Friday 2009-12-04 Screenshots Update discussion thread

[Oleg Maddox]

post here when update is done

[PeterPanPan]

Thanks for the update Oleg. Love the 'broken backs' of the ships. Will each part roll/list separately? Will damaged ships spill their cargo or leave oil slicks?

Cheers

PPanPan

[Oleg Maddox]

Thanks for the update Oleg. Love the 'broken backs' of the ships. Will each part roll/list separately? Will damaged ships spill their cargo or leave oil slicks?

Cheers

PPanPan

1. Not each, but many.
2. Can't say now. Engine can do, but need a time first. So what will be in final - we will see.

[PeterPanPan]

Thanks Oleg. Please can you empty your PMs? I would like to send you a message.

Cheers

PPanPan

[=KAG=Bersrk]

THX for news Oleg!

Question about ships:

Will it be possible heavy and strong, but unfatal explosions on ships?

For example:

Bf110 is strafing AAA of Destroyer, and ammo dump on the deck exploding because of hits. Bf110 took damage by spliters and crash, but ship is damaged but still alive.

(RK-Holder, Bf110 ace Hptm. Wilhelm Makrocki's last mission, solo low-level attack on ship Sywern in Greece)

[Oleg Maddox]

Thanks Oleg. Please can you empty your PMs? I would like to send you a message.

Cheers

PPanPan

done

[Oleg Maddox]

THX for news Oleg!

Question about ships:

Will it be possible heavy and strong, but unfatal explosions on ships?

For example:

Bf110 is strafing AAA of Destroyer, and ammo dump on the deck exploding because of hits. Bf110 took damage by spliters and crash, but ship is damaged but still alive.

Yes, possible in some ways

[Jg2001_Rasputin]

Hm... I think the Luftwaffe Pilot uniform is a little bit too bright

http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/04122009_12.jpg

Shouldnt it be more like this:
http://www.replicaters.com/ww2%20German%20Luftwaffe%20uniforms/LWOffField5.jpg

or am I wrong?

[Oleg Maddox]

Hm... I think the Luftwaffe Pilot uniform is a little bit too bright

http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/04122009_12.jpg

Shouldnt it be more like this:
http://www.replicaters.com/ww2%20German%20Luftwaffe%20uniforms/LWOffField5.jpg

or am I wrong?

In engine it will looks OK.

[=KAG=Bersrk]

THX Oleg.

[BadAim]

That was worth waiting for! Now I can go to work. I need to make lots of money and build up my savings so I can take a month or two off when SOW comes out. :))

[GF_Mastiff]

WOW I can't wait to spend hours in that Hurricane cockpit... Lovely job love the details on the light bulb in the lens setting...

[Robert]

I'm very impressed with the basic DX9 renders. I wasn't expecting them to look that good. As a matter of fact the shot from within the Spitfire's cockpit is now my desktop. :D Nice work, Oleg and crew.

Thanks for the update.

[=KAG=Bersrk]

Oleg - another little question:

Will there be more that 1 kind of pilot cloth? For example 1 for hot summer (also Trop version will be funny), 1 for cold winter (and for high alt flights), one for spring/autumn...

To let user shoose a model (not just a skin texture) of his pilot.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

It's incredibly satisfying to see them break up in lots of different ways.

Yeah!! That´s what i like to see. Sinking ships its always been for me the most satisfying ground attack expierence. And with more complex damage model, it will be a blast!

Great update, beautiful Hurricane, even if i never liked that turttle! :grin:
About the picture of the uniform jacket and the render, maybe i´m half blind but i see a very good resemblance, and i don´t find it "too bright".

Now, such detailed and gorgeus ships, make almost a crime not see inthere sailors, and maybe a women on a 40´s swimsuit taking a sunbath. ;)

Question:
If put a ships with vehicles and/or tanks on the deck, will this vehicles be able to fall on to the water because of a bomb hit, or be destroyed while the ships is still functional?

Thanks!

[PeterPanPan]

The Mk I Spit, no X4321, shown in Oleg's screenshot was flown by the Battle of Britain ace P/O Crelin Arthur Walford Bodie, in RAF No. 66 Squadron.

"Operating from Kenley on 5 September 1940, Bodie was engaged in combat with Bf 109Es. Bodie's aircraft was severely damaged and was forced to belly-land. He succeeded in putting down X4321 to a well-executed belly landing in the vicinity of Barnhurst Lane, Hawkinge. The pilot escaped injury."

More info on this aircraft and P/O Bodie at spitfiresite.com (http://www.spitfiresite.com/reference/camouflage-markings/2008/04/x4321-spitfire-i.htm)

PPanPan

[MD_Wild_Weasel]

thankyou for the updates Oleg and Team! I love the spitfire cockpit shot veiwing the ship!( but it looks like your gunna crash into the ships masts! HAHAHA) BRAVO! Fantastic work.

[zakkandrachoff]

WOW I can't wait to spend hours in that Hurricane cockpit... Lovely job love the details on the light bulb in the lens setting...

I think that is a Spit cockpit, not a Hurricane

http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/shot_20091204_161805.jpg

Oleg never public a Hurricane I or Bf 110 C cockpit yet.

Oleg , very nice upload anyway:cool:, nice Hurri external views. I cant wait to see a plane shotting... : will be like Il-2 whit starwars lazer shots or more realistic like little lines of smoke in small machine guns and medium lines smokke in 20mm cannons whit a little bit of fire?

[luthier]

That's correct, it is a Spitfire cockpit, and I did crash into the rigging right after taking the shot.

I must have destroyed at least a dozen perfectly good airplanes trying to take a good screenshot of that ship. Should have done in Top Gun style.

[PeterPanPan]

Well, you would have crashed pretty soon anyway. Look at your fuel gauges!!

PPanPan

[genbrien]

In Il2, we could pass in some objects like some trees or cable, but if I pass through electric lines, ship cables, and so on..... will it affect my plane ?

And btw....... the shot with the Spit's cockpit and the boat is truly...... I mean truly..... impressive:grin:

[bhunter2112]

Oleg it looks great. One of my favorite moments for IL2 was straffing convoys and seeing the soldiers run off to the sides. I hope to see some life on the ships, AA fire, men scurrying about. Maybe lifeboats unloading a dying ship. Thank you for the great work!!

[mazex]

That's correct, it is a Spitfire cockpit, and I did crash into the rigging right after taking the shot.

I must have destroyed at least a dozen perfectly good airplanes trying to take a good screenshot of that ship. Should have done in Top Gun style.

So the collision detection is working then - good to hear ;)

[genbrien]

So the collision detection is working then - good to hear ;)
maybe it's just the ship's post.....

[drafting]

In Il2, we could pass in some objects like some trees And btw....... the shot with the Spit's cockpit and the boat is truly...... I mean truly..... impressive:grin:

That seriously can't be understated... It looks really, really good!

[JVM]

Hello Oleg!

I guess it is a WIP also , but I believe(hope) the fuel/gasoline related flames and smokes would(will) have a denser, oily aspect?
Except on the very edges, they should show next to no transparency (same thing for the clouds, ar least from afar)...

Wonderful update in any case, thanks!

JV

[robtek]

thats oxygen gauges!

[13th Hsqn Protos]

S~! Oleg

Hurricane tail boom is really needing a rework. Those Hurricane shots were definitely wip, so I would like to see shots further along before more comment.

Pilots starting to approach final. Keep up good work there. A 10-20% increase in pixel count wouldn't hurt for a more HD quality - but not critical.


Would like to know more about latest engine developments. What can you share?

[whatnot]

That seriously can't be understated... It looks really, really good!

Indeed, spectacular detail!

[Asheshouse]

Brilliant images. I love the Hurricane.
Great to see such detailed ship models too.
Any chance of a CAM ship for the Hurricane later in the SoW series?

Will the AI capability of ships be increased, especially for warships, so that they take avoiding action when under attack?

Be nice also to have capability for creating ship formations in SoW's version of FMB.

[JtD]

These ships are nice! I also like how the water extinguishes the fire.

[OSSI]

Why this Spitfire dont burning?:-P

[Foo'bar]

That's correct, it is a Spitfire cockpit, and I did crash into the rigging right after taking the shot.

