body obstruct... like a hand... after a second that hand to move away gracefuly :) .

Also... death in the cockpit should be replaced from annoying black screen to the view falling on the dashboard and bloobing in the cockpit as the plane hurls into abbyss. That's because we really don't know precisely how death is but, we know that is not instantly :P .

[Oleg Maddox]

Hi Oleg,

Glad to see you here. I had a question, which will be the size of the map of BoB ? Will it include Wales and Scotland, to play the Luftwaffe attacks from Norway ? And on German side, Northbound will it include Belgium, Holland and maybe the Norway bases ? And maybe Paris, Bordeaux ...

Thanks,
Insuber

PS: Did I say you that I like your work ? ;-)

Belgium - yes.

[Oleg Maddox]

Hopefully Oleg will read this post and skip past the COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC RoF discussion!!

Oleg, the engine you are using for the new Sim, looks like it is made for detail and will (I guess) initially be a challenge for some computers, as Il2 was (and to an extent still can be).

Would you please consider adding a pilot's body for the internal cockpit view for a few immersion reasons.

Firstly it would be great to look down and see a body in the cockpit as you fly rather than just a Ghost flying the interior view.

Secondly rather than clicking on the map button and bringing up the mini view, the player could look to the left or right hip and click the button and the pilots hand would then take a map out, this would allow the head to turn in the cockpit, without the view being blocked by the map overlay but the pilot could glance at the map. A (moving) pencil drawing of the aircraft could show the current position?

Thirdly it could be used to add a completely new immersion experience with body specific injury affecting flight.

Instead of the current aircraft damage affecting flight and the pilots view, when injured, steadily getting redder, why not have a five-point injury mark on the body (invisible to the player....but I'll explain). The body has a damage mark added to the legs, arms and chest and maybe a sixth for the head.

While flying a bullet from an enemy aircraft hits the pilots body (which we can now see if this is included) in the cockpit.

Suddenly it's hard to turn the aircraft left. The Rudder isn't damaged, but looking down you see blood on the leg which is causing the pilot to be hindered in his operation of the aircraft. Similar could be done for the arms, and the chest could mean a steady greying/blacking or redding out?

The pilot has an emergency button which brings out a small medical kit which takes 30-seconds to apply, in which time the pilot is trying to fly and apply a life-saving medical kit. It's immersive!

Lastly, if an injury point was added to the head, as long as the hit wasn't fatal, it would look good to have blood trickling down the screen and the pilots hand wiping it away, but the screen gets smeared, making visibility more difficult, which it would be if you were injured?

After the above, I hope you see why I request that a pilots body be added to the cockpit as it would add so much more scope to the simulation scenario?

Looking forward to seeing the Sim one-day, cheers, MP.

We will have minimal animations. No blood.

[mark@1C]

Boss,
some more words,
Frequently development-update-display these days indicates that,maybe,you begin to lose patience.
I want to say,don't worry about the deadline.
Step by step,and try your best as usual.
We fans are looking forward to a quality first SOW rather than a Fast-food SOW(Just like some complaints about ROF you can see in some threads.)
We all support you.
and again best wishes to your team.

[mark@1C]

No blood.

I quite approve.
It's a tactical Sim,not a horror film...

[Talisman]

Oleg,

With regards to the aircraft damage and cockpit pilot posts above. Please, no damage visual aids and please, please and please again, no dummy pilot in the cockpit!

I would like to see and use the cockpit without a dummy pilot getting in the way. This is a flight sim, not a cartoon game. I can't believe some of the stuff people are asking for. Good luck.

Happy landings,

Talisman

[PeterPanPan]

I quite approve.
It's a tactical Sim,not a horror film...

Indeed. There are also commercial considerations, as was the case with IL2 I believe. If you add gore, the game becomes R or 18 rated and so limits the audience.

PPanPan

[mark@1C]

Indeed. There are also commercial considerations, as was the case with IL2 I believe. If you add gore, the game becomes R or 18 rated and so limits the audience.

PPanPan
Yes,I just want to add this...And on the other hand,it will be boring that every game looks like CS with a many kinds of Blood patches,zombies...oh...god...


This is a flight sim, not a cartoon game. I can't believe some of the stuff people are asking for.



So do I ...

[Oleg Maddox]

The Stuka look's very real to life, I notice in #3 .jpg small white caps on the water. Will those white caps remain the same all of the time, or are the wave heights connected somehow, to the weather engine in the game?...hope that you had a good rest:)

the wave heights connected somehow :)

[Oleg Maddox]

the look of the forest is very good but generally with forest we only see the crown or the top of the trees , the look is more like cauliflower for exemple , and we have complete trees with all branchs only on one face in the edge of the forest

Currently we see on shots each tree completely.

[Oleg Maddox]

Hi Oleg.

Thanks for all your hard work, and for taking the time to come here! I'm happy to see things start to fall into place now.

It's nice to see that the trees have shadows :-)

I'd like to ask about the user tools that will be released after SoW:BoB:
Would it be possible for those people with modding experience to move parts of the IL2 aircraft into the SoW series? For example - would it be possilble to use the Gladiator cockpit from IL2, or even to import a whole aircraft like the Ju52?
I know that some elements wouldn't work properly (for example cockpits are not 3D), but I just wonder if the game engines are similar enough to allow for this, or is it impossible?

If to rework the model to the SOW standards - Possible. Completely is not possible direct import.

[Oleg Maddox]

Yes yes, the graphics are astounding. But what about the gameplay? We don't need another Rise Of Flight destined to be forgotten.

"The gameplay's the thing"

I think the gameplay will be interesting. Both single and especially online.

