"Wings" Of Prey (PC). Watchout Oleg!

[zakkandrachoff]

The NightMare will come true for Oleg. Il-2 Birds Of Prey will be abailable for PC whit the (no nice) name of Wings Of Prey (i remember wings of destiny, crapy sim).
I dont like the cockpits, very Battlefield compared whit the Amazing cockpit Spitfire of Storm of War. Buth the terrain views are... nice,. directly competition for sow?

http://www.airwargame.com/upload/image/wop_cover.jpg

seriously! i first think that this was a joke of some #$%&"#$ photoshop adict.. buth not

[Former_Older]

And how is that competition for Storm of War? It's a new game based on an old sim.

[Chivas]

WOP has the best overall terrain I've seen in combat flight sim, but it still has a few issues yet to even compete with IL-2. That said WOP is still in the PC beta development stage and if the developer continues to support WOP after release they can definitely be a player in the WW2 combat genre. WOP has so much potential I wonder if some of Oleg's team jumped ship and started working for the Gaijin developers.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

WOP has the best overall terrain I've seen in combat flight simWow Chivas - is that really you ???? Did someone hijack your account ???


For once we agree. Stunning terrain. The new benchmark. Period.

I already am pushing them to steal the whole bloody terrain textures ......

Gaiigin are really on the ball with betas. Good support in their forums.

Oleg still has the best sim, but he desperately needs this kind of engine performance and graphics.

.

[Chivas]

What I really like about the WOP terrain is there is no building pop up as you fly along.

[AdMan]

screenshots are better than anything I've seen from BoB...:-P

[vpmedia]

60 missions? what will the casual offliner do after that? I dont want flightsims without a missionbuilder...IL-2 1946 is especially great from this point of view (fmb,qmb, dgen&scripted campaigns,dogfight&coop servers, online wars,3rd party addons...almost unlimited content)...if SoW will have the same depth then Maddox games got nothing to worry about

[jermin]

Too movie-like though

[Chivas]

60 missions? what will the casual offliner do after that? I dont want flightsims without a missionbuilder...IL-2 1946 is especially great from this point of view (fmb,qmb, dgen&scripted campaigns,dogfight&coop servers, online wars,3rd party addons...almost unlimited content)...if SoW will have the same depth then Maddox games got nothing to worry about

WOP on the PC is still in the Beta stage and they are planning a quick mission builder. I'm sure in time there will have more missions than the off-liner can handle over the next year.

[Oleg Maddox]

WOP has the best overall terrain I've seen in combat flight sim, but it still has a few issues yet to even compete with IL-2. That said WOP is still in the PC beta development stage and if the developer continues to support WOP after release they can definitely be a player in the WW2 combat genre. WOP has so much potential I wonder if some of Oleg's team jumped ship and started working for the Gaijin developers.

:):)

[Feuerfalke]

screenshots are better than anything I've seen from BoB...:-P

Maybe that is because you have a different idea of what it should look like?
Probably more cinema-flight-experience than sitting in a real plane?

It may also be related to the fact that BoP has already been released for consoles and is simply ported for PCs, while BoB is still WIP?


Yes, it looks nice, but nice and realistic sometimes are two different things.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

Maybe that is because you have a different idea of what it should look like?
Probably more cinema-flight-experience than sitting in a real plane?


Yes, it looks nice, but nice and realistic sometimes are two different things.

:rolleyes:

As someone who does sit in/fly real planes from time to time = Wings of Prey terrain is both of a MUCH higher quality, and also significantly more realistic as to scale. Nothing wrong with pointing that out. WoP have done a great job in this area and deserve credit.

[Feuerfalke]

Interesting.

I rarely experience vignette borders in my field of view when flying and I rarely see brown-yellowish atmospheric fog.

http://www.simhq.com/_air13/wingsofprey/air_416a_007_original.jpg


And a Ka-20 sight, not moving on a P-51D5?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP7Xn...eature=related

[13th Hsqn Protos]

Attacking shading and color pallete 'style' choices ????

Your right ..... this is much more realistic :rolleyes:

Exactly the view when flying for real at say 700m ......... NOT!

Don't hate dude. WoP did a good job with terrain. No one has done better - not even O-man.

http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/grab0101.jpg (http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/grab0101.jpg)

[Feuerfalke]

You are truly amazing!

Completely forgetting that the shot from BoB is very early WIP, not even BETA!!!, yet criticizing every little thing you see.

And at the very same time you stand there completely blinded by some overbombastic graphics effects completely disregarding optical, physical and historical realism. Ridiculous, simply ridiculous.

Maybe you should check out HAWX as well, go for action games and forget about realistic simulations at all? You won't be satisfied by BoB if you think that these Hollywood-Effects are realistic.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

.... and You are truly blinded.

You can' t give credit to some talented map makers and graphics artists. Not to mention the people who optimized the engine for super smooth play and stability ect ect ..... ect


Its truly beautiful work! Not to everyone's taste but that makes the technical accomplishment no less.

Competition is good. Embrace.

Personally I dream of competing sims. Let them each do their best.

We as simmers can only benefit.

** I will leave you to your personal attacks, going soaring today :-)

[Feuerfalke]

Actually, I never ever said it doesn't look nice. Infact, I did so numerous times before. Feel free to use the search-function to confirm this.
So your personal opinion about me doesn't really fit and it's simply not the point as I would support you 100% if you'd say that it looks fantastic and nice - though it is not realistic.