I must have destroyed at least a dozen perfectly good airplanes trying to take a good screenshot of that ship. Should have done in Top Gun style.

No wonder SoW is taking that long when Ilya is crashing all the precious planes ;)

[Lucas_From_Hell]

No wonder SoW is taking that long when Ilya is crashing all the precious planes ;)

Shame on you, Ilya :-P!

As you said, Top Gun style would probably be better. "Sorry Oleg, but it's time to buzz the tower" :cool:

Excellent screenshots, nice Hurri, amazingly modeled ships, Spitfire cockpit keeps teasing me... Ah, nothing unusual :-P

[daHeld]

Well, you would have crashed pretty soon anyway. Look at your fuel gauges!!
PPanPan

As robtek already put it those are just the oxygen gauges.
The fuel gauge would be in the lower right corner of the instrument panel... :)

[PeterPanPan]

thats oxygen gauges!

Ah, I wondered where I was going wrong all this time. I thought the oxygen smelled a little funny!! LOL :oops:

[Zorin]

You do plan to use the specular map on the skins to represent the difference between metal and fabric, right?

[SlipBall]

That's correct, it is a Spitfire cockpit, and I did crash into the rigging right after taking the shot.

I must have destroyed at least a dozen perfectly good airplanes trying to take a good screenshot of that ship. Should have done in Top Gun style.



Low and slow will get ya every time:-P...nice update, thanks to the team!

[choctaw111]

Hello Oleg. Thank you for the update.
What are the advantages of DirectX over OpenGL?
I always thought that OpenGL was better.
At least it is in Il2.
Can you please explain?

[nearmiss]

excellent update.

I cannot imagine how the DX11 will look.

Thanks

[Viking]

Thank you Oleg and team for the update.

Is that a T2 tanker the Spit is flying over?
Regards
Viking

[mark@1C]

About the texture
The aircraft skin texture looks similar to the canopy's glass texture with the similar reflected light at the top of the plane in such a case.It can be found in many former screenshots,looks like the the plane's back has been over polished.I'm not sure if it is true in real situation,but it looks something improper at the first impression.
http://i45.tinypic.com/23iz8yf.jpg
and if possible,keep on developing diverse glass textures.They are now monotone(the canopy glass,the gun sight glass,etc.no distinction...),or shall I say it's effects are a bit lighter and need an increased performance(I'm not sure,maybe weathered effects too?),in brief,it doesn't suit the highly detailed/weathered cockpit well.(Maybe in a dynamic demonstration,it looks ok.)

[rakinroll]

Thank you Oleg.

[MD_Wild_Weasel]

That's correct, it is a Spitfire cockpit, and I did crash into the rigging right after taking the shot.

I must have destroyed at least a dozen perfectly good airplanes trying to take a good screenshot of that ship. Should have done in Top Gun style.

Top gun stlyle?:cool: Is that upside down while listening to some adrennaline pumping music? :grin: Of course in the current il2 you could of flew through the rigging spaces upside down. Shame on you for having so much wonderful detail .Hahahahaha. Thanks again for all your efforts! S~

[SlipBall]

In the first ship damage img it looks like the sea water is on fire. This may not be the case, but it looks good, and was common. Will there be any oil slick or floating debris modeled?

[Spinnetti]

PPPPPllllleeeeeeeassssee o please though, lets not have "ghost planes".... will we be able to see our arms and legs when flying?

Also, I'm greatly hoping all 4 of my processor cores will be put to use for this......

Thanks!

[Spinnetti]

Top gun stlyle?:cool: Is that upside down while listening to some adrennaline pumping music? :grin: Of course in the current il2 you could of flew through the rigging spaces upside down. Shame on you for having so much wonderful detail .Hahahahaha. Thanks again for all your efforts! S~




:)

[zapatista]

Hi Oleg,

that spitfire cockpit looks absolutely fantastic !

Question: will we be able to move the pilot head (meaning the view point of the player) in the cockpit forward/backward and then lock that position in place ? (still allowing rotation left/right and up/down, as well as lateral leaning to look beside the nose or fuselage of plane, but keeping the forward/backward head position locked)

my reason for asking is this: in the current il2 the default head position does not let you view the mirror while looking straight ahead, unless you set a wider field of view (which then functions as a zoom-out making all distant planes and ships look smaller)

somebody made a small addon prog for il2-1946 which fixes this, it allows you to move the head position of the pilot to be moved slightly back, letting you see the mirror (but the cockpit gauges then look slightly smaller because you are leaning back, which is fine), but it does not change the "field of view" (FoV) setting, so distant objects like planes and ships still look the correct sizes.(i can look up the url if you are not familiar with that little free addon program)

hope you understand what i mean :)

thanks for all the hard work

[MD_Wild_Weasel]

:)

@spinnetti . good one m8 :)

[Oddo]

realistic looking water smoke and ships is more like this IMHO:

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/3741/sh5visualimprovement8.jpghttp://img443.imageshack.us/img443/6499/sh5visualimprovement5.jpg

[AdMan]

PPPPPllllleeeeeeeassssee o please though, lets not have "ghost planes".... will we be able to see our arms and legs when flying?

Also, I'm greatly hoping all 4 of my processor cores will be put to use for this......

Thanks!

not this again:rolleyes:

NO, there will not be a pilot

and I believe 4 cores are working

[TheGrunch]

About the texture
The aircraft skin texture looks similar to the canopy's glass texture with the similar reflected light at the top of the plane in such a case.It can be found in many former screenshots,looks like the the plane's back has been over polished.I'm not sure if it is true in real situation,but it looks something improper at the first impression.
Those screenshots are in the editing tools, not in-game, so that impression may be unjustified, we'll just have to see.

[Insuber]

realistic looking water smoke and ships is more like this IMHO:

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/3741/sh5visualimprovement8.jpghttp://img443.imageshack.us/img443/6499/sh5visualimprovement5.jpg


Right, I realise that it is a WIP, but I do not like the BoB water we've seen so far, it looks "oil-ish"; this one looks VERY realistic, and the ship fires and smoke are amazing. Silent Hunter V I guess.

Ins

[Chivas]

Nice screenshots Insubar, but I prefer the darker, sharper, more foreboding English Channel waters in the update.

[mazex]

realistic looking water smoke and ships is more like this IMHO:

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/3741/sh5visualimprovement8.jpghttp://img443.imageshack.us/img443/6499/sh5visualimprovement5.jpg

That's insane. As an old Silent Hunter fan (jumped SH IV though - don't like warm water) I was going to answer that those images are concept art and not real screen shots.... But after checking up on the SH V forum I realized that these are ingame screen shots. Amazing...

Anyway, SH V is sub sim so water has to look good up close, as well as the subs and the ships. SoW is a flight sim so the planes and the air (:)) have to look good - and it does. The harbors and the aircraft in SH III looked like crap - and even though the seem to look better in SH V, the planes will never be close to SoW...

[nearmiss]

We all want great looking water, especially when we are down low.

I've seen alot of water rendered from different games and sims. My shipbard experience at sea, the water is rarely as smooth.

Sure the water is nice like this on clalm days inside bays and harbors, but at sea the waves and wave action is turbulent and aggitated.

The weather is a determining factor of course. Sure would be a plus if weather dictated wave action and sea visuals.

Anyway, I can go with the water however it's presented... since I'm not in the water or that near the surface most of the time. If I were looking out a port hole I'd think different.

[SlipBall]

We all want great looking water, especially when we are down low.

I've seen alot of water rendered from different games and sims. My shipbard experience at sea, the water is rarely as smooth.

Sure the water is nice like this on clalm days inside bays and harbors, but at sea the waves and wave action is turbulent and aggitated.

The weather is a determining factor of course. Sure would be a plus if weather dictated wave action and sea visuals.

Anyway, I can go with the water however it's presented... since I'm not in the water or that near the surface most of the time. If I were looking out a port hole I'd think different.