[Oleg Maddox]

Oleg,

thanks for the new stuka pictures :)

Question 1: in the dynamic campaign, will we be able to take of from an airfield and then request from the local area "command center" an update on aircraft activity in our sector ? with information on approximate numbers of suspected enemy planes, and their heading and altitude ?

this would mean
- not just having limited information on the one specific mission we are flying, but getting an overview of all activity in that sector
- at very busy times this could have low information detail, just giving approximate numbers of formations and aircraft types
- at less busy times it could give more precise information, like enemy reconnaissance plane in sector X, or damaged enemy bombers returning home at low altitude in sector Z etc..

question 2: can we have some type of visual feedback on the damage status of our own aircraft ? in real life we get much more information on the damage to our aircraft because we feel the hits it takes and we feel the changes in how the plane behaves in the air when it is damged (for ex increased vibrations when we slow down, more sluggish to turn left then right etc..). sitting behind a monitor in our livingroom removes a lot of those clue's
- ? is it possible to have a "visual damage report" that either with an image or text gives us a damage status ? (something we can turn on/off to have a quick report and see our status). you can add some uncertainty to it to make it more realistic so it isnt 100% precise, for ex "right wing root multiple hits, possible structural weakening" etc..
note: this would be an option you can turn on/off in the setup, so people who prefer not to get this information can continue to fly uninformed

Can't answer now. We have in design doc even more...But what we will get in final it is currently under question

[Oleg Maddox]

The only problem is that where you don't have many flyables, multiplayer can get quite predictable.

Perfect definition.

[Mysticpuma]

I wasn't requesting a Gore Fest as some may think, I was actually suggesting that a pilot model in the cockpit could have a 'damage' model, so that you'd understand why you couldn't operate the rudder or stick properly. It doesn't have to be gushing out, just a stain on the leg or arm indicates limited movement of a control surface from that appendage.

Secondly, the pilot model could just be switched on or off, that would be the pilots choice not one persons opinion of what should and shouldn't be in the sim for all players as could the pilot damage model!

Just because it's requested, doesn't mean you have to use it! Think of CEM in IL2, I don't use it, but it doesn't mean I tell everyone we don't want it! Blimey!

Thanks for the reply Mr. Maddox, I am glad that you will include a pilot for interior views too. Cheers, MP.

[mark@1C]

I was actually suggesting that a pilot model in the cockpit could have a 'damage' model, so that you'd understand why you couldn't operate the rudder or stick properly...



I think what you want can be indicated by some animated icons on gamescreen,no need to build a whole pilot-in-cockpit_view...
Maybe as BOSS has already said.."We will have minimal animations..."

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I would like to see and use the cockpit without a dummy pilot getting in the way. This is a flight sim, not a cartoon game.

For some reason, all the times I got into a cockpit I could see myself, my legs and my arms and etc. I guess I'm living in a cartoon, then?

Maybe this could be done as in DCS, where this is optional - want pilot? Shift+P and you have a completely moving pilot. Don't want a pilot? Shift+P again, and you don't have a pilot.

It would be nice to see the pilot moving all around, instead of that ghost and empty cockpit. Imagine that cockpit, with those shadows, and with a animated pilot moving the controls around! That would be awesome. As MP said, it adds to immersion.

[Feathered_IV]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch:
The only problem is that where you don't have many flyables, multiplayer can get quite predictable.

Perfect definition.

I would respectfully suggest that large numbers of flyable aircraft do not contribute much to mission-variety when they can only perform two tasks ie: bomb something or shoot something down. In Il-2 the only variety is where you fly to to do one of these two basic tasks.

I love the Il-2 series, and have done for many years. I think that I have pretty much outgrown it though. There just isn't enough variety in the mission goals to make me want to do it all again for another eight years. I hope SoW will give more thought to the many roles and objectives of a pilot in WW2.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

I´m sorry but that´s an oversimplification, and in any case combat aircraft are made to either shoot something down, bomb something, and transport something. And most of us are mainly interested on the first two roles, otherwise we would be flying a boeing 737 on a civilian simulator.
There is none two bombing missions equal, and none two aerial combat equal, each engagement is diferent, and that´s what make it interesting to do it all over again, specially when you are getting more and more real physics modeled.
Also there is a lot of varitey of targets and combat areas that make everything diferent.
If you are tired of flying missions where you have to bomb something os shoot something, then why bother to buy and fly a combat flight sim?
I´m not against the idea of having maybe rescue mission, or flying a transport aircraft to a pocket zone and drop cargo to the troops while there artillery explosion all around, and come back, but they should be rare exception because you will get tired of them way more quickly than flying combat missions.

Anyway, its just an opinion. :)

[Avimimus]

I quite approve.
It's a tactical Sim,not a horror film...

What about tomato sauce? I seem to remember a somewhat disturbing scene involving a He-111 pilot in that old Battle of Britain movie.

Not to mention soup (as in the Memphis Belle movie)...

[AdMan]

personally I like the ghost pilot, as well as in driving sims too, I have enough problems keeping my own hands out of the way of the screen and instruments without virtual-me getting in the way. I also like to be able to see how the control mechanisms in the cockpit move and it helps to make sure controls are calibrated right, for instance looking down and seeing the rudder peddles is a simple way of checking your axis, with a pilot modeled in-cockpit, you'd generally only be able to see his knees

Also it's already been said that pilot movements would take too much time for release because animating all movements for 6DOF devices is complex

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I´m sorry but that´s an oversimplification, and in any case combat aircraft are made to either shoot something down, bomb something, and transport something. And most of us are mainly interested on the first two roles, otherwise we would be flying a boeing 737 on a civilian simulator.
There is none two bombing missions equal, and none two aerial combat equal, each engagement is diferent, and that´s what make it interesting to do it all over again, specially when you are getting more and more real physics modeled.
Also there is a lot of varitey of targets and combat areas that make everything diferent.
If you are tired of flying missions where you have to bomb something os shoot something, then why bother to buy and fly a combat flight sim?
I´m not against the idea of having maybe rescue mission, or flying a transport aircraft to a pocket zone and drop cargo to the troops while there artillery explosion all around, and come back, but they should be rare exception because you will get tired of them way more quickly than flying combat missions.

Anyway, its just an opinion. :)

Totally agreed. For example, I've been having lots of fun recently in the same sort of mission, most of the time - CAP - in the marvelous "For the honour of French Wings" (or something similar) DGen campaign.

What makes it more or less interesting is the challenge you're facing. Leading six planes into a hot spot against 12, 20, 30 or more fighters, and eventually bombers, can offer a good challenge to you. And during the Battle of Britain, this was more likely to happen.

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch:
The only problem is that where you don't have many flyables, multiplayer can get quite predictable.



I would respectfully suggest that large numbers of flyable aircraft do not contribute much to mission-variety when they can only perform two tasks ie: bomb something or shoot something down. In Il-2 the only variety is where you fly to to do one of these two basic tasks.