But you posted that WoP/BoP looks better, more realistic, with better textures, ground- and effects-modeling than BoB ever will and that has nothing to do with admiring great artwork, as you just claimed you do in your last post. ;)

[csThor]

A pretty face can hide a hideously ugly soul ... WOP was always meant to be an action game and therefore it isn't competition for SoW. Apples and oranges. :rolleyes:

[zakkandrachoff]

i can´t bealive the machine example for run this sim:

Minimal System Requirements:

Processor: Intel Pentium 4 3200MHz
RAM: 1024 Mb
Graphic card: NVIDIA GeForce 7600 256 Mb or ATI Radeon X1650 256 Mb
HDD: 10 Gb free disk space
OS: Microsoft Windows XP SP3, DirectX 9.0c.
Soundcard, DirectX compatible
Internet connection: 56 kb/s
Keyboard, mouse

Recommended System Requirements:

Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 2400 MHz
RAM: 2048 Mb
Graphic card: NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 512 Mb or ATI Radeon 4850 512 Mb.
HDD: 10 Gb free disk space
OS: Microsoft Windows XP SP3 with DirectX 9.0c / Microsoft Windows Vista SP1 / Microsoft Windows 7
Sound card: DirectX compatible with support 5.1
Internet connection: 512 Kb/s
Keyboard, mouse, joystick

http://www.airwargame.com/eng/game/

My old Quad 9.400 2.66 will still functional and maybe, maybe not be obsolete when Storm Of War will release.:cool:

the simulation is very similar that il-2 i read and weather are in some point, very basic. buth the graphic terrain are nice.

nicy 162

http://www.airwargame.com/upload/image/plane_pic/He162A-2_eng_06.jpg

[Foo'bar]

Way too much bump at the plane's hull ;)

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Protos, giving you the benefit of camparing WoP and BoB since both are still WIP (even if i still don´t think its right to compare between each other), i agree that the terrain looks great on WoP and way better than what we got with il-2 and was showed so far from BoB. But you can´t say the atmosphere and color are realistic on WoP^, i´m also fly from time to time, and the ground and sky doesn´t look that at all on a clear day. On WoP it looks oversaturated, and they made it intenionally to give a more cinematic experience, but it not REALISTIC at all. The only way that reality would look a little more similar to WoP its in a fully overcast day.

Still, WoP its a mainly arcade sim, not a realistic sim, that means they have the advantage to use more cpu resources on to graphics, instead of phisics. That the main reason i don´t think fair to compare WoP with BoB.

Couldn´t agree more that competition is good! :)

[Feuerfalke]

Well said.

Besides that, WoP is only partially WiP, as the only W in the current P consists of porting the game to the PC. The game itself is available for quite a while now.

[Chivas]

WOP at the moment is very good and hopefully.... the WOP BOB map will become larger....., a ground transportation system developed........ terrain lighting from cockpit improved........terrain color palate expanded......, difficulty settings more diversified rather than lumped into arcade, realistic, simulator modes......mission builder WIP.....plus a few more.

This all could be accomplished overtime, but in the mean time WOP should attract more simmers to the combat flight sim genre. This should bring more sales for Oleg's SOW series.
Its all good.

[AdMan]

WOP at the moment is very good and hopefully.... the WOP BOB map will become larger....., a ground transportation system developed........ terrain lighting from cockpit improved........terrain color palate expanded......, difficulty settings more diversified rather than lumped into arcade, realistic, simulator modes......mission builder WIP.....plus a few more.

This all could be accomplished overtime, but in the mean time WOP should attract more simmers to the combat flight sim genre. This should bring more sales for Oleg's SOW series.
Its all good.

^exactly, and all Oleg needs to do is DELIVER! (no pressure or anything)

[Necrobaron]

WoP is a joke from what I played of it. Some decent (though hardly realistic) graphics and that's about it. To a serious simmer it will be no competition for SoW.
________
AVANDIA HELP (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/avandia/)

[13th Hsqn Protos]

Necrobaron is right ....... the graphics are totally unrealistic

You cant believe how unrealistic they are at 1920x1200 superultramax textures 6aa 16af :eek::eek::eek::eek:



http://forum.sukhoi.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=102513&d=1260296198

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/6097/wop2.jpg
http://forum.sukhoi.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=102459&d=1260221614http://forum.sukhoi.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=102457&stc=1260221343
http://forum.sukhoi.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=102516&d=1260297242http://forum.sukhoi.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=102511&d=1260296015

[Feuerfalke]

Maybe some time you will find out that there is a difference between something looking great and something looking realistic.

Hopefully your discovery will not turn out like this:



I'm 100% with Chivas on this:
WoP is a game with nice graphics and hopefully attracts some people to the flightsim-genre. And when they want something more realistic in every aspect, they can go for BoB. That said, I don't think that it is "Watchout Oleg!".

[13th Hsqn Protos]

I didnt know posting soft porn was allowed ...... me ... I only post airplane porn :cool:

[13th Hsqn Protos]

I have serious doubts that most of the critics in here have even flown this game, but for those of you that have and want more .....

'realistic'

Fix your settings from the advanced panel as you see fit.
My personal preferences are below.

I fly for hours just a 100meters or so off the deck with these settings. Closest representation to actual flight ever.... but hey I understand some people don't want to 'fly in a painting' they prefer to fly in a 'cartoon' - to each their own.

http://www.13th-hellenicsqn.com/Protos/WoP%20settings.png

[Romanator21]

Ok, let's see some screens of the game now under these settings. And consider the toy-like appearance of the He-162.

You can enjoy the game, but it's not fair to bash SoW before it's even done. Never while looking out of the window of a plane, or in any photograph, have I seen what I see in WoP.

I also seriously doubt the nature of WoP is going to match SoW in terms of physics and flight model. In this regard it will not be competition.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

Ok, let's see some screens of the game now under these settings. And consider the toy-like appearance of the He-162.

As I suspected you have never flown it ...... nothing toylike about it. Its beautiful.

You can enjoy the game, but it's not fair to bash SoW before it's even done.

Not bashing at all. They have had a 6 year headstart. I want to see some screenshots that at least come close to this. Nothing for 6 years.

I also seriously doubt the nature of WoP is going to match SoW in terms of physics and flight model. In this regard it will not be competition.

No one in this thread has posted such a thing. People are merely honest enough to acknowledge a stunning technical/graphical achievement. WoP is just beginning and they have managed to set the graphics benchmark.