Oleg has stated that the sea conditions are tied to the weather engine in game. There are a couple of other shots released where you can see white caps on the water. So maybe we, who spend much time at sea might even approve of them.:)

[nearmiss]

Looking back through some older updates I found the half transparent instruments that can be applied in HUD views. I've asked many times, but why not just have half transparent cockpits and do away with HUD Views. Also, have you ever thought to do half transparent frame rails for cockpit views with full view cockpit panels. This way visuals would be improved significantly, but pilot still could not see through the aircraft. Kind of an offset for lack of peripheral vision. I've always felt like I was in box in many cockpit views. The ability to for users to choose to do half transparent cockpit for HUD views or half transparent cockpit frame rails would do it. Customizable indicators for no cockpit view. They are half transparent, resizable, and possible to put at any place of the screen. With the release of BoB there will be 3 types of standard indicator sets for no cockpit view – customizable indicators for German, British and Italian side. http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/grab0001.jpg http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/grab0002.jpg http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/grab0004.jpg

[CRO_Adriatic]

Thx for update, kokpit and pilots looks great!

[Skoshi Tiger]

About the texture
The aircraft skin texture looks similar to the canopy's glass texture with the similar reflected light at the top of the plane in such a case.It can be found in many former screenshots,looks like the the plane's back has been over polished.I'm not sure if it is true in real situation,but it looks something improper at the first impression.
http://i45.tinypic.com/23iz8yf.jpg
and if possible,keep on developing diverse glass textures.They are now monotone(the canopy glass,the gun sight glass,etc.no distinction...),or shall I say it's effects are a bit lighter and need an increased performance(I'm not sure,maybe weathered effects too?),in brief,it doesn't suit the highly detailed/weathered cockpit well.(Maybe in a dynamic demonstration,it looks ok.)

Behind the cockpit opening there is an aluminium decking that extends a short way before the cloth starts. This may explain the different texture.

Cheers

[HFC_Dolphin]

Oddo made a bad thing bringing these fantastic SH screenshots here.
Now we can't want anything less :-P

Thanks fot the update Oleg!

[Bearcat]

Great update O... Fridays haven't been this good around here for a while.. ;)

This is how the sim looks in DX9 right now, the simplest of all possible renders. The final version will look better with DX9, but DX11 will offer the best visuals.


http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/sho...204_161805.jpg


Hmmm so it sounds lijke you are saying that this is the "low" setting view... :)
Will there be a DX-10 render also or will it skip that altogether.. I think this loos great.. especially since no matter how it looks we know it is beta... not even near final..

[nearmiss]

DX11 Nvidia water demo

Double click on video to see larger render

xfqA_nJn1sM

Rm7cZN0IcrY

[zakkandrachoff]

nice A10, sukhoy trimotor & F15 whit wings of F14 prototipe !
the Harrier... i dont know, dont like...
and that TU 95 experimental, is very hold idea for this time

but amazing animation:cool:. The Big missile will be shot down whit a Lazer in a B747 recicled in a very close future, misss that ;)

[zakkandrachoff]

I think that is a Spit cockpit, not a Hurricane

http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/shot_20091204_161805.jpg

Oleg never public a Hurricane I or Bf 110 C cockpit yet.

Oleg , very nice upload anyway:cool:, nice Hurri external views. I cant wait to see a plane shotting... : will be like Il-2 whit starwars lazer shots or more realistic like little lines of smoke in small machine guns and medium lines smokke in 20mm cannons whit a little bit of fire?

okey , cockpit of Hurricane yes, i miss that, sry oleg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/SShot005.jpg

buth the video of Bf 110 dont convince me, need a screenshot;)

[MD_Wild_Weasel]

i was just thinking to myself.. hmmm something is mising:rolleyes:... oh yeah the yoke!:grin:LMAO

[Skoshi Tiger]

DX11 Nvidia water demo

Rm7cZN0IcrY

I love the video clip, but to me it looks like a pre-rendered clip and not taken from the game engine in game??? I could be wrong? I've never seen storm birds playing.

cheers

[Insuber]

Looking back through some older updates I found the half transparent instruments that can be applied in HUD views. I've asked many times, but why not just have half transparent cockpits and do away with HUD Views. Also, have you ever thought to do half transparent frame rails for cockpit views with full view cockpit panels. This way visuals would be improved significantly, but pilot still could not see through the aircraft. Kind of an offset for lack of peripheral vision. I've always felt like I was in box in many cockpit views. The ability to for users to choose to do half transparent cockpit for HUD views or half transparent cockpit frame rails would do it. Customizable indicators for no cockpit view. They are half transparent, resizable, and possible to put at any place of the screen. With the release of BoB there will be 3 types of standard indicator sets for no cockpit view – customizable indicators for German, British and Italian side. http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/grab0001.jpg http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/grab0002.jpg http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/grab0004.jpg

I like the semi transparent instruments, they would be great ! Good point nearmiss.

Insuber

[MD_Titus]

Well, you would have crashed pretty soon anyway. Look at your fuel gauges!!

PPanPan

not fuel gauges, oxygen

edit - read all of thread before replying....

cracking update oleg, looking fantastic.

[MD_Wild_Weasel]

I like the semi transparent instruments, they would be great ! Good point nearmiss.

Insuber

personaly i dont like any of the "wonder woman cockpits". I would say if you want these views then switch to the ps3 and play the arcade version of il2"birds of prey" (is that what its called?)

[Reisman]

I love the video clip, but to me it looks like a pre-rendered clip and not taken from the game engine in game??? I could be wrong? I've never seen storm birds playing.

cheers

Yeah it's pre-rendered, though it does look awesome...

[Oleg Maddox]

S~! Oleg

Hurricane tail boom is really needing a rework. .



Everything threre is correct in tail boom - manufacture blueprints in use for internal construction, that define everything. Simply from this angle of view like on the first shot it looks more wide. Just small turn and it looks by other way (next shot)

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Hurricane tail boom is really needing a rework...

What´s the "tail boom"? :confused:

Couldn´t find a satisfactory spanish translator for it.

[David603]

Everything threre is correct in tail boom - manufacture blueprints in use for internal construction, that define everything. Simply from this angle of view like on the first shot it looks more wide. Just small turn and it looks by other way (next shot)
The Hurricane model looks fantastic, and the Hurri has always been one of my favourite aircraft.

One question though, will there be versions of the Hurricane with the de Havilland propeller and the early two bladed prop as well as the Rotol version in the screenshots?

[Oleg Maddox]

personaly i dont like any of the "wonder woman cockpits". I would say if you want these views then switch to the ps3 and play the arcade version of il2"birds of prey" (is that what its called?)

We make hard core sim in terms of control and FM, however we need to invite also these, who never played sims and for them using just cockpit gauges without external views and simplified control would be very hard. Such settting are controlable from a server, so I don't see any problem that we have everything in one. Say almost everything neccessary for the novices in fligth sims.

The difference to arcade game is that with our sim you may learn from arcade to realistic step by step, and these settings from arcade to realistic are not "arcadeish ultrarealistic settings" :)

[Oleg Maddox]

The Hurricane model looks fantastic, and the Hurri has always been one of my favourite aircraft.

One question though, will there be versions of the Hurricane with the de Havilland propeller and the early two bladed prop as well as the Rotol version in the screenshots?

We did these props. Will or not they in use we will see when the campaign engine will work properly.

[MD_Wild_Weasel]

Oleg, i have a question about hurricane. In il2 the huricane 2b seemed very undepowered compaired to the field mod hurry(especially over 5000m). Im not an expert in fm but surely these should have similar performance? If not are we to expect similar characteristics in bob in relation to the r.a.f hurricane? Sorry if this is a question asked before

[Insuber]

personaly i dont like any of the "wonder woman cockpits". I would say if you want these views then switch to the ps3 and play the arcade version of il2"birds of prey" (is that what its called?)

Thank you for your nice and constructive answer, we really needed open minded and tolerant people in this forum.

Have a nice day,
Insuber

[MD_Wild_Weasel]

Sorry my post wasnt meant to offend. To me , and if you read my post carefully it did say"personal opinion" that it seems such a waste of fantastic quality cockpits.

I think maybe a chill pill may be required. ;)

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Still, Weasel, the thing is: you'll still be able to fly without "Wonder Woman view".

People aren't really thinking of business here: the more options, the better (for the game and for sales). It was the same on that dicussion about pilot in-cockpit (I know it won't happen, but it can be used to demonstrate the ideology): if you can make two options to please two different groups, do it. Just because it doesn't please YOU it doesn't mean that the idea is stupid and useless. Someone will use it (otherwise they wouldn't be requesting and discussing the subject).