I love the Il-2 series, and have done for many years. I think that I have pretty much outgrown it though. There just isn't enough variety in the mission goals to make me want to do it all again for another eight years. I hope SoW will give more thought to the many roles and objectives of a pilot in WW2.


Two ore even 4 flyables - the main mistake of any team that would start after success of Il-2. Even if to compare with intial release of Il-2 in 2001.
Player would like to fly and master different aircraft. Some time very different.
I can tell much more what make the sim successfull, but you know.... I will not tell it now :)
However I prsonally really know what should be and should't be in a fligth sxim that to make it successfull even morte than IL-2 series. And I hope to reach that stage that to "overjump" my onw Il-2.

[zaelu]

Oleg,

With regards to the aircraft damage and cockpit pilot posts above. Please, no damage visual aids and please, please and please again, no dummy pilot in the cockpit!

I would like to see and use the cockpit without a dummy pilot getting in the way. This is a flight sim, not a cartoon game. I can't believe some of the stuff people are asking for. Good luck.

Happy landings,

Talisman

I am sure it will be toggle-able and with possibility to set a default state (on or off) so people that want to see the cockpit empty can do so... like DCS Black Shark has. Or you just wish to interdict something other people might like? ;)

As for gore effects. Activable from hidden setting like current IL-2 would be good enough. In some places people know that war without blood is just a myth :) .

More options is always better than less, of course, if is not hindering the development and the release.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/images/styles/blackyellow/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=121479#post121479)
The only problem is that where you don't have many flyables, multiplayer can get quite predictable. Perfect definition

I urge balance here. I would rather have half the planes we had in IL2 and really REALLY good fm/dm/wm.

We will have minimal animations. No blood.

Head movement is all most pilots need.


And I hope to reach that stage that to "overjump" my onw Il-2.

We have waited a long long time.

I wish you success :!:

S~!

[daHeld]

I urge balance here. I would rather have half the planes we had in IL2 and really REALLY good fm/dm/wm.

+++1 on that! but what does "wm" mean? :confused:

[HB252]

Hi Oleg and teamwork guys! :-)

First of all great work again :grin:.

I have one idea :rolleyes: and 2 questions :confused:.

Idea:

You could put in the game one option for see the screen to scale 1/1 only in the cockpit view , that is to say 1 cm of the real cockpit will be 1 cm of the screen. There is a bigs screem, or 2 or 3 tv makes a big screen, its is posible!!

Questions:

1.- Can you tell us your impressions and feelings to pilot some planes in sow?

2.- When you pilot some plane the objects (trucks, armor) how do you see it? (all the details are visible or not).

Thx.

[mungee]

You know, I've been wanting to say this for a long time now, but have never really got down to doing it.

I agree 100% with the comment that effort should not be diverted into the creation of a large number of "flyables" - just a few superb ones (with excellent FM & DM) would be fine - rather to spend the time/effort on enhancing/improving/tweaking other aspects of the sim.

I must tell you, I have been an avid IL-2 sim pilot since its inception and have bought all the add-on's.
During that time I've flown various versions of the Spitfire (only recently I guess, with the introduction of the England maps) and various versions of the Me109 (on the Eastern Front).
I've tried my hand at a few US fighters (when 'Pacific Fighters' came out), and there was a time when I was "hooked" on the Me110 (I think that its superb quality of its cockpit did it for me!) but essentially I've stuck to my two "favourites" ... the Me109 & the Spit!

Am I odd in doing this?

I must say, I find it hard enough to master the flying characteristics of one type of aircraft, let alone a myriad!

[Waldo.Pepper]

I too want a pilot - not a ghostly presence. Ideally I want the option for a pilot. That way everyone would be happy.

[whatnot]

I too would very much like to see a pilot instead of an empty chair. This really adds to the immersion!

Also I think mysticpuma's post went a bit unnoticed because it had good content. Especially I'd like to have the map as a kneepad instead of a magical window popping up in the screen. Don't know how hard it is to implement especially if we're talking about showing plane icons in it if enabled etc.

But still, I think it might be worth the investigation atleast.

BR,
Whatnot

[daHeld]

Yes, a Pilot in these cockpits would be great!
Those of us who fear that he'd obscure the gauges might just turn it of and have this strange ghost-like cockpit...

[DoolittleRaider]

Add me to the list of those who would like to see an OPTION to select Pilot-body ors Ghost-Pilot.

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by SlipBall http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/images/styles/blackyellow/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=121120#post121120)
The Stuka look's very real to life, I notice in #3 .jpg small white caps on the water. Will those white caps remain the same all of the time, or are the wave heights connected somehow, to the weather engine in the game?...hope that you had a good rest:smile:

the wave heights connected somehow :)



This to me will be an amazing visual part of the game, especially while I'm waiting for a rescue at sea:-P,...thanks!:)

[AdMan]

virtualyou = cheesy

[Feathered_IV]

However I personally really know what should be and shouldn't be in a flight sim that to make it successfull even more than IL-2 series. And I hope to reach that stage that to "overjump" my own Il-2.


That would be good :-P
I guess our experiences with Il-2 are somewhat different. You have almost ten years experience with making it. I have almost ten years experience playing it. ;)

[Necrobaron]

I concur with your sentiment though I think this will be a fruitless point to argue. Regardless, I think some people have a somewhat sanitized view of what air combat was and I do not agree that by adding any sort of blood or gore equates to a horror movie. It might be surprising to hear but people bled, got shot up, and died, often very violently while flying combat missions and I wished the game would reflect that or at least have a "realism" option that featured it. It almost seems like a disservice to those who went through the horror of air combat to simply glaze over the gore because it's "unpleasant". In my experience, the sim playing demographic tends to be an older crowd so I think we're all mature enough to handle it and I highly doubt many, if any, sales would be lost if SoW did receive a ESRB Mature rating or equivalent.

The absence or presence of blood and gore is not a dealbreaker one way or the other, but that's how I feel.

What about tomato sauce? I seem to remember a somewhat disturbing scene involving a He-111 pilot in that old Battle of Britain movie.