I know for a fact that Oleg has seen these posts. If he doesn't get bent out of shape ..... hard to figure out why some here do. Its good for him to see whats happening and what people expect/want graphically.

I mean when you got Chivas saying it has potential .......... well enough said. He is fanboy #1 and he likes it/owns it. We all have our own ways of influencing the 'direction of development' there are times to be supportive - and times to kick some A. Now is the time to kick some you know what and get some results - now while the engine is being rebuilt (get me ;) )

[Feuerfalke]

Protos, don't stretch it.

In terms of realistic looks, just check the above pictures and tell me how such a fast plane can even exist with 4cm deep and wide rims between the panels. That's simply WAY overdone. It may even look cool, but realistic? Sorry, no way.

Same is for the white cliffs of dover being dark gray on a sunny day, just because it is not directly lit. Also check out the shadows, cause there are none on the ground.

And nobody bashes SoW? Big-time LOL - go check the title.


I know for a fact that Oleg has seen these posts. If he doesn't get bent out of shape ..... hard to figure out why some here do. Its good for him to see whats happening and what people expect/want graphically.

At least I agree on that, because there are enough people here who realize that WoP looks stunning and great, but not realistic. I prefer realism over eye-candy anytime.

[Tvrdi]

As I suspected you have never flown it ...... nothing toylike about it. Its beautiful.



Not bashing at all. They have had a 6 year headstart. I want to see some screenshots that at least come close to this. Nothing for 6 years.



No one in this thread has posted such a thing. People are merely honest enough to acknowledge a stunning technical/graphical achievement. WoP is just beginning and they have managed to set the graphics benchmark.

I know for a fact that Oleg has seen these posts. If he doesn't get bent out of shape ..... hard to figure out why some here do. Its good for him to see whats happening and what people expect/want graphically.

I mean when you got Chivas saying it has potential .......... well enough said. He is fanboy #1 and he likes it/owns it. We all have our own ways of influencing the 'direction of development' there are times to be supportive - and times to kick some A. Now is the time to kick some you know what and get some results - now while the engine is being rebuilt (get me ;) )


OK lets imagine it would be like this:
"ur game" has betetr graphics...
SOW has way better (more realistic lets say) FM and DM...
U know which one will most folks buy here?

dont make me laugh

[13th Hsqn Protos]

At least I agree on that, because there are enough people here who realize that WoP looks stunning and great, but not realistic.

It can't BE stunning and great UNLESS its realistic. So you have already conceded that point.

I prefer realism over eye-candy anytime.

Who says you can't have both in 2010

[Tvrdi]

It can't BE stunning and great UNLESS its realistic. So you have already conceded that point.


Who says you can't have both in 2010

in "ur" game?....I doubt

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Beatifull shots Protos, really gorgeus, and i wish i had a console to play the game because it looks like a blast. Even if its not a serious simulator in the phisics area i still enjoy those kind of games once in a while, but i still stand on the oversaturated atmosphere that creates gorgeouse graphics but are unrealistic.

[ZaltysZ]

I have serious doubts that most of the critics in here have even flown this game, but for those of you that have and want more .....

WoP beta critics go to WoP beta forum and write their positive and negative feedback there. EULA of beta requires that "no dirt about the game was published until it is beta". So, if you see people writing negative comments in public, they are violating EULA or they simply haven't played WoP at all and are basing their opinions on rumors, published screenshots and etc.

[Avimimus]

I think WoP will have a much more favourable kill ratio for the player and considerably faster action (ie. reduced take-offs and navigation).

SoW will have more realistic opponents, more complex ground targets, a campaign environment that is historically accurate and advanced weather modelling (plus a full mission builder and moddability).

So, I don't think WoP is a direct threat to SoW (although it may be very enlightening to see how profitable a 'light' simulation is compared to a proper one).

[fuzzychickens]

Based on my BOP experience, I won't be bothering with WOP.

The online experience in WOP will be rigid and nowhere near as flexible for the user to design scenarios like 1946.

Then again, I guess that is what sells these days. Give the player something shiny to look at, but then take away all the depth to the game and treat the player like a small child - instant sales!

Buy WOP if you want a shallow experience and want to buy a "sequel" every year.

[airmalik]

I know for a fact that Oleg has seen these posts. If he doesn't get bent out of shape ..... hard to figure out why some here do. Its good for him to see whats happening and what people expect/want graphically.

Agree with Protos. The existence of BoP/WoP can only be good for BoB. Oleg is an intensely competitive developer with stunning past achievements. I'm sure WoP's awesome landscapes will only drive him to do even better with BoB.

I'll be supporting future development of WoP when it's released and also buying BoB. Hopefully WoP will be successful enough to result in sequels which improve on areas it's lacking in.

[drafting]

Then again, I guess that is what sells these days. Give the player something shiny to look at, but then take away all the depth to the game and treat the player like a small child - instant sales!

Buy WOP if you want a shallow experience and want to buy a "sequel" every year.

Is sim-buying mutually exclusive? Why can't we buy WoP now for the shiny graphics and upfront action and then buy Storm of War when it comes out (and have fun with both)?

In fact, support simming in general and buy Rise of Flight, Over Flanders Fields, Black Shark, DCS:A-10C, Silent Hunter V, and every other sim you can get your hands on!

Anyway, gaming doesn't always have to be serious business, and we aren't small children for liking the strengths of a game like WoP...

[fuzzychickens]

Yes, you are having your game served to you like small child when you buy games like MW2 and WOP.

It's a business model. The point is to kill off a traditional game community by designing a rigid game structure. If you don't let a game community make user created content or decide how they want to experience the game, then you can sell more of them a sequel in a year's time. This is how console games have been designed and now PC games are becoming ports of console games with the same dish of shallow crap for kids being served.

Clearly Oleg has decided to move in the opposite direction of this. SOW will be more "moddable" than IL2.