[jermin]

My questions for Oleg:

1. Will players with high graphics settings have advantage over the players with low graphics settings in recognizing the dots?

Just as many modern PC games, low graphics settings will give a player more visibility than the high graphics settings. Because low gaphics settings tend to remove many resouce-eating eye candies such as AA, AF, HDR, fog, extra details like grass and dynamic lighting ect. While it definitely reduces the burden for low-end PCs greatly, it also enhances the visiblity dramatically. It is unfair for those who have spent a long time on saving money for up-to-date hardwares in hope of the most immersive graphics but turned out getting worse visibility than out-of-date machines.

This is the very reason why many professional FPS players tend to use extremely low screen resolution and graphics settings. And visiblity is much more important for flight combat simulation in my humble opinion, especially in servers with icons disabled.

In IL2, one can achieve much better dot visibility by turning off AA, AF, setting screen resolution as low as 800x600, setting object lighting and landscape lighting to flat. Yes, under such settings, IL2 looks very ugly. But it makes distant dots incredibly easy to spot. When playing in no-icon servers, this is a great advantage.

So, my request is to at least make high graphics settings have the same (if not better) dot visibility as low graphics settings in BoB so that we won't regret spending hard-earned money on high-end PC hardwares .

2. Will BoB include a much more detailed encyclopedia for all the objects showing up in the game? For example: The actual service time, service area, service squadron for each aircraft variant. This will make building historical missions much more easy.

3. Will you include a virtual testing field with all kinds of necessary testing tools in BoB for FM testing and Weapon testing ect. and then we can export them out to a program like il2compare? It would be extremely useful for us hard-core simmers.

[MD_Wild_Weasel]

Woah , easy tigers . I think that people are blowing my post out of proportion here. The term "wonder woman cockpit" is well known across the community . Maybe the term"fischer price cockpit" may of offended less. I for one know that il2 caters for many people at many levels. I do not believe it should be abolished and as Oleg said it should b used as a stepping stone to access the other settings of the sim. I have my opinions same as the next man. But i do not deserve flaming for an opinion i have been asked to give.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Woah , easy tigers . I think that people are blowing my post out of proportion here. The term "wonder woman cockpit" is well known across the community . Maybe the term"fischer price cockpit" may of offended less. I for one know that il2 caters for many people at many levels. I do not believe it should be abolished and as Oleg said it should b used as a stepping stone to access the other settings of the sim. I have my opinions same as the next man. But i do not deserve flaming for an opinion i have been asked to give.


Don´t worry Weasel, with the exception of Insuber post, i think nobody was flaming you.
I don´t like wonder woman cockpits either, but as Lucas... wrote, if its an option to use it, it can´t hurt, and maybe its not something that take lot of resources and time to implement, like it is with the virtual pilot in cockpits. :)

[hiro]

Whoa, A hurricane!!


Yeah!! Jeyeah!


Thanks for the updates, they are getting uber and Über !


I like whats coming along and the ships are well done. Even the sinking ship . . . people were waiting on the combat footage.

Given that the release will be better . . .


In regarding the cockpits, I like full cockpits better, in wonderwoman view I tend to crash while ground attack or landing, or take off, I need a frame of reference.

But I can dogfight much better in wonderwoman view . . . however Oleg wants the game to be playable by all:

Hardcore simmers and people just looking for something a tad more realistic than arcade . . .

I would like it if there was an option for semi transparent / translucent cockpits like other's have been asking.



In regarding cockpits . . . I like the way IL-2 is . . . Other pilots can see you but in cockpit view you can't see yourself.


Also people have been asking for first person bail outs as opposed to seeing it 3rd person. I would like to have both . . .


Pilots are coming along great.

ANd thanks for the Friday updates.

[Alien]

hiro, you gave me incredible question to ask, thanks!:
Will there be option in replays to jump to some else cockpit view, not only your plane's? Of course only for those planes with modeled cockpits!

[Insuber]

hiro, you gave me incredible question to ask, thanks!:
Will there be option in replays to jump to some else cockpit view, not only your plane's? Of course only for those planes with modeled cockpits!

Nice idea, that would be a great training tool to understand aces' techniques ... but what about privacy ? (kidding of course)

It could be a selectable option of the server "view from others' cockpits", why not ?

Nice one Alien!

Insuber

[Insuber]

Don´t worry Weasel, with the exception of Insuber post, i think nobody was flaming you.


http://www.smileys.it/images/smileys_it_358.gif http://www.smileys.it/images/smileys_it_1684.gif


:D

[ECV56_Lancelot]

http://www.smileys.it/images/smileys_it_358.gif http://www.smileys.it/images/smileys_it_1684.gif


:D

LOL!! :lol:

[13th Hsqn Protos]

Everything threre is correct in tail boom - manufacture blueprints in use for internal construction, that define everything. Simply from this angle of view like on the first shot it looks more wide. Just small turn and it looks by other way (next shot)


Shape is pretty good. I was talking about the texture. You need a bit more detail for the surface and ridges here.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

Will players with high graphics settings have advantage over the players with low graphics settings in recognizing the dots?

Just as many modern PC games, low graphics settings will give a player more visibility than the high graphics settings. Because low gaphics settings tend to remove many resouce-eating eye candies such as AA, AF, HDR, fog, extra details like grass and dynamic lighting ect. While it definitely reduces the burden for low-end PCs greatly, it also enhances the visiblity dramatically. It is unfair for those who have spent a long time on saving money for up-to-date hardwares in hope of the most immersive graphics but turned out getting worse visibility than out-of-date machines.

This is the very reason why many professional FPS players tend to use extremely low screen resolution and graphics settings. And visiblity is much more important for flight combat simulation in my humble opinion, especially in servers with icons disabled.

In IL2, one can achieve much better dot visibility by turning off AA, AF, setting screen resolution as low as 800x600, setting object lighting and landscape lighting to flat. Yes, under such settings, IL2 looks very ugly. But it makes distant dots incredibly easy to spot. When playing in no-icon servers, this is a great advantage.

So, my request is to at least make high graphics settings have the same (if not better) dot visibility as low graphics settings in BoB so that we won't regret spending hard-earned money on high-end PC hardwares .

+ 1000

There have been so many people complaining about this for years and years. Myself at the forefront. The problem is that the focus is on allowing low hardware platform players to play. Regardless of the effect on fairness.

A very high percentage of online war pilots fly on low settings for the increased visibility for this very reason. It gives them an 'edge'

1c are not going to fix it no matter what you will read in these forums. Its more important to them to sell another copy to somebody on marginal hardware.

** Just do your best - 1c promises you a good 'combat flight' experience not 'fairness'

Life is not fair mate -

.
.

[Insuber]

Why would one chose voluntarily to have a crappy image ? To make some more kills ???? To get some more points ???? It's so silly ...
I personally prefer 1000x a good 'combat flight' experience and less kills in my online flights. I invest on H/W exactly for this.

Bye,
Insuber

+ 1000

There have been so many people complaining about this for years and years. Myself at the forefront. The problem is that the focus is on allowing low hardware platform players to play. Regardless of the effect on fairness.

A very high percentage of online war pilots fly on low settings for the increased visibility for this very reason. It gives them an 'edge'

1c are not going to fix it no matter what you will read in these forums. Its more important to them to sell another copy to somebody on marginal hardware.

** Just do your best - 1c promises you a good 'combat flight' experience not 'fairness'

Life is not fair mate -

.
.

[nearmiss]

Insuber

You aren't exactly wrong ... offline 1920x1200 Online 1024x768

Visbility is much better for finding and tracking enemy ferrets @ 1024x768

4 pixels is 4 pixels at any resolution, therefore make the pixels bigger with lower resolutions?

However, I think this option is available to the entire online community

It's not exactly an advantage for anyone as far as I can tell, regardless of hardware.

[=KAG=Bersrk]

Oleg, a little question (sorry for overwhelming):

Now in Il-2, only MG fire or bombs explosions can inflict damage to a/c or pilot on shute (also, FUEL Trucks and Ammo/FUEL RRvehicles).

Will it possible in SoW, when exploding of other objects could inflict damage? It will be great of players a/c could be damaged or even destroyed by splinters of exploded tank, or parts of bomber a/c wich is under attack...