Not to mention soup (as in the Memphis Belle movie)...
________
Coach Purses (http://icoachhandbags.com/)

[mark@1C]

I wonder why so many people focus attention on pilot itself,instead of the pilot's view.
In a Dogfight,I think it's more important to have a suitable view for observation than to look at our dummy body.
Too many things to pay attention to,enemy fighters,relative distance,instrument panel,and so on.
Need an enhanced 6DOF Native-system more than a Dummy.
At present, 6DOF doesn't do well still,and is not "Free" at all,even if using a TrackIR.While many other people can only use their 8-way Hats.
To give 6DOF a more quickly and accurately response,smooth feeling,truely infinitely-variabe,and an easy control with 8-way hat,gets High Priority.And most importantly,a native one by the official staff without too many troubles in Loading various 6DOF_Mods and having "crt=2" problems.
We are pilots in Fighters, not models on T-stages.
If anything to show,show your aerobatics,instead of your body.
If pilot should be in consideration.consider his view first,please.

[csThor]

@ necrobaron

The simple fact that many countries have age rating systems for computer gamers which tend to stick games which include gore and blood into the highest (age) class is a simple economical consideration no amount of want for realism can argue away. If push comes to shove in this regard I guess Maddox Games will always choose the economically sounder version and will leave the gory details out.

[tagTaken2]

whatever solution oleg finds to this, the main aim is to somehow use "visual aids" in a game to obtain or provide the same type of information the pilot would get in real life when flying an aircraft. by sitting in our livingroom behind a monitor we are missing a lot of clue's a real pilot would get. personally i am in favour of a keyboard key that would bring up a schematic of our aircraft, with a colour coded damage status. with for ex black marks where some damage was taken, with yellow marking important damage, and red marking critical damage (coolant or fuel loss for ex, structural damage that can soon lead to complete complete structural failure etc..). as initial damage leads to further deterioration, the colour coding might change over time while we are still flying, engine overheating and seizing etc). there might be other ways to do it, for ex bringing up a notepad with a "damage report" etc..


Or possibly a health bar for the aircraft. Maybe even an ammo counter on the screen, and a compass pointing to the next waypoint.

[Necrobaron]

I don't have hard numbers but as I mentioned before, an educated guess would say that the number of simmers who are under adult age is fairly miniscule. If that's the case, what does it matter what rating it gets? I really don't think the rating would affect sales in any significant way, if at all. Regardless, there are plenty of silly, over-the-top, violent games (Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, etc.) that do just fine, that the kiddies go nuts for. Something like blood splatter in the cockpit or diced up seagulls looks like small fries compared to the content of those blockbuster games.

@ necrobaron

The simple fact that many countries have age rating systems for computer gamers which tend to stick games which include gore and blood into the highest (age) class is a simple economical consideration no amount of want for realism can argue away. If push comes to shove in this regard I guess Maddox Games will always choose the economically sounder version and will leave the gory details out.
________
Target gift cards (http://bestfreegiftcard.com/target-gift-cards/)

[PanzerAce]

It matters because unless you hook gamers early, they'll tend to go to FPS and RTS (or MMO) games these days. I'm only hooked on flight sims because other than sim city, they were the first games I ever played. If you can't hook them early, you'll never hook them at all.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Well, the gore factor doesn't matter so much.

Why so? Well, because, considering the possibilities of the engine, this can be made by users after it's released, as a MOD.

But, honestly, anyone here ever checked the ESRB rating for a game, and, if someone did, you took that seriously in any way? Those ratings are retarded. No kid is going nuts because a seagull just exploded on your canopy, broke the windshield and covered you with blood. There were cases of some assholes playing Counter Strike at school, but I don't think a game alone can do that to someone.

Just my point of view, of course.

[Bearcat]

Oleg,

With regards to the aircraft damage and cockpit pilot posts above. Please, no damage visual aids and please, please and please again, no dummy pilot in the cockpit!

I would like to see and use the cockpit without a dummy pilot getting in the way. This is a flight sim, not a cartoon game. I can't believe some of the stuff people are asking for. Good luck.

Happy landings,

Talisman

I have to agree here... I think it is kind of hokey myself....

[Bearcat]

However I prsonally really know what should be and should't be in a fligth sxim that to make it successfull even morte than IL-2 series. And I hope to reach that stage that to "overjump" my onw Il-2.


Of that I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever.. I also have no doubt that you will succed in that attempt.. ;)

[Mango]

I think cut scene animations and animated pilot in cockpit = waste of valuable development time with no long term value to the game.

Most of the gimmicky things people are asking for will lose their appeal very quickly. Even those asking for cut scenes will get bored of them after 2 or 3 viewings. Remember that we experience flight sims 99% from the pilot's point of view.

And tell me, when you're driving a car, who really notices their own body in their field of view? Nobody pays attention to their hands on the steering wheel. :rolleyes:

It also effects immersion if we see badly rendered 3D humanoids (which can never be rendered as well as solid structures) intermingled with the beautiful graphical environment we'll be immersed in.

The virtual world that we fly in will be greatly enhanced by what we see from the cockpit, what we hear over the radio, and what we read in breifings; not by 3rd person views of pilot animations or cut scenes.
:grin:

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I think cut scene animations and animated pilot in cockpit = waste of valuable development time with no long term value to the game.

Anyone here realizes that it's not that complex to animate the freakin' pilot inside the cockpit? People just say it like they needed to rebuild the engine to make the pilot inside. Nobody is asking to put this in the top of their priorities list, but it's a feature that have to be considered.

Plus, let's be democratic here. No one is pointing a gun to your head and saying you will HAVE to fly with pilot inside the cockpit. You can simply switch it on or off, depending on your preferences. There's no point in denying something people would like just because YOU dislike it. That's being a bit selfish, don't you think?

My opinion still is: immersion is not determined by major features, but by the smallest details. In the end, you're always sitting in a chair looking to a freakin' monitor. But if you're sitting in that chair, hearing the pilot's breathing, with that lonely feel after everyone suddently disappeared, hearing the symphony made by that noisy Merlin engine and the static from the radio, and yet feeling like there's a strange silence, seeing your arms and legs doing some rather nervous movements to help you checking all angles for enemies, keeping a sharp eye on the oxygen gauge, and having to dive a bit to get some air... it just makes you feel closer to being inside the cockpit, instead of the chair in front of the monitor.

[proton45]

Dear Oleg....

This is all very interesting, but I'm still curious how damage will be calculated? Is damage going to be calculated by the physics of materials clashing (and the damage of accelerates & rapid oxidation)? Or...what are your thoughts on the issue?