[Igo kyu]

I played MSCFS, MSCFS2, and briefly MSCFS3, and before those Falcon, F16CP and Domark's MiG29 on the ST, then Fighting Falcon F16 and MiG Alley on the PC. I've played IL*2 from Sturmovik, and probably will for years to come. I'm a flight sim fan, not a fanboy of any particular brand.

I wait until it's released, and often longer than that, before making up my mind about any sim. I do expect to like SoW, and would like it released as soon as possible, but would rather it is finished than released early. I may try WoP, if the price is right for me.

[AdMan]

fanbois

[AdMan]

Yes, you are having your game served to you like small child when you buy games like MW2 and WOP.

It's a business model. The point is to kill off a traditional game community by designing a rigid game structure. If you don't let a game community make user created content or decide how they want to experience the game, then you can sell more of them a sequel in a year's time. This is how console games have been designed and now PC games are becoming ports of console games with the same dish of shallow crap for kids being served.

Clearly Oleg has decided to move in the opposite direction of this. SOW will be more "moddable" than IL2.

or maybe they just want to make a decent flight sim that is accessible to the average gamer?

you do realize this will draw more people into the genre right? hard to say that's killing anything off

[Romanator21]

SoW does not look entirely realistic either. But, this part of the engine is not even close to being finished, and we don't have a serious map made of England yet. I am giving the team the benefit of the doubt that it will be looking good when done. I am not saying that SoW is perfectly realistic, although the quality of the aircraft is a pretty good indication of where it will go.

WoP on the other hand is already a Beta. I think we can expect it to look pretty much as you see it except for bugs.

See this video: http://www.jaggyroadfilms.com/showFilm.php?film=World%20of%20FTX

This looks, in my opinion, very realistic. I expect to see this out of an airplane window. But, it doesn't have as much eye candy, or is visually exciting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPDEZ9bHPoo&feature=related

This on the other hand looks like a movie where the director went crazy with filters, and the sky is hazier than the air over LA. Yes, it is beautiful, and it has nice detail, and it looks "real". But only if "real" to you is through a filter.

The game will be fun, and it will rope a lot of people into the flight sim department. This game took a lot of work to make, I imagine, and in no way do I intend to bash the makers. I may even buy it. But, the argument that these images represent reality, I do not agree with.

And again, SoW scenery is not the best, but I see it has potential to look very realistic.

[Feuerfalke]

SoW has no scenery, yet - just testmaps. ;)

Comparing apples and green oranges.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

If you were half in the loop as you claim to be you would know that is not true ......

[AdMan]

It's funny that people use atmospheric haze to say something in UNrealistic when the exact opposite is true. Simulating atmospheric haze is the first thing a landscape painter learns how to do, not because it "looks cool" but because thats the scientific reality of our atmosphere. It took years for gaming to come far enough along to be able to compute realistic atmospheres and now people complain about it? Is it over exaggerated? Not by much if any, it's better over exaggerate than under exaggerate as a general principle. Every game, even a simulator needs art direction, 3d modeling is art, texturing is art, anything that graphically attempts to simulate reality is art, this includes BoB. What was Luthier's response to the over weathering comments? - "New things simply don't look good in games" - meaning they made a artistic creative choice to represent something in a way that is more visually appealing to the eye.

here is haze, as it appears in reality - and it isn't over Los Angeles, it has more to do with how much water vapor is in the air and if that vapor has dust particles to attach to so it can form clouds.
http://egrandin.com/web/tl_files/mari/Dichiu%20july%2009/30%20atmospheric_haze_cota_2000_bucegi.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/deanchamberland/Hiking/alberni%20valley.jpg
http://www.mexicanoceanfrontvillas.com/nvd/gallery/gallery/imagestore/hault/large/view_from_plane2.070913165830_nfec.jpg
http://img2.travelblog.org/Photos/6698/31899/t/159984-view-from-plane-0.jpg

[Feuerfalke]

I claim nothing. It was posted repeatedly, that the current maps seen in the screenshots are merely placeholders and testmaps for various settings and the original SoW map will not be shown until the engine enters beta. The houses and ground-objects are placeholders, as well as the textures.

Infact the shot from the map you posted earlier even came with the comment, that the odd-looking hill was just testing the map-builder.

Nothing miraculous about it - just look it up. ;)


@ AdMan:

Who said atmospheric haze is unrealistic?
It was just said that a dark brown haze on a sunny day at high noon with 1/8 clouding is unrealistic and yes, indeed it is. ;)

[Romanator21]

You did nothing to disprove my point Adman. Yes, there is haze in real life. Duh!
And there are situations where there is thick haze, fog, etc which makes visibility very bad. Even on a clear day there is always an effect on distant objects! This is not what I was objecting!

But please compare what you just posted to a supposedly "clear" day in WoP. Again, WoP looks nice, but has exaggerated the effect to a point where it is not believable.

[Feuerfalke]

Just take a look at this shot with almost no clouds and perfect lighting:
http://forum.sukhoi.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=102457&stc=1260221343
And compare that to this 7/8 clouds, almost full overcast:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ejuGfW2kNZQ/RvGoKs_s9bI/AAAAAAAAATk/XtAQ0DYq71U/s400/Dover1.JPG

Or compare the cliffs on your bright day in WoP
http://forum.sukhoi.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=102516&d=1260297242

to this picture of the real cliffs with extreme haze and no direct sun:
http://www.planetware.com/i/photo/white-cliffs-of-dover-dover-dover2.jpg


That's a difference like day and night - almost literally!


Just take a look at the blueish gras and tell me this looks realistic. It looks nice, yes, but it does NOT look realistic.

[RomBinDaHouse]

It's funny that people use atmospheric haze to say something in UNrealistic...

+1

1) About BoP (almost=WoP). Tons of visual references was used for everything in environment.