[MD_Wild_Weasel]

Insuber

You aren't exactly wrong ... offline 1920x1200 Online 1024x768

Visbility is much better for finding and tracking enemy ferrets @ 1024x768

4 pixels is 4 pixels at any resolution, therefore make the pixels bigger with lower resolutions?

However, I think this option is available to the entire online community

It's not exactly an advantage for anyone as far as I can tell, regardless of hardware.

i must say here that that i am aware some people do use this method. But to be honest it dont give much if any advantage. Changing the conf.ini file imo has always been a better option. However seeing black dots in clouds over even greater distances has always been an issue and hopefully can be sorted in bob.

[Oleg Maddox]

Oleg, a little question (sorry for overwhelming):

Now in Il-2, only MG fire or bombs explosions can inflict damage to a/c or pilot on shute (also, FUEL Trucks and Ammo/FUEL RRvehicles).

Will it possible in SoW, when exploding of other objects could inflict damage? It will be great of players a/c could be damaged or even destroyed by splinters of exploded tank, or parts of bomber a/c wich is under attack...

Will.

[Oleg Maddox]

Shape is pretty good. I was talking about the texture. You need a bit more detail for the surface and ridges here.

There is exactly so many details like on real aircraft.
If you mean more grater relief of details like doing others, then it is overdone there, comparing to reality. Who will think there about aerodynamics?:):):) Sometime I see so great overdone relief of details in that terms that I begin to visualize in mind will that plane be able to reach the declared value of speed in reality? :)

[Oleg Maddox]

Insuber

You aren't exactly wrong ... offline 1920x1200 Online 1024x768

Visbility is much better for finding and tracking enemy ferrets @ 1024x768

4 pixels is 4 pixels at any resolution, therefore make the pixels bigger with lower resolutions?

However, I think this option is available to the entire online community

It's not exactly an advantage for anyone as far as I can tell, regardless of hardware.

There is minimal dots 2x2 pixels in Il-2. They are always the same minmal size doesn't matter which resolution using players as well as they disapearing also on one the same distance with any resolution.

[nearmiss]

There is minimal dots 2x2 pixels in Il-2. They are always the same minmal size doesn't matter which resolution using players as well as they disapearing also on one the same distance with any resolution.

I agree with the above, but I don't think we are saying same thing.

1920 x1200 pixels = 2,304,000 pixels on screen
1024x768 pixels = 786,432 pixels on screen

I agree they are always the same number of pixels and they should disappear at same distance any resolution.

I'm saying it is harder to see 2x2 pixels in an array of 2,304,000 pixels vs 786,432 pixels. I can see 2x2 pixels, if I am looking in the correct place. In a sea of 2,304,000 pixels it is more difficult to track 2x2 pixels, or find quickly as at lower resolution.

Also, in my situation I wear glasses. Maybe, someone with excellent vision can see at either resolution well.

[DJB]

There is minimal dots 2x2 pixels in Il-2. They are always the same minmal size doesn't matter which resolution using players as well as they disapearing also on one the same distance with any resolution.

Yes, but not...

For example, in a x" screen, while lower resolution is, bigger dots are, so in the same screen if the 4 dots (2x2) take 1mm wide at 1600x1200, whith a 800x600 resolution this same 4 dots (2x2) will take 2mm wide, being more easy to see...

The solution can be take a base resolution (800x600, for example) to find the best size for this first sight of plane (2x2 pixels like in IL2, for example), and them adapt this size to the resolution with pilot fly, so the phisically size of that first sight of plane will be the same no matter in wich screen resolution fly...

In my example, 2x2 pixels at 800x600 and 4x4 pixels at 1600x1200 have, in the same screen, exactly the same phisyc size. Is like if you take a photo at 2Mp or 10Mp with same zoom level, a particular detail will have bigger number of pixels in the 10Mp shot, but when you print the two shots in 10x15, this particular detail have the same phisically size in paper, no matter in wich resolution where taken...

Sorry for my bad english and thank you very much for the screenshots updates, your answers and for be really accesible for us...

I`m in fire for take in my hands the Storm Of War: Battle Of Brittain...:grin:

[Dano]

Yes, but not...

For example, in a x" screen, while lower resolution is, bigger dots are, so in the same screen if the 4 dots (2x2) take 1mm wide at 1600x1200, whith a 800x600 resolution this same 4 dots (2x2) will take 2mm wide, being more easy to see...

The solution can be take a base resolution (800x600, for example) to find the best size for this first sight of plane (2x2 pixels like in IL2, for example), and them adapt this size to the resolution with pilot fly, so the phisically size of that first sight of plane will be the same no matter in wich screen resolution fly...

In my example, 2x2 pixels at 800x600 and 4x4 pixels at 1600x1200 have, in the same screen, exactly the same phisyc size. Is like if you take a photo at 2Mp or 10Mp with same zoom level, a particular detail will have bigger number of pixels in the 10Mp shot, but when you print the two shots in 10x15, this particular detail have the same phisically size in paper, no matter in wich resolution where taken...

Sorry for my bad english and thank you very much for the screenshots updates, your answers and for be really accesible for us...

I`m in fire for take in my hands the Storm Of War: Battle Of Brittain...:grin:

Would be a reasonable solution but not complete as it would not be able to differentiate between the physical size of a display, my 22inch screen is 1680x1050, others are 1920x1080.

But it is something that needs to be looked at for certain.

[DJB]

Would be a reasonable solution but not complete as it would not be able to differentiate between the physical size of a display, my 22inch screen is 1680x1050, others are 1920x1080.

But it is something that needs to be looked at for certain.

Well, i can't see the problem... Let's take your 22inch 1680x1050 display (like mine:grin:) and other with 22inch but 1920x1080 (16/9) or 1920x1200 (16/10).

Taking only wide values to simplify, if the base resolution where the minimum screen resolution of windows (640 wide, i think), we have a constant: Minimum wide screen resolution/minimum wide size of plane = 640/2 = 320...

So we have this values:

1680/320 = 5.25 pixels (if the engine can't work with fractions, can be rounded)

1920/320 = 6 pixels

This is a very simple ecuation, can be more complex without loss of resources, because must be done only once before launch flight to calculate the "constant of ampliation" to fit actual screen resolution.

Even more, can have a table with all possible combinations and simple apply appropiate value...

Greetings ;).

[Alien]

Going off pixel topic, I would like ask, if droptanks will explode on ground when dropped while they are full as in real life?

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Going off pixel topic, I would like ask, if droptanks will explode on ground when dropped while they are full as in real life?

Would be interesting to see this modeled fully - including possibility of it not exploding. Will be nice to use as napalm :evil:

[nearmiss]

Sometimes drop tanks would explode, probability should be considered for explode/not-explode.

Exploding fuel tanks and napalm tanks are entirely different.

The delivery system may look the same, but definitely not the same.

Napalm is gel and worst kind of hatred for mankind.

Fuel is nasty, but nothing like napalm.

Napalm should only be with napalm loadout, historically correct only.

[Foo'bar]

Drop tanks explode? Ah...

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Would be interesting to see this modeled fully - including possibility of it not exploding. Will be nice to use as napalm :evil:

I don't think that a fully loaded droptank would explode when it hits the ground. Assuming the droptank brakes because of the impact, you would have fuel scattered all over the place, but it wouldn't explode. Fuel in order to explode needs to be in the estequiometric proportion with oxygen.
In any case, if there is something the ignite the fuel, you could probably get a fire for quite some time until all the fuel is consumed, but not an explosion.
A half or less loaded fuel tank would be diferent, since in that case you do have a good mix of fuel and oxygen in gaseous state inside the tank itself, and that can cause and explosion.
So it is for what i know and remember, but i could be wrong.

[Skarphol]

I would be surpriced if a droptank eksploded on impact. There will allways be an ignitable amount of fuelvapour inside, but would impact onto ground really create the nessesary sparks to ignite it? And wasn't most droptanks made out of compressed paper? Or was that just the american ones, thus not relevant in BoB?

I've never read about fires started from falling droptanks. On the other hand, you seldom read about injuries to people on the ground from bullets fired between planes neither, even though there must have been falling down quite a lot of lead over southern Brittain during the BoB.