[Baron]

Anyone here realizes that it's not that complex to animate the freakin' pilot inside the cockpit? People just say it like they needed to rebuild the engine to make the pilot inside. Nobody is asking to put this in the top of their priorities list, but it's a feature that have to be considered.

Plus, let's be democratic here. No one is pointing a gun to your head and saying you will HAVE to fly with pilot inside the cockpit. You can simply switch it on or off, depending on your preferences. There's no point in denying something people would like just because YOU dislike it. That's being a bit selfish, don't you think?

My opinion still is: immersion is not determined by major features, but by the smallest details. In the end, you're always sitting in a chair looking to a freakin' monitor. But if you're sitting in that chair, hearing the pilot's breathing, with that lonely feel after everyone suddently disappeared, hearing the symphony made by that noisy Merlin engine and the static from the radio, and yet feeling like there's a strange silence, seeing your arms and legs doing some rather nervous movements to help you checking all angles for enemies, keeping a sharp eye on the oxygen gauge, and having to dive a bit to get some air... it just makes you feel closer to being inside the cockpit, instead of the chair in front of the monitor.



Problem is, they need to make 1 pilot for every ac in game/new edition = S**tload of work.


Unless u wanna a stick or throttle petruding out of pilots leg for ex. because it fits in one cockpit and not the other. (as Oleg allredy stated, though i think he meant the movements of the 3D pilot, as in fine in one ac but leg outside the fuselage in another ac)


Not to mention the complexity involved if u wanna make the animation work with a clickeble cockpit (future maby?) . Will pilot move his arm when u puch down the flaps key, how will that work while df`ing animation wise, will pilot swich hand on control column if needed, or the pilots arms blocking instruments etc. etc.


Well, u get the idea of how "easy" it is to implement. (to a standard Oleg is willing to allow)



Would it be cool? Hell yah. Is it worth the work involved? Not according to Oleg.


Maby a future 3:rd party addon, who knows (if even possible)

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Anyone here realizes that it's not that complex to animate the freakin' pilot inside the cockpit?

It has already been answered:

"We don't have anywhere near the time needed to animate the pilot model properly. We can put his hands on throttle and stick and feet on pedals, and then in half the cockpits he'll have other levers clipping through his body, stick clipping through his knees, etc. His arms will obscure important gauges on the dashboard.

With our new 6DOF free camera system that allows you to poke your head out the window or "bend" forward and look at the seat back, there's just no way we can animate the body to follow the camera, meaning you'd be able to twist your neck and look back on your own headless contorted body.

So, the answer is no. A poltergeist cockpit is not perfect, but the alternative is even worse. "

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Not to mention the complexity involved if u wanna make the animation work with a clickeble cockpit. Or the pilots arms blocking instruments. Will pilot move his arm when u puch down the flaps key, how will that work while df`ing etc. etc.

No one asked for such detail, or pilot clicking all around or whatever. As I said, stick - throttle - rudder, similar to the DCS one.

If pilots (or humans, in general) are going to be detailed as stated by Oleg himself (I'm considering it has basic animations related to arms and legs), there could be room for putting a human pilot inside the cockpit, and articulate him to fit each cockpit, just as a normal pilot do. Move the leg a bit right/left, just move the left hand a bit, right hand around the stick and... voilà, you just have your pilot fitted to another aircraft.

I might be wrong about the possibilities of humans in-game, but, from what I understood, this isn't that tricky to model as people propose.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't saw the last post. At least I guess this will be possible to be made by users after the release.

[Insuber]

It almost seems like a disservice to those who went through the horror of air combat to simply glaze over the gore because it's "unpleasant"


This argument is warped: making a spectacle of blood and sufferings of human beings would be monstrous, and would denote a total lack of respect for the ones who really went through such an ordeal. I can understand the quest for a faithful simulation, but heck, that's a game and I want to enjoy it as such ... so no blood spatter for me, thanks.


Regards,
Insuber

[daHeld]

I concur with your sentiment though I think this will be a fruitless point to argue. Regardless, I think some people have a somewhat sanitized view of what air combat was and I do not agree that by adding any sort of blood or gore equates to a horror movie. It might be surprising to hear but people bled, got shot up, and died, often very violently while flying combat missions and I wished the game would reflect that or at least have a "realism" option that featured it. It almost seems like a disservice to those who went through the horror of air combat to simply glaze over the gore because it's "unpleasant". In my experience, the sim playing demographic tends to be an older crowd so I think we're all mature enough to handle it and I highly doubt many, if any, sales would be lost if SoW did receive a ESRB Mature rating or equivalent.

The absence or presence of blood and gore is not a dealbreaker one way or the other, but that's how I feel.

That's exactely what I think is right, too!
Nicely put! :)

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Talisman http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/images/styles/blackyellow/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=121588#post121588)
Oleg,

With regards to the aircraft damage and cockpit pilot posts above. Please, no damage visual aids and please, please and please again, no dummy pilot in the cockpit!

I would like to see and use the cockpit without a dummy pilot getting in the way. This is a flight sim, not a cartoon game. I can't believe some of the stuff people are asking for. Good luck.

Happy landings,

Talisman



I have to agree here... I think it is kind of hokey myself....


Yep hokey to me aswell

[daHeld]

Originally Posted by Talisman http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/images/styles/blackyellow/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=121588#post121588)
Oleg,

With regards to the aircraft damage and cockpit pilot posts above. Please, no damage visual aids and please, please and please again, no dummy pilot in the cockpit!

I would like to see and use the cockpit without a dummy pilot getting in the way. This is a flight sim, not a cartoon game. I can't believe some of the stuff people are asking for. Good luck.

Happy landings,

Talisman






Yep hokey to me aswell

What problem do you have with a pilot that you may switch off if you don't like him?
Let those who want to see their legs inside a cockpit do so - the others can always turn it off.

It's not a high priority thing of course, but if there's some time left, I'm convinced, it would add the immersion.

As far as visual aids are concerned, I agree that we don't really need them. Even in Il-2 I always know what's wrong with my aircraft, more or less. When your aircraft is starting to act strangely, a glance out of the canopy normaly suffices to acknowledge the damage that occured...

[SlipBall]

What problem do you have with a pilot that you may switch off if you don't like him?
Let those who want to see their legs inside a cockpit do so - the others can always turn it off.