2) there's some technical restrictions in real-time 3D engine that causes trade-offs. In one hand - maximum visiblity of horizon, in other - farclip plane, for example, that needs fog for soft seamless line of horizon. But everything checked for possiblity of existence in real world by references. Many other things goes like that.

3) Fundamental visual idea of BoP(=>Wop) art direction was HQ tasty cinematographic widescreen picture, not "everyday" CNN news picture. PostProcess (color toning, vignette, some other things), shiny surfaces, etc. makes it. Because it is console title in a raw of other "trendy-next-gen-picture" titles.

WoP environments differs slightly from BoP, maybe some sceneries becomes too exaggerated. But dev.team polishing wop everyday, maybe it will be fixed i hope so. Some effects are already optional (you can turn-off vignette, for example; but in full screen it not bother as on screenshots placed on white background actually).

ps. sorry for english ;)

[Romanator21]

+1
3) Fundamental visual idea of BoP(=>Wop) art direction was HQ tasty cinematographic widescreen picture, not "everyday" CNN news picture. PostProcess (color toning, vignette, some other things), shiny surfaces, etc. makes it. Because it is console title in a raw of other "trendy-next-gen-picture" titles.


Exactly.

[AdMan]

Just take a look at this shot with almost no clouds and perfect lighting:



That's a difference like day and night - almost literally!


Just take a look at the blueish gras and tell me this looks realistic. It looks nice, yes, but it does NOT look realistic.

that's not due to haze that's due to color palette

[13th Hsqn Protos]

@ Feuerfalke (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/member.php?u=4078)

Only criticism from you ...... but you have yet to show me something MORE realistic.

Show me a more realistic scenery in a WWII combat sim ...... problem for you is you can't. Until you can - WoP is the best Graphically. Is it perfect? Nothing is perfect ...... its merely closest to perfection so far.

So please do yourself and everyone else a favor and go through the 7 stages of Grief.

1. Shock/Denial
2. Pain/Guilt
3. Anger and Bargaining
4. Depression, Reflection, Loneliness
5 Upward Turn
6. Reconstruction/Working Through
7. Acceptance and Hope

Just ACCEPT.Accept.Accept..Accept... :cool:


.
.

[Chivas]

I agree Proto...WOP has the best graphics I've seen in combat flight sim, and there is alot of room for improvement.

I believe SOW graphics will be better, BUT nothing says that Gaijin won't be improving WOP graphics for the next year while were waiting for SOW. Gaijin has released 8 updates for WOP in the last two weeks, and have a considerable work force.

[AdMan]

dont know why people are at such odds with BoB vs WoP, Wings will be out within a month or so? while BoP has at least another year - if you can only afford 1 game every two years I suggest you stop playing games and get a job.

BoB is a whole new engine while WoP is breathing new life into the IL-2 engine.

All you flight simmer's can do is complain that it's too cinematic? Your elitism is shooting your favorite genre in the foot, you should be enjoying and promoting WoP while waiting for BoB and knowing that by promoting the il2 brand you are also promoting SoW/BoB.

So Oleg wasn't directly involved in WoP...so what? Boo Hoo fanboys, all Oleg needs to do it make an engine that tops his last one then make sure the noobs know he's the man responsible for Il2 in the first place - everybody wins

[13th Hsqn Protos]

Gaijin has released 8 updates for WOP in the last two weeks, and have a considerable work force.

Bingo !!

This game is being DEVELOPED Hard !

I really hope SoW graphics are better - I mean truly. Just not seen anything in 6 years to indicate such. :(

Still I try to keep hope, cause I like the Ruskie :-)

[Talon89]

Are the graphics in "Wings of Prey" unrealistic? Sure.

Are they more realistic than any other sim I've ever seen? Definitely, and I've logged a lot of IL2, Flaming Cliffs, DCS and FSX hours. A lot of the settings can be adjusted to tone down the "overdone" effects. Don't knock it until you've tried it guys.

This whole conversation is so stupid, it just pained me to read. It is a really, really good looking game. If I could have a game right now that took the complexities and feature set of IL2 and the visuals of Wings of Prey, I'd probably pay a couple hundred dollars for it (don't get any ideas oleg! :-P ). It's that much of an upgrade over the visuals in my beloved IL2.

Unfortunately, as good as it looks, it's not much of a sim right now, it's a very beautiful game with a few sim qualities.

[Caveman]

Are the graphics in "Wings of Prey" unrealistic? Sure.

Are they more realistic than any other sim I've ever seen? Definitely, and I've logged a lot of IL2, Flaming Cliffs, DCS and FSX hours. A lot of the settings can be adjusted to tone down the "overdone" effects. Don't knock it until you've tried it guys.

This whole conversation is so stupid, it just pained me to read. It is a really, really good looking game. If I could have a game right now that took the complexities and feature set of IL2 and the visuals of Wings of Prey, I'd probably pay a couple hundred dollars for it (don't get any ideas oleg! :-P ). It's that much of an upgrade over the visuals in my beloved IL2.

Unfortunately, as good as it looks, it's not much of a sim right now, it's a very beautiful game with a few sim qualities.

Well said...People are so hung up about the dingy effects, they are not seeing the forrest for the trees... If SOW looks as good all will be well... It may not at the start but I'm confident it will based on the early look of IL-2 vs what it looks like now...

[ZaltysZ]

Just take a look at the blueish gras and tell me this looks realistic. It looks nice, yes, but it does NOT look realistic.

In fact, it is green on my monitor, if it is assumed that screenshot represents colors in sRGB. However, this is not the point.