Skarphol

[furbs]

???...are people really asking for exploding drop tanks? ...good grief :rolleyes:

[Dano]

Well, i can't see the problem... Let's take your 22inch 1680x1050 display (like mine:grin:) and other with 22inch but 1920x1080 (16/9) or 1920x1200 (16/10).

Taking only wide values to simplify, if the base resolution where the minimum screen resolution of windows (640 wide, i think), we have a constant: Minimum wide screen resolution/minimum wide size of plane = 640/2 = 320...

So we have this values:

1680/320 = 5.25 pixels (if the engine can't work with fractions, can be rounded)

1920/320 = 6 pixels

This is a very simple ecuation, can be more complex without loss of resources, because must be done only once before launch flight to calculate the "constant of ampliation" to fit actual screen resolution.

Even more, can have a table with all possible combinations and simple apply appropiate value...

Greetings ;).

I'm aware of the math, my point is that there is no way that I am aware of for the sim to know which you have and therefore it would have to be a user selection at which point you'd be back to square one.

[mind_crash]

Hi All,

Thought Id finally post instead of just watching...I am very confused as to where the screen shots you are all discussing actually are? where do I see the updates for SOW?

[mind_crash]

Hi All,

Thought Id finally post instead of just watching...I am very confused as to where the screen shots you are all discussing actually are? where do I see the updates for SOW?

Im just being a n00b......its sticky'd and I just didnt look hard enough :rolleyes:

[ECV56_Lancelot]

???...are people really asking for exploding drop tanks? ...good grief :rolleyes:


Why so surprise? Everybody here see movies, and in movies drop tanks explodes, so it must be true and want to see the same thing on this sim, since its "realistic" ;)

[Ernst]

Would be interesting to see this modeled fully - including possibility of it not exploding. Will be nice to use as napalm :evil:

Good ideia. I would like to use it as napalm too...:twisted: Napalm rulez! Just joking!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68kdcVAliAA

[Insuber]

Hi All,

Thought Id finally post instead of just watching...I am very confused as to where the screen shots you are all discussing actually are? where do I see the updates for SOW?

Look inside the sticky post "Oleg Maddox news".

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2040


Regards,
Insuber

[Necrobaron]

Are we talking about the drop tank literally exploding in a fire ball or just breaking apart on contact ("exploding" in a sense) and spraying fuel everywhere, no fire ball?
________
SHIP SALE (http://ship-sale.com/)

[HB252]

Hi oleg and teamwork guys!!

Again this screen shoots are awesome images. The ships detail level from
spit are amazing. Of course, again, great work.

Only a request: the next update could put a plane seen from other plane (like a 110 seen from spit or hurri cockpits, or spit or hurri seen from 109cockpit at various distances)?

About AMBULANCES and FIRE TRUCK: i read all the question and answers but i dont find it. Do you have provide put in the sim? (when press ground control keys could you, perhaps, must order send it toward the runway, in case of fire or when the pilot is hurt).

Thx

[Eldur]

We all want great looking water, especially when we are down low.

I just hope we'll not get nVidia-only features again. And I don't want ATi-only features, too ;).

But it looks really great. Can't wait for some 110 cockpit shots.

[Alien]

When I was posting the question, I meant when I drop tank into fire or hot area.

[Eldur]

People aren't really thinking of business here: the more options, the better (for the game and for sales). It was the same on that dicussion about pilot in-cockpit (I know it won't happen, but it can be used to demonstrate the ideology): if you can make two options to please two different groups, do it. Just because it doesn't please YOU it doesn't mean that the idea is stupid and useless. Someone will use it (otherwise they wouldn't be requesting and discussing the subject).

Right. I might also suggest something regarding the "wonder woman view". It would be great if there would be split options. One option that allows the use of simple gauges and another that allows rotating through normal cockpit, half transparent cockpit, no cockpit and "guncam view". The simple gauges could show lots of information. It should be possible to see all information that you normally could read in the cockpit gauges.
I think Rise of Flight has pretty good simple gauges.

http://home.arcor.de/eldur/bilder/rof-gauges.jpg

I love the red limit thing in the RPM gauge. Getting in there can seize the engine. The cool thing about it: The limit changes depending on the engine temperature. Actually you can see what the max RPM is for a cold engine for example. You actually have to warm it up. The compass also shows the wind direction, if there's wind. The small gauge in the upper row center just shows the radiator flap position, throttle and mixture.

Nice idea, that would be a great training tool to understand aces' techniques ... but what about privacy ? (kidding of course)

It could be a selectable option of the server "view from others' cockpits", why not ?

Something like Ctrl+F2, just with F1 :D
Asked for that ages ago. Would be great.

There is minimal dots 2x2 pixels in Il-2. They are always the same minmal size doesn't matter which resolution using players as well as they disapearing also on one the same distance with any resolution.

That makes the problem. Higher resolution = the pixels are smaller and therefore harder to see. I kept flying at 1024x768 for that reason, online and offline. Until Vista 64 forced me to use my desktop resolution as there's absolutely no fix for the good old 60Hz bug in x64. At least for Il-2 (=OpenGL it just won't work, other DX games are fine). And I have a hard time spotting things now with just 1280x960. 1600x1200 makes me virtually blind.
And I think the dots are just 1x2 pixels (mostly one dark and one bright next to each other). Was a 2x2 black dot back in the old Il-2 though.

Drop tanks explode? Ah...

Normally they shouldn't. But under certain circumstances yes. When I drop a half-full tank and some bombs at the same time (and the don't get separated too much on their way down), the bomb explosion should make the fuel burn/explode, increasing the power of destruction. The same goes for shooting incendiaries or HE shells into the tank when it's still on the plane.

[AdMan]

It's a much more fulfilling experience to learn to read gauges and pilot an airplane based on the viewpoint a pilot actually has, external and no-cockpit views is already noob enough. The idea to have certain levels of realism and training to advance the skill level of less experienced pilots is the right way to go. Make it too many arcade options then you just make it too easy for those who simply don't want to learn and spend too much time catering to the arcade crowd rather than focusing on actual simulation.

[Eldur]

It's a much more fulfilling experience to learn to read gauges and pilot an airplane based on the viewpoint a pilot actually has, external and no-cockpit views is already noob enough. The idea to have certain levels of realism and training to advance the skill level of less experienced pilots is the right way to go. Make it too many arcade options then you just make it too easy for those who simply don't want to learn and spend too much time catering to the arcade crowd rather than focusing on actual simulation.

Right, therefore it's an option that can be disabled. I might add that performance tests in Il-2 have been done with arcade cockpit, just because it gives TAS values. I would really love not just to learn the gauges, but also all the buttons. Try some radio usage in DCS Black Shark and you'll know what I mean :D. I still use the Win+Home to start everything, just because it's quite hard to learn the startup procedure. But it will be an achievement when I finally can do it by heart. WW2 planes don't have all these avionics, but still it's not just about pressing I and then pushing the throttle forward to take off. I want to do everything a real pilot had to do in the cockpit.

[jermin]

I agree with the above, but I don't think we are saying same thing.

1920 x1200 pixels = 2,304,000 pixels on screen
1024x768 pixels = 786,432 pixels on screen

I agree they are always the same number of pixels and they should disappear at same distance any resolution.

I'm saying it is harder to see 2x2 pixels in an array of 2,304,000 pixels vs 786,432 pixels. I can see 2x2 pixels, if I am looking in the correct place. In a sea of 2,304,000 pixels it is more difficult to track 2x2 pixels, or find quickly as at lower resolution.

Also, in my situation I wear glasses. Maybe, someone with excellent vision can see at either resolution well.

Yup, Hopefully oleg will address this probelm in BoB.

[ZaltysZ]

Pixel count alone can't be measurement of how hard it would be to see 2x2 dot. Display dot pitch must be taken into account too to be fair. High resolution large screen isn't the same as high resolution small screen - it is way harder to notice dots on the later, due to smaller pixels, despite the same pixel count.

[MD_Wild_Weasel]

I think you'll find gentlemen that regarding arcade settings usually not usually used for training ,but more for fun. For example with the Wonder woman cockpit high deflection shots are no longer a guessing game and evasion from attack aircraft is unlikely. There action is quicker. On the flip side full real is tottally the opposite. BUT more rewarding. Basically it depends on the pilot. I do not believe its a training tool of any kind. Especially as il2 is not just about having good gunnery. As far as seeing how other pilots go about getting kills with an extra veiw. Learn yourself. Most good pilots are the ones able to pick up a book and read basic tactics. There are plenty out there. There should be no short cuts in il2 . Thats what made it such a great game, the fact that it takes dedication to even come close to mastering.