It's not a high priority thing of course, but if there's some time left, I'm convinced, it would add the immersion.

As far as visual aids are concerned, I agree that we don't really need them. Even in Il-2 I always know what's wrong with my aircraft, more or less. When your aircraft is starting to act strangely, a glance out of the canopy normaly suffices to acknowledge the damage that occured...



Well if we could throw switche's I would think differently, such as in blackhawk for example, but we won't have that here. I think it more important to get this game to market ASAP, their not gonna do the pilot no matter how much their asked. Somebody said above about driving a car, I know that I only notice my body parts when I spill a drink

[13th Hsqn Protos]

S~! Gentlemen

The Pilot Animations question has been answered many times by Oleg and Luthier.

Please remember that Storm of War series is going to be built with the modding community in MIND. Top quality mods WILL be able to be submitted for inclusion into the game.

There will be PLENTY of opportunity for the modding community to submit things like pilot models/animations ect for inclusion into the main game .... I am SURE someone will come up with a gore mod and just about about every other popular addition as well.

The will be Mod capabable and S.O.W Standard servers. Everyone will (hopefully) be happy.

.
.

[whatnot]

I wonder why so many people focus attention on pilot itself,instead of the pilot's view.
In a Dogfight,I think it's more important to have a suitable view for observation than to look at our dummy body.
Too many things to pay attention to,enemy fighters,relative distance,instrument panel,and so on.


It's all about immersion mate. :cool:

One wouldn't need to model the pilot chair either, but it wouldn't look quite right. Having the pilot's arms and legs missing is in the same ballpark for me.

[whatnot]

I think cut scene animations and animated pilot in cockpit = waste of valuable development time with no long term value to the game.


When we talk about details like how the fuselage of a plane should sway with the waves when a plane crashlands into the sea I think adding an element as focal as a pilot into a an plane is well worth concidering.

Especially since this is probably something that'll be very hard to mod aferwards.

Edit after seeing a few repliers from Oleg & co: This is ofcourse the decision of the development team, but I think it's important that they're aware that visible pilots and other immersion enhancers are a very important factor for many simmers.

[genbrien]

Especially since this is probably something that'll be very hard to mod aferwards.
how do you know.... look at the mods that are made this days.... nobody tought that IL2 was '' that modable'':rolleyes:

[AdMan]

I think cut scene animations and animated pilot in cockpit = waste of valuable development time with no long term value to the game.

Most of the gimmicky things people are asking for will lose their appeal very quickly. Even those asking for cut scenes will get bored of them after 2 or 3 viewings. Remember that we experience flight sims 99% from the pilot's point of view.

And tell me, when you're driving a car, who really notices their own body in their field of view? Nobody pays attention to their hands on the steering wheel. :rolleyes:

It also effects immersion if we see badly rendered 3D humanoids (which can never be rendered as well as solid structures) intermingled with the beautiful graphical environment we'll be immersed in.

The virtual world that we fly in will be greatly enhanced by what we see from the cockpit, what we hear over the radio, and what we read in breifings; not by 3rd person views of pilot animations or cut scenes.
:grin:

exactly, when I play a game like that I just always find myself thinking "those aren't my hands, that's not my body, who is this curious humanoid who moves about oddly I'm looking at?" On the other hand when I'm just looking at the cockpit I'm thinking "so this is what it's like to pilot a Messerschmitt"

I suppose an on/off switch would appease both, but it's already been stated - there are more pressing needs to attend to

[AdMan]

It's all about immersion mate. :cool:

One wouldn't need to model the pilot chair either, but it wouldn't look quite right. Having the pilot's arms and legs missing is in the same ballpark for me.

same ballpark!?:eek: not modeling the pilot seat would be a sin :evil:

[TheGrunch]

I don't really care if there's toggleable legs, I just really wouldn't like to see mannequin-like arms floating about in a wooden manner in front of me all the time that would require different animations for each aircraft, which is quite a lot of time spent twiddling keyframes in 3dsmax for some poor guy, who could be doing something more exciting like playing with the particle system to make nice explosions.

[Chivas]

When I look down in the cockpit its to look at my gauges. I wouldn't even notice my body not being there, so there is no immersion loss as far as I'm concerned. But I'm not against a selectable option, although I think there are more important options to work on.

[Romanator21]

I don't really care if there's toggleable legs, I just really wouldn't like to see mannequin-like arms floating about in a wooden manner in front of me all the time that would require different animations for each aircraft, which is quite a lot of time spent twiddling keyframes in 3dsmax for some poor guy, who could be doing something more exciting like playing with the particle system to make nice explosions.

Exactly. It's not that modeling the pilot is "easy". Although, trust me, it is not going to be easy. It's that it takes time from more important/valuable things that this sim should offer. Remember the scope of what Oleg and his team are trying to do right now. It's a basic backbone to which other things will eventually be added. Right now there is a timetable. Oleg needs this to be released no later than 2010. It's not possible to animate each and every different pilot for every plane to press buttons on the panel or move his body with your 6DOF set, or fight frantically to bail out, within this time frame. If he were to focus on this, much more important things would be forgotten, such as FM, DM, AI. This is what will make the sim last, in my opinion. If these elements are not top of the line, then SoW will end up in bargain bins within a year. The most important thing right now is this basic code to which our goodies will be added to later by Oleg and 3rd parties; if it's not done right this time in the first installment, the BoB, then it will doom the sim, and God knows I won't play IL-2 forever.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Of course there is the point of who's legs you'ld want to model. You would have to cater for the RAF, LW, Italians. Then when we get into different variations between summer and winter uniforms and god know what would happen in the tropical maps where we're flying in shorts! (Oleg! If you need a set of hairy white knobbly Knees to model I'm your man!)

Maybe this discussion should be moved to a wish-list tread so we're not taking the discussion away from the topic of the screenshots?

[fireship4]

I would want a pilot model, but I can wait until after release (or never) when it can be done right and not get in the way of other priorities.

[Oleg Maddox]

Anyone here realizes that it's not that complex to animate the freakin' pilot inside the cockpit?

Even if we have already sceleton kinematics the work over animations is great. Just imagine how many varios of postions types of cloumns, seats of gunners, etc... in different aircraft.
And for each there must be different animations...
it is really more complex then to make standard sets of one the same movements for all of the soldiers in shooter....