We all know that grass color is green. But when? Daylight makes it look green, but other light might change this perception. If I look through window now, everything outside looks blue to me, because it is morning in winter now. If I was outdoor for some time, my eyes would adapt and perceived blueish tint would disappear. The same is with indoor lightning when incandescent light bulbs are used - everything looks yellow, until eyes adapt. When we look at screenshots, our eyes are not adapted to them if their color temperature is unusual, but when we play the game, perception, that tint is wrong, disappears after few minutes. So, it is hard for me to say that such colors are unrealistic, but I can say that some screenshots definitely look like photos taken without correct color filters and presented without any color correction - read: ugly. :)

[drafting]

I think that, regardless of what anyone thinks about the haze, atmosphere, light color, etc, one of the greatest achievements of the WoP team is how organic and detailed the terrain and cities look! :eek:

A few years ago, I never would've believed that I'd soon be able to fly over something like this in a flight sim:

http://i46.tinypic.com/1gm0z7.jpg

http://i46.tinypic.com/wmdvzm.jpg

It's a good time to be a sim-fanatic! :grin:

[Chromius]

Running low on Popcorn.


Wop Looks good graphically no doubt, but I think Sow/Bob cockpits look much better done from the screens I have seen.

My money goes to Best FM, DM and realistic engine managemt, I dont care if graphically there is only a slight improvement from IL-2.

If my primary concern was to fly over realistic terrain then I would just fire up FSX and ASA over my addon scenery areas.

Wheres some info on WoP FM DM models and engine management and such?

Also campaigns, adding user campaigns/missions

Aircraft ai?

Multiplayer?

Things like Sow/Bob being able to attack radar and HQ's and such add a lot for me. It really looks like the ground attack will be quite interesting in Sow/Bob.

I have not seen enough to tell me Wop is not a gamey sim yet. Too early to tell.

Sow/Bob still looks like the only Simulation in town for I am looking for.

Cheers

[David603]

Running low on Popcorn.


Wop Looks good graphically no doubt, but I think Sow/Bob cockpits look much better done from the screens I have seen.

My money goes to Best FM, DM and realistic engine managemt, I dont care if graphically there is only a slight improvement from IL-2.

If my primary concern was to fly over realistic terrain then I would just fire up FSX and ASA over my addon scenery areas.

Wheres some info on WoP FM DM models and engine management and such?

Also campaigns, adding user campaigns/missions

Aircraft ai?

Multiplayer?

Things like Sow/Bob being able to attack radar and HQ's and such add a lot for me. It really looks like the ground attack will be quite interesting in Sow/Bob.

I have not seen enough to tell me Wop is not a gamey sim yet. Too early to tell.

Sow/Bob still looks like the only Simulation in town for I am looking for.

Cheers
Just off the top of my head, this is what I know so far about Wings of Prey.

WoP FMs and DMs are taken from Il2 1946. Engine management could be as per 1946, but I don't know, because the more complex features were omitted from the console versions because a gamepad does not have enough buttons.

AI is taken from 1946 but seems to have been altered somewhat, not nessesarily for the better, and isn't as good as the Certs AI mod.

Multiplayer has 4 different game modes, Dogfight, Team Dogfight, Strike and Capture the Airfield. 16 players are supported on consoles, this will probably be increased for PC. Take-offs and landing are not featured in multiplayer on consoles, but the devs have said this will be changed for PC.

6DOF will be supported on PC.

There will be a mission creator, but I don't know details of this.

[ramstein]

why the hell would they make people order the game in order to play the Beta? bunch of bs..

[RomBinDaHouse]

why the hell would they make people order the game in order to play the Beta? bunch of bs..

U think they get more money after release from those people?

[Chivas]

why the hell would they make people order the game in order to play the Beta? bunch of bs..

I'm having alot of fun beta testing WOP and I'm getting the game for ten bucks less than non beta testers. They actually paid me 10 bucks for something I would have done for nothing. If this is BS then I want more of it. I didn't pay to beta test IL-2, but had to pay full price for the sim when it was released. No problem there either as I enjoyed the months of beta testing IL-2, especially as there were very few bugs compared to most beta tests.

[RomBinDaHouse]

you guys gone from reality playing virtual entertainment games. Such moment you want everything should be realistic. Determine yourself.
You can make "origame-ayercrafft" using A4 paper. And push it on air by da wind. It's free an funny.
Also you can buy RC-model of lovely aircraft for $250-$600-$... and get more satisfaction.

WoP is best of "aircraft-simulation-game" what U can get right now. What U waiting for?

[robtek]

An REAL aircraft-simulation-game!!

[nearmiss]

Why all the dark gradient edges and borders?

[Chromius]

Just off the top of my head, this is what I know so far about Wings of Prey.

WoP FMs and DMs are taken from Il2 1946. Engine management could be as per 1946, but I don't know, because the more complex features were omitted from the console versions because a gamepad does not have enough buttons.

AI is taken from 1946 but seems to have been altered somewhat, not necessarily for the better, and isn't as good as the Certs AI mod.

Multiplayer has 4 different game modes, Dogfight, Team Dogfight, Strike and Capture the Airfield. 16 players are supported on consoles, this will probably be increased for PC. Take-offs and landing are not featured in multiplayer on consoles, but the devs have said this will be changed for PC.

6DOF will be supported on PC.

There will be a mission creator, but I don't know details of this.

Well that does sound a bit promising, and admittedly those screenshots over the city and some of the effects do look amazing.

But after the singleplayer is over, multiplayer and addon single player campaigns/missions will be key for longevity. They will need to support minimally 50+ so hopefully they have 64 or more for online pc multiplayer. S

Some new features in the present aged IL-2 like triggers in last patch and zuti's moving dogfight with moving ships and possible rearm refuel should be factors that tell us the new SoW/BoB with linked ground components ect... will hopefully support all these old features and add some new ones making for a very versatile engine.

I would hope they were modeling engine management and realistic DM for said engines, but like you said it may have all been removed for the console.

I personally like full real or just map icons on Multiplayer and most of the fun I have is navigating a bomber accurately to target and maybe taking a little damage and nursing it home in one piece on a historical map with some type of ground action taking place.

What will the dynamic campaign be like? Is it just flying over the channel and bombing/defending? Or are there any ground actions at all?