[Insuber]

I believe that the greatness and popularity of Il2 is not due to the difficulty of the FR settings, but to the "scalability" of the difficulty degree, allowing either beginners, or people who cannot dedicate more thant a couple of hours per week, to have a lot of fun with no-cockpit view and simplified handling.

Then, after one's retirement, there will be enough time to learn and enjoy FR and la ot of other stuff.

Bye,
Insuber

[airmalik]

um... where's my Friday fix? :grin:

[philip.ed]

um... where's my Friday fix? :grin:

:-P Hahah beat me to it :D

[Mr.Fox]

:-P Hahah beat me to it :D

Ditto:shock:

[Eldur]

We need our drugs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[Insuber]

Luthier what are you doing ? Couldn't you post some screenies for us ?? :)

[jermin]

I believe that the greatness and popularity of Il2 is not due to the difficulty of the FR settings, but to the "scalability" of the difficulty degree, allowing either beginners, or people who cannot dedicate more thant a couple of hours per week, to have a lot of fun with no-cockpit view and simplified handling.

Then, after one's retirement, there will be enough time to learn and enjoy FR and la ot of other stuff.

Bye,
Insuber

But it seems that nowadays most of the players playing on Hyperlobby are beginners. Some begginers tend to play in the arcade server forever just because they cannot live without wonder woman view or external view. And I'm seeing many players playing in arcade servers at least 4 hours per day!

[nearmiss]

I haven't been online for quite awhile.

What you are saying reminds me of the MSFT ZONE maturity process.

When it got to where all the neophytes and kiddies start popping on for hours at a time it turned into a joke. The zone didn't survive long after that.

Arcade play is definitely an indicator of a younger Xbox type players.

[Ernst]

But it seems that nowadays most of the players playing on Hyperlobby are beginners. Some begginers tend to play in the arcade server forever just because they cannot live without wonder woman view or external view. And I'm seeing many players playing in arcade servers at least 4 hours per day!

Play in arcade servers has 3 utilities: Training dogfight manouvering, gunnery to keep your habilities well fit for critical situations in aw, adw and FS (in this servers we avoid dogs at maximun) and satisfy your ego killing noobies :twisted:

[blades96]

About the texture
The aircraft skin texture looks similar to the canopy's glass texture with the similar reflected light at the top of the plane in such a case.It can be found in many former screenshots,looks like the the plane's back has been over polished.I'm not sure if it is true in real situation,but it looks something improper at the first impression.
http://i45.tinypic.com/23iz8yf.jpg
and if possible,keep on developing diverse glass textures.They are now monotone(the canopy glass,the gun sight glass,etc.no distinction...),or shall I say it's effects are a bit lighter and need an increased performance(I'm not sure,maybe weathered effects too?),in brief,it doesn't suit the highly detailed/weathered cockpit well.(Maybe in a dynamic demonstration,it looks ok.)

The plane surface seems to be pretty reflective in these pics. More here (http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=17277)

http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk216/LightningExpresssions/HurricaneI_2.jpg
http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk216/LightningExpresssions/SeaHurricane_Cockpit.jpg

[jermin]

Nice photos, blades!

Yes, compared to the photos, the screenshots do look unrealistc and lacking details. Hopefully the lighting effect will be more realistc in the final version.

[daHeld]

So no updates this week? :confused:

Or am I missing something?

[Foo'bar]

Yes, you miss this (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=11742), Du Held ;)

[Richie]

Foo' bar your skins are fantastic, especially the JG27 North Africa ones. I've always really enjoyed them.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Nice photos, blades!

Yes, compared to the photos, the screenshots do look unrealistc and lacking details. Hopefully the lighting effect will be more realistc in the final version.

???? To me the photo's show that the 3D model matches the photo. ????

If you remember the original comment was that the decking behind the cockpit shouldn't reflect as much light as the canopy glass. In the first photo we see that the surface of the plane should be reflecting much more light than is shown in the 3d image. The smooth texture of the aluminum decking behind the cockpit IS shown in the 3D model. The second image doesn't really prove much as the open canopy hides the detail in question.

I followed the link and couldn't see an image taken at the same angle.

I recon if they had a realistic reflection people would be complaining that the lighting was over done.

[Eldur]

Play in arcade servers has 3 utilities: Training dogfight manouvering, gunnery to keep your habilities well fit for critical situations in aw, adw and FS (in this servers we avoid dogs at maximun) and satisfy your ego killing noobies :twisted:

I like DF servers that have externals on but wonderwoman off. And yes, the main use is training and fun. But for ego satisfying I fire up DosBox and play the old Dynamix sims... doesn't even need a joystick actually. If I just want some quick kills, this is the best. A mission with 8+ kills and some ground targets is done in 5-10 minutes :D
I try to do some ground attack on DF servery anyway... I don't like the pure dogfight scenarios.

[AdMan]

???? To me the photo's show that the 3D model matches the photo. ????

If you remember the original comment was that the decking behind the cockpit shouldn't reflect as much light as the canopy glass. In the first photo we see that the surface of the plane should be reflecting much more light than is shown in the 3d image. The smooth texture of the aluminum decking behind the cockpit IS shown in the 3D model. The second image doesn't really prove much as the open canopy hides the detail in question.

I followed the link and couldn't see an image taken at the same angle.

I recon if they had a realistic reflection people would be complaining that the lighting was over done.

agree, the pics show that the screenshots are highly accurate. The color of the paint at the places where light is being reflected is almost an exact match. After all, paint IS acrylic (plastic) so to use a plastic looking material as a shader is the correct modeling approach, crank the specular highlights up a little on those screenies and you have almost an exact match.

[Abbeville-Boy]

WAL :rolleyes:

[Skarphol]

The grass in this screenshot is obviously seriously undermodelled!

http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk216/LightningExpresssions/HurricaneI_2.jpg

The grass was WAY longer in 1940! I have charts!! Oleg, this kills the immersion!! Plz fix.

Skarphol



Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

The grass in this screenshot is obviously seriously undermodelled!

The grass was WAY longer in 1940! I have charts!! Oleg, this kills the immersion!! Plz fix.

Skarphol

Sorry. Couldn't resist.


Don´t forget the ground crew uniform, completely porked! :D

[zakkandrachoff]

i don´t understond what is wrong

this cockpit is very similar to your pic, Skarphol.

http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/hurri0012.jpg

explain right what is wrong for you

[Skarphol]

i don´t understond what is wrong

this cockpit is very similar to your pic, Skarphol.

explain right what is wrong for you

Well, I was not really complaining about the cockpit, it looks fantastic!
I am more worried about the grass in that Hurricane screenshot. I think the grass was way longer in 1940, as they had not yet invented lawnmowers you could sit on. Thus they had to either cut the grass manually, or hire some local sheeps to do the job. I've not seen any screenshots with sheeps yet, thus the grass should have been considerably longer! And this is a great immersionkiller to me, and I think Oleg is neglecting this huge aspect of flightsimming! OLEG!! Plzfix!

[Igo kyu]

i don´t understond what is wrong

this cockpit is very similar to your pic, Skarphol.

explain right what is wrong for you
It's a joke. Notice that the "screenshot" he is talking about is a photograph. Probably not a photograph from 1940, but still.

I however do have concerns, the paint on aircraft should be matt, except in the case of parade finishes, such as the finish on the aircraft in the photograph, which is presumably a current day photograph, of an aircraft finished in modern paints, for parade type duties. Some paints are acrylic now, but they weren't in WW2.

This from "How to go plastic modelling" by Chris Ellis, copyright 1970:

If you are making Second World War aircraft, the chances are you will hardly ever need gloss finishes except in the case of highly polished fighters. But on modern aircraft the finish nearly always is polished, even when it's camouflage.

[Richie]

There's other screens of long grass. Look in the past three weeks or so.

[Richie]

Here

http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/grab0104.jpg

[zakkandrachoff]

Skarphol I have your big grass, look

http://www.mickcharlesmodels.co.uk/history/right2b.jpg

:rolleyes::lol:

oleg promess cows, i dont know anything about sheeps. maybe in ThunderJet will be sheeps.