[Oleg Maddox]

Exactly. It's not that modeling the pilot is "easy". Although, trust me, it is not going to be easy. It's that it takes time from more important/valuable things that this sim should offer. Remember the scope of what Oleg and his team are trying to do right now. It's a basic backbone to which other things will eventually be added. Right now there is a timetable. Oleg needs this to be released no later than 2010. It's not possible to animate each and every different pilot for every plane to press buttons on the panel or move his body with your 6DOF set, or fight frantically to bail out, within this time frame. If he were to focus on this, much more important things would be forgotten, such as FM, FM, AI. This is what will make the sim last, in my opinion. If these elements are not top of the line, then SoW will end up in bargain bins within a year. The most important thing right now is this basic code to which our goodies will be added to later by Oleg and 3rd parties; if it's not done right this time in the first installment, the BoB, then it will doom the sim, and God knows I won't play IL-2 forever.

Right explanation.

[Oleg Maddox]

I have a question for British side.

There are yellow color painted bombs. It is training bombs or not?

[Oleg Maddox]

I have another question. Now for Italian side
On some photos I see Italian fighters using in BoB with yellow nose. Was it for all Italian fighters or just for some part?

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Even if we have already sceleton kinematics the work over animations is great. Just imagine how many varios of postions types of cloumns, seats of gunners, etc... in different aircraft.
And for each there must be different animations...
it is really more complex then to make standard sets of one the same movements for all of the soldiers in shooter....

Understood. I hope this is done later by other users that like the idea.

[JVM]

I have a question for British side.

There are yellow color painted bombs. It is training bombs or not?

They were High Explosive bombs. They kept this color until the US-made HE bombs changed color from yellow toward olive Drab (in March 1942). The british HE bombs color was also changed for olive drab then.

Practice british bombs were white.

you may find interesting info in this page:

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/britord/bomb/cat-0004.htm

and

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/ordnance/index.htm

and subsequent pages...

JVM

[Insuber]

I have another question. Now for Italian side
On some photos I see Italian fighters using in BoB with yellow nose. Was it for all Italian fighters or just for some part?

I passed on your Q. to some of the best experts in Italy ...

As far as I know, the directive of the Regia Aeronautica to paint the fighters nose in yellow was effective - in all war theaters - from early spring to october 1941, therefore it was probably used in the last period by the Italian BoB expeditionary airforce (CAI), which ceased operations on April 15th 1941.

I don't know if it was used before spring 1941 by any CAI groups, but the super-experten will soon pop in .. :-)


Bye,
Insuber

[Zorin]

They were High Explosive bombs. They kept this color until the US-made HE bombs also changed color toward olive Drab (presumably somewhere in 1942).

Practice british bombs were white.

you may find interesting info in this page:

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/britord/bomb/cat-0004.htm

and subsequent pages...

JVM

Beat me to it ;)

Learned about that when I made the update for the British Ordnance in IL-2 and used the same source.

That one will answer all your questions Oleg.

[whatnot]

how do you know.... look at the mods that are made this days.... nobody tought that IL2 was '' that modable'':rolleyes:

I don't, that's why I said 'probably'. ;)

[whatnot]

same ballpark!?:eek: not modeling the pilot seat would be a sin :evil:

Is I said in the post it is the sam ballpark for ME.

I don't really understand this mentality of saying that what is important to person x is not REALLY important because it's not important for ME.

[Oleg Maddox]

They were High Explosive bombs. They kept this color until the US-made HE bombs changed color from yellow toward olive Drab (in March 1942). The british HE bombs color was also changed for olive drab then.

Practice british bombs were white.

you may find interesting info in this page:

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/britord/bomb/cat-0004.htm

and

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/ordnance/index.htm

and subsequent pages...

JVM

Thank you very much!
That means that we will need one the same bomb later painted by other way.... not so good...mean for coding

[Oleg Maddox]

I passed on your Q. to some of the best experts in Italy ...

As far as I know, the directive of the Regia Aeronautica to paint the fighters nose in yellow was effective - in all war theaters - from early spring to october 1941, therefore it was probably used in the last period by the Italian BoB expeditionary airforce (CAI), which ceased operations on April 15th 1941.

I don't know if it was used before spring 1941 by any CAI groups, but the super-experten will soon pop in .. :-)


Bye,
Insuber

Ok, thanks. Waiting.

[whatnot]

Exactly. It's not that modeling the pilot is "easy". Although, trust me, it is not going to be easy. It's that it takes time from more important/valuable things that this sim should offer. Remember the scope of what Oleg and his team are trying to do right now. It's a basic backbone to which other things will eventually be added. Right now there is a timetable. Oleg needs this to be released no later than 2010. It's not possible to animate each and every different pilot for every plane to press buttons on the panel or move his body with your 6DOF set, or fight frantically to bail out, within this time frame. If he were to focus on this, much more important things would be forgotten, such as FM, FM, AI. This is what will make the sim last, in my opinion. If these elements are not top of the line, then SoW will end up in bargain bins within a year. The most important thing right now is this basic code to which our goodies will be added to later by Oleg and 3rd parties; if it's not done right this time in the first installment, the BoB, then it will doom the sim, and God knows I won't play IL-2 forever.


I don't think anyone has mentioned that the pilot should press every button, pick his nose and scratch his groins while flying. Just hold on to the stick and maybe touch a throttle every now and then if we would have that luxury.

No need to slander suggestions even if you're not for them.

[whatnot]

A few noob questions which I aim not to raise as intensive discussions of wether they are needed or not as the pilot model discussion did. These are probably already answered in some of the threads and by searching I found a quite a few threads but no real conclusion:

1) Clickable cockpit

First check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLkfx6QxLfg
I have always liked the idea of a clickable cockpit and after seeing the video I started drooling of my own powerglove.

2) Infantry in the battlefield

I would love the possibility of strafing infantry masses in the battlefield but have seen comments that it's a flight sim not FPS etc. But as strafing infantry was as far as I've understood a normal action in WW2 I want to ask.

So could some of you vets summarize the discussion and dev's conclusion on these topics. And if these are sore wounds already debated billion times I want to appologize in advance. I by no means want to create a big fuzz and start useless debate if the topic is already covered.

Also links to appropriate threads would be quite sufficient.

[150GCT_Veltro]

Ok, thanks. Waiting.

Check P.M.