[fuzzychickens]

Takeoffs and landings are NOT part of online outside of the "capture the airfield" multiplayer mode.

Just thought I would make that clear. Unless the developers change the options before release.

I do not think a server admin can set takeoffs and landings as part of a dogfight scenario. In fact, you will have little to no options to create your own dogfight/team dogfight scenarios.

The multiplayer modes are pretty rigid and the community can't really work with them to design their own like you can in 1946.

It's certainly a step foward in graphics, but a few steps backwards in the ability to customize the experience to suit player's tastes.

[KG26_Alpha]

Takeoffs and landings are NOT part of online outside of the "capture the airfield" multiplayer mode.

LMAO

That's the most ridiculous scenario Oh Dear :!:

Well so long as it stays on console format and don't creep into SoW, there's enough Conga Df servers and such mularky already in IL2 :)

[zangler]

It can't BE stunning and great UNLESS its realistic. So you have already conceded that point.



Who says you can't have both in 2010

this is my first post on this forum...but thought this was an interesting thread...

i think we are coming to the age where we can have both...and submit this as some evidence:

note: this is also a WIP still and is not WWII...but to me looks fantastic and for those that know DCS...im not sure any argument could be made at all on the realism or simulation side of it...

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/2692/dcsa10.jpg

re sized for post original can be found here along with some others:

http://www.simhq.com/_air13/air_425a.html

[proton45]

I agree with whoever it was that said this thread was "painful" to read...its utterly,utterly painful.

On the one hand the "in-game" screen shots do look pretty cool...but frankly I'm kind of tired of the "Saving Private Ryan" color tint that this game has. It seems like an "old hat" cinema effect that I wouldn't even tolerate in a new war movie. Should I now change my opinion just because its a video game, and not a movie?

I just wonder one thing...(I know its not this simple, but) I wish that their was a magic button I could push, and I wish that this magic button could remove the "Private Ryan" color effect from the game...and then, after the cinema effect was removed, we could see the "realism quality" of the color/graphics.

Oh, BTW happy X-Mass eve you all!!!!

[Necrobaron]

I don't really mind it in a movie, but being that a sim is supposed to replicate what you see in reality as best as possible, such filters and effects don't have a place there.
________
Sick from avandia (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/avandia/)

[zaelu]

I played the demo a bit today.

The only thing that should be taken into account are the visuals. Yes, the tint is a bit to "movie like" and the sun glare is retina burning (really hurts eyes) but what is observable are:

- better looking maps, better terrain, better roads (no more 45° bends), better looking cities (did I said better looking cities?) , better harbors etc. Basically, in maps regard, IL-1946 can win only in size discipline. I guess they did got a lot of help from Maddox at the cities... they look pretty much like the shots from SoW over England cities.
-better shaders on aircrafts. Self shadowing, self reflecting planes. Whater pouring on the canopy as you pass to a cloud (makes me laugh at the fact I was killed gazilions times in IL-2 1946 in the clouds, you will kill squat in there)
-better effects, explosions, tracers, shockwaves (some overdone but could be tone down), smokes on the ground (you can't see nothing through that fog down there and looks really... real).

Tower communications less controllable but somehow more immersive.
Better story telling at intermezzos.

What I want to say is this:

I want IL-2 1946 to have the visuals of Birds of Prey minus that heavy contrast and milky sunglare... and long range view... :D


And one screenshot from the game credits :P :

http://i47.tinypic.com/2hga3jd.png

[eleazar]

i can not understand that why people here critic WoP that much. I mean, is that so fantastic about being a sim player who only know nothing other than "realistic game". Come on guys, your are killing the whole sim industry! Seriously, how many ppl are really SERIOUS sim players? just log on to hyperlobby and have a look. Compair to games like MW2, the none "realistic" but addictive game, which only features nothing but point and shot.

And FYI, there are many ppl out there playing HAWX than playing LOFS, IL2, OF and BS. Why? because there just aren't that many ppl who want to be that serious and learn ALL the skills that only a pilot needs to know. I see many ppl quit OF after 1 month because it's just way too difficult, and OF is one of the most releastic flight sim!

So please, don't kill your sim games, don't use realistic to shoot down all the nice done arcade games. If oleg is the one who did WoP, (sadly not) that means for whatever the money they earn from WoP, they can put into BoB. If they have enough money for BoB, that means the development of BoB will be MUCH FASTER. (Hint ~)

So, let WoP be WoP. it's a good game, nice to film movie, will be loved by lots of player who just want to get into the air and have fun. Seriously, we haven't seen such nicely done game for many years.

Best Regards

[drafting]

Hey, why not... here're some of the screenshots I've been taking from the WoP beta (untouched except for resizing) . What can I say? I think the game looks pretty good.

http://i50.tinypic.com/2ntvfd.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/wqvdpl.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/20qca34.jpg

http://i46.tinypic.com/2poz5vp.jpg

http://i46.tinypic.com/33x9df9.jpg

http://i50.tinypic.com/5uguw6.jpg

I think there's enough room on a gamer's shelf for Wings of Prey and Storm of War.

[mungee]

I agree 100% with "drafting" - there IS room on one's shelf for BOTH WoP and SoW!
I have bought virtually every WWII combat flight sim since the launch of CFS 1 (back in 1998) ... with the exception of about 4 or so (definite) arcade-type sims.

I have bought CFS 1,2 & 3, B-17 Flying Fortress, European Air War, Battle of Britain (Rowan), Fighter Squadron/Screamin' Demons, Jane's WWII Fighters and obviously the original IL-2 Sturmovik and all of its add-on's.
I must say, each of these sims has had their strong and weak points ... and that's what's been so interesting.
Clearly IL-2 and its add-on's "raised the bar" and remain the no. 1 in my opinion.
However, I also have fond memories of the great immersion that I used to experience with Jane's WWII Fighters (the missions were varied and the effects/sounds were great!).