[major_setback]

Here is a 1940's shine.

Not all aircraft were 100% matt, and wind and dirt could polish the surface.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/album%202/1a34949u10fg9.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/album%202/1a34949u10fg9.jpg

Picture is taken during wartime, see here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2601013236/m/6451009418?r=6451009418#6451009418

Look at the sky reflecting in the painted part of the canopy!


The next photo is taken in 1942, as you can see in the link.

http://www.spitfiresite.com/photos/historic/uploaded_images/611-squadron-spitfire-ix-715192.jpg

http://www.spitfiresite.com/photos/historic/2008/03/spitfire-mk-ix-no-611-squadron.html



This shows sheen from a certain angle too.

http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~2~2~5946~107568:?qvq=q:spitfire;lc:NVA2~35 ~35,NVA2~32~32,NVA2~31~31,NVA2~19~19,nasaNAS~16~16 ,nasaNAS~2~2,NSVS~3~3,nasaNAS~9~9,NVA2~4~4,NVA2~15 ~15,NVA2~24~24,NVA2~29~29,nasaNAS~12~12,nasaNAS~8~ 8,nasaNAS~7~7,NVA2~22~22,nasaNAS~10~10,NVA2~13~13, NVA2~18~18,NVA2~27~27,NVA2~9~9,NVA2~1~1,nasaNAS~6~ 6,NVA2~25~25,NVA2~20~20,nasaNAS~13~13,nasaNAS~22~2 2,NVA2~16~16,NVA2~8~8,nasaNAS~5~5,nasaNAS~4~4,NVA2 ~28~28,NVA2~14~14,nasaNAS~20~20,NVA2~17~17,NVA2~30 ~30,NVA2~21~21,NVA2~26~26,NVA2~23~23,NVA2~44~44,NV A2~42~42,NVA2~38~38,NVA2~45~45,NVA2~39~39,NVA2~43~ 43,NVA2~41~41,NVA2~37~37,NVA2~49~49,NVA2~53~53,NVA 2~51~51,NVA2~56~56,NVA2~47~47,NVA2~54~54,NVA2~33~3 3,NVA2~36~36,NVA2~34~34,NVA2~57~57,NVA2~52~52,NVA2 ~48~48,NVA2~50~50,NVA2~46~46,NVA2~55~55,NVA2~58~58 ,NVA2~62~62,NVA2~60~60,NVA2~59~59,NVA2~61~61&mi=1&trs=3

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/album%202/EL-2003-00301-1.jpg

Here too, 1940'sSpits under production. Showing sheen:

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/3313909.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=45B0EB3381F7834D5153D31C98449D3229F4987D49DA960F 8D143FD4AE7FC81B


1942, loook at the shine on the tailplane:

http://www.crashsiteorkney.com/userimages/Spitfire164Sq.jpg


A real shiner - Group Captain A.G. Malan, DSO, DFC, with his usual Spitfire Aircraft ZP-A (1940):

http://samilitaryhistory.org/vo013dtc.jpg


I agree that most aircraft looked matt a lot of the time, but depending on different types of paint/wear/lighting conditions they could also show sheen/shine.

.

[Skarphol]

Skarphol I have your big grass, look

http://www.mickcharlesmodels.co.uk/history/right2b.jpg

:rolleyes::lol:

oleg promess cows, i dont know anything about sheeps. maybe in ThunderJet will be sheeps.

YES! That's more like it!
In that picture we can also see two members of StKG-69 performing the well known "Low Level Inverted Stuka"-technic for tossing propaganda leaflets into WAAF's restrooms for telling how much more 'well hung' german airmen are compared to the britons.

Skarphol

[philip.ed]

That photo is from the BoB film isn't it? ;)

[AdMan]

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/equip/resrc/images/hst/l-g/hurican.jpg
safe to say sun angle is the main determining factor - unless these planes just so happened to be flying in formation according to least glossy to most glossy :)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Hawker_Sea_Hurricanes.jpg
The under side of all these are reflecting the clouds bellow, of course diffused reflection and not specular reflection - but I don't think we have to worry about specular raytraced/mirror maps being applied to the paint.

[MD_Wild_Weasel]

Here is a 1940's shine.

Not all aircraft were 100% matt, and wind and dirt could polish the surface.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/album%202/1a34949u10fg9.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/album%202/1a34949u10fg9.jpg

Picture is taken during wartime, see here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2601013236/m/6451009418?r=6451009418#6451009418

Look at the sky reflecting in the painted part of the canopy!


The next photo is taken in 1942, as you can see in the link.

http://www.spitfiresite.com/photos/historic/uploaded_images/611-squadron-spitfire-ix-715192.jpg

http://www.spitfiresite.com/photos/historic/2008/03/spitfire-mk-ix-no-611-squadron.html



This shows sheen from a certain angle too.

http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~2~2~5946~107568:?qvq=q:spitfire;lc:NVA2~35 ~35,NVA2~32~32,NVA2~31~31,NVA2~19~19,nasaNAS~16~16 ,nasaNAS~2~2,NSVS~3~3,nasaNAS~9~9,NVA2~4~4,NVA2~15 ~15,NVA2~24~24,NVA2~29~29,nasaNAS~12~12,nasaNAS~8~ 8,nasaNAS~7~7,NVA2~22~22,nasaNAS~10~10,NVA2~13~13, NVA2~18~18,NVA2~27~27,NVA2~9~9,NVA2~1~1,nasaNAS~6~ 6,NVA2~25~25,NVA2~20~20,nasaNAS~13~13,nasaNAS~22~2 2,NVA2~16~16,NVA2~8~8,nasaNAS~5~5,nasaNAS~4~4,NVA2 ~28~28,NVA2~14~14,nasaNAS~20~20,NVA2~17~17,NVA2~30 ~30,NVA2~21~21,NVA2~26~26,NVA2~23~23,NVA2~44~44,NV A2~42~42,NVA2~38~38,NVA2~45~45,NVA2~39~39,NVA2~43~ 43,NVA2~41~41,NVA2~37~37,NVA2~49~49,NVA2~53~53,NVA 2~51~51,NVA2~56~56,NVA2~47~47,NVA2~54~54,NVA2~33~3 3,NVA2~36~36,NVA2~34~34,NVA2~57~57,NVA2~52~52,NVA2 ~48~48,NVA2~50~50,NVA2~46~46,NVA2~55~55,NVA2~58~58 ,NVA2~62~62,NVA2~60~60,NVA2~59~59,NVA2~61~61&mi=1&trs=3

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/album%202/EL-2003-00301-1.jpg

Here too, 1940'sSpits under production. Showing sheen:

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/3313909.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=45B0EB3381F7834D5153D31C98449D3229F4987D49DA960F 8D143FD4AE7FC81B


1942, loook at the shine on the tailplane:

http://www.crashsiteorkney.com/userimages/Spitfire164Sq.jpg


A real shiner - Group Captain A.G. Malan, DSO, DFC, with his usual Spitfire Aircraft ZP-A (1940):

http://samilitaryhistory.org/vo013dtc.jpg


I agree that most aircraft looked matt a lot of the time, but depending on different types of paint/wear/lighting conditions they could also show sheen/shine.

.

during the war some r.a.f pilots used to get the ground crew to "polish" their plane so that they could get an extra mph out of it. Also during the war materials were in short supply so this may also have contributed.

[Chromius]

Thank you for the screenshots and update.

All I want for Christmas is an few screenshots and an update. :rolleyes:

[Mr.Fox]

for Christmas, I'd like a SoW video. I'll even buy the expensive cookies for Santa ;)

[hellbomber]

my grandfather claimed to have gotten 15 km/h top speed increase from his P-38J after waxing it

[Igo kyu]

15 km/h - P-38J
Eh? what's that in knots or mph? and did he convert it or you?

:grin:

[hellbomber]

km/h = kilometers per hour convert it yourself

[Igo kyu]

km/h = kilometers per hour convert it yourself
Yeah, but some people convert by changing the units without changing the numbers. I once read of a 3 metre katana (japanese sword), because somebody boobed, so I was interested in how reliable the conversion to kilometres was. I'm not saying the conversion was out, just asking. :)