What Insuber says is correct. At the beginning you can see G-50 and Cr-42 without yellow nose. Later they were all painted with RLM GELB 04 (German yellow).

[Abraxa]

I have another question. Now for Italian side
On some photos I see Italian fighters using in BoB with yellow nose. Was it for all Italian fighters or just for some part?

What the others said....

Since we're on the Italian birds, time ago I sent you and Alex (if I remember correctly) all the informations that I could gather (thx also to Pag and Ferdinando d'Amico) on the camouflage of the Br 20, colour picts included.
The 3D model is really stunning, but I'm sorry to say that the camouflage is still wrong, if not in the colour tones (the RLMs look to be those that we suggested), at least in the pattern of the mottling.

I pointed out the camo problem but I received no answer.
You still have my email, I guess. Feel free to contact me in case you need more details and help.

[Romanator21]

I don't think anyone has mentioned that the pilot should press every button, pick his nose and scratch his groins while flying. Just hold on to the stick and maybe touch a throttle every now and then if we would have that luxury.

No need to slander suggestions even if you're not for them.

I don't think I mentioned that the pilot should scratch his groin either. However, people have asked for a complex first person view bailout routine, or if his plane ditches, where water gushes into the cockpit.

I did not mean for that post to come off as slander. You can believe me when I say that I wouldn't mind a nicely modeled figure in the cockpit. Maybe I wont fly with him all the time, but it could make for some nice movies scenes. And who knows, maybe it is really immersive.

But I am somewhat opposed to the idea when folks demand it right now. There are too many other things for Oleg's team to work on, and in no way will making even the most basic figure fit into the current time frame. If there is a pilot, I don't want a half-job clunky and immobile mannequin on which I "can see my own headless body" with a 6DOF. I would rather have something of quality, that at the very least looks convincing (and no, it doesn't have to reach out and press buttons).

In the current time frame, which is now very limited, I think it would be better if the team focused on the core of the game. Pilot figures will be added later by someone enthusiastic about them. Then you will download such a mod, and hey-presto! But modding FM, and DM which were forgotten in favor of the pilot figure is likely out of the question.

I want to say again, that I respect your and others right to want a pilot in the first person view, but I just want to make it clear that we all need to be patient for these sorts of things. Game design is extremely difficult, anyone will tell you. To do it to the highest standard will of course take time, even if it seems "easy" to you. SoW has taken years to develop; I don't think it is because Oleg and Co. are just playing Tetris all day.

[AdMan]

Is I said in the post it is the sam ballpark for ME.

I don't really understand this mentality of saying that what is important to person x is not REALLY important because it's not important for ME.

:lol:just giving you a hard time:razz:

[Oleg Maddox]

What the others said....

Since we're on the Italian birds, time ago I sent you and Alex (if I remember correctly) all the informations that I could gather (thx also to Pag and Ferdinando d'Amico) on the camouflage of the Br 20, colour picts included.
The 3D model is really stunning, but I'm sorry to say that the camouflage is still wrong, if not in the colour tones (the RLMs look to be those that we suggested), at least in the pattern of the mottling.

I pointed out the camo problem but I received no answer.
You still have my email, I guess. Feel free to contact me in case you need more details and help.

Unfortunatelly I lost all emails: you and Ferdinando d'Amico....
I can send you the textures of Fiats and you'll try to explain or correct the colors with the help of Italian community. The we will put them in a sim. Just you should understand that in engine colors(tints) are in constant changes due to fact of real physics for the day-night light colors. It dpends even if you fly in clouds or out of them.
So really just simple correction probably would be hard... :)

My enail is still the same.

[Abraxa]

Hi Oleg, the colours look fine to me. The mottling should be different.
I'll send you an email later today.

[Insuber]

I passed on your Q. to some of the best experts in Italy ...

As far as I know, the directive of the Regia Aeronautica to paint the fighters nose in yellow was effective - in all war theaters - from early spring to october 1941, therefore it was probably used in the last period by the Italian BoB expeditionary airforce (CAI), which ceased operations on April 15th 1941.

I don't know if it was used before spring 1941 by any CAI groups, but the super-experten will soon pop in .. :-)


Bye,
Insuber

I've been corrected by a (real) expert, 150GCT_Pag: the noses of CR.42s and G.50s of CAI were painted in yellow shortly after their arrival in October '40, with German paints, to facilitate their identification and for sake of uniformity with the German ally.

So yellow noses were adopted starting from October 1940, independently from the directive of Regia Aeronautica of June 22nd 1941 (thanks to 150GCT_Pag for the clarification).

Regards,
Insuber

[Oleg Maddox]

I've been corrected by a (real) expert, 150GCT_Pag: the noses of CR.42s and G.50s of CAI were painted in yellow shortly after their arrival in October '40, with German paints, to facilitate their identification and for sake of uniformity with the German ally.

So yellow noses were adopted starting from October 1940, independently from the directive of Regia Aeronautica of June 22nd 1941 (thanks to 150GCT_Pag for the clarification).

Regards,
Insuber

Ok, we will have both with and without yellow nose in a sim. :)

[ECV56_Lancelot]

It´s unbelievable the things you learn in this hobby!! :D

[airmalik]

1) Clickable cockpit

First check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLkfx6QxLfg
I have always liked the idea of a clickable cockpit and after seeing the video I started drooling of my own powerglove.


Great video! I wasn't a fan of clickable cockpits because I thought it'd be too cumbersome to click with a mouse but with something like this ... WOW! I'm convinced. I'd wait for a third party to implement clickable cockpits though.

[zaelu]

Good thing it doesn't have the pilot in it... god knows what else that guy would think to do with that devilish hand... :P


Teh future is bright though!

[Necrobaron]

Haha! I was thinking the same thing!

It??s unbelievable the things you learn in this hobby!! :D
________
MEDICAL MARIJUANA CARD (http://medicalmarijuanacard.info)

[LoyalNine]

This was a great update! The best yet. I really enjoyed the behind the scenes look at what you guys and gals are doing and where you do it. I have been gaming since the TRS-80 what a hot piece of gear and I have never been so charged up about an upcoming release. Keep up the great work and thanks for keeping us in the loop.

[zakkandrachoff]

Hope Oleg gives us on Christmas a very nice gift.


A combat scene in big resolution screenshots … will be very nicy;)