I will purchase WoP (hopefully on DVD!!! - our bandwidth down here in South Africa is expensive and relatively slow) - I think that WoP's graphics are "jaw-dropping" - the cities especially (however I'm sure that Olga will do a superb job of SoW's! Hehe!), small touches like the grime around the edges of the cockpit perspex frames, the smoke hanging over fires, the light shadows within the cockpits, the flame and explosion effects and the general "atmospherics" ... they're all brilliant.

It goes without saying that I will be getting SoW as soon as it is published later next year (15 Sept - Battle of Britain Day, perhaps?) and I'm sure that Oleg and his team will once again "raise the bar" to a level that we never ever imagined!

Olrg, if you are reading this - thank you for providing me with so much pleasure - a day of my life does not go by without me either "flying " Il-2/1946 or at least checking on all the Il-2/1946 forums for news! It's a massive part of my life (and I'm 57 years old!).

[Chivas]

I agree 100% with "drafting" - there IS room on one's shelf for BOTH WoP and SoW!
I have bought virtually every WWII combat flight sim since the launch of CFS 1 (back in 1998) ... with the exception of about 4 or so (definite) arcade-type sims.

I have bought CFS 1,2 & 3, B-17 Flying Fortress, European Air War, Battle of Britain (Rowan), Fighter Squadron/Screamin' Demons, Jane's WWII Fighters and obviously the original IL-2 Sturmovik and all of its add-on's.
I must say, each of these sims has had their strong and weak points ... and that's what's been so interesting.
Clearly IL-2 and its add-on's "raised the bar" and remain the no. 1 in my opinion.
However, I also have fond memories of the great immersion that I used to experience with Jane's WWII Fighters (the missions were varied and the effects/sounds were great!).

I will purchase WoP (hopefully on DVD!!! - our bandwidth down here in South Africa is expensive and relatively slow) - I think that WoP's graphics are "jaw-dropping" - the cities especially (however I'm sure that Olga will do a superb job of SoW's! Hehe!), small touches like the grime around the edges of the cockpit perspex frames, the smoke hanging over fires, the light shadows within the cockpits, the flame and explosion effects and the general "atmospherics" ... they're all brilliant.

It goes without saying that I will be getting SoW as soon as it is published later next year (15 Sept - Battle of Britain Day, perhaps?) and I'm sure that Oleg and his team will once again "raise the bar" to a level that we never ever imagined!

Olrg, if you are reading this - thank you for providing me with so much pleasure - a day of my life does not go by without me either "flying " Il-2/1946 or at least checking on all the Il-2/1946 forums for news! It's a massive part of my life (and I'm 57 years old!).

+1

[virre89]

Maybe some time you will find out that there is a difference between something looking great and something looking realistic.

Hopefully your discovery will not turn out like this:



I'm 100% with Chivas on this:
WoP is a game with nice graphics and hopefully attracts some people to the flightsim-genre. And when they want something more realistic in every aspect, they can go for BoB. That said, I don't think that it is "Watchout Oleg!".

Tbh ive to agree with the people who think WOP *looks* realistic, it's probably as far away from a sim you can get but it does look a hell of a lot realistic in an artistic and graphical manner over both IL2 and the current SoW screens.

I don't get your fanboyism Feurfalke, keep saying people itch and whine about slightest thing while you've to stand up and defend SoW all the time? It might be work in progress however we have yet to be proved it will LOOK more realistic, we already know it will play as a simulator...but it's maybe time for a real demonstration soon?

And yes you're absolutely right that hollywood graphics or effect dosnt equal realism in any way, that said i've yet to see more life like flight sim environments than in WoP...but on the other hand i couldn't care less i play it for the realism in the air not on the ground even if it has some impact.

Time to stop bitching and enjoy the holidays,

[zaelu]

Some prefer the "realism" of 'Saving private Rhyan' some prefer the one in 'Soap operas'.

Some prefer the simulations of a instrumental flying by being religulous to 'the numbers' other start laughing at the idea of IFR as a flight experience having the feeling they miss all what flying is without the real enviroment.

Some manage something inbetween...

All is relative... at least since Enstein appeared to the scene.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

S~!

Anton the Dev for Wings of Prey is an absolute stand up fellow. We can only PRAY for his success so that we as a community can (eventually) have two competing games.

Each driving the other FORWARD - (to our advantage as serious flight simmers).

Here is some news for you fanbois....
WoP has already affected SoW development in a POSITIVE WAY because it has RAISED THE BAR for both terrain representation/scale and engine performance.

BE SURE!

.
.

[Reisman]

Here's a new short teaser. Yeah, the lighting is movie-like and the planes are not up to SoW standard, but the game sure looks amazing:

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/debut-teaser-wings-of/60321

EDIT: Oops, I discovered this is an old teaser actually...

[kimosabi]

Ok, if you guys keep posting those WoP shots I'm afraid I'll have to buy it.

How does the game/physics feel compared to 1946 BTW? If WoP shows to be as realistic a HAWX or something there will be hell to pay.:lol:

[flyingbullseye]

I will purchase WoP (hopefully on DVD!!! - our bandwidth down here in South Africa is expensive and relatively slow)

Good luck with that. I was reading a post by one of the devs at simHQ saying they plan to mostly distribute the sim by d/l, with a very limited and possible regional DVD release. :rolleyes: If we're lucky they may do a DVD purchase directly from them as I would also rather have a hard copy myself.

Flyingbullseye

[furbs]

just spotted this...WOW...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mcT_giikC4

[zaelu]

Ok, if you guys keep posting those WoP shots I'm afraid I'll have to buy it.

How does the game/physics feel compared to 1946 BTW? If WoP shows to be as realistic a HAWX or something there will be hell to pay.:lol:

Well... let's put it this way... I am a bad shooter in Il-2 1946 and I shoot the same in WoP :D

On ground you cant see squat if you don't fly by the book. You really need to be familiar with the terrain a bit otherwise you miss all targets... visually, not a chance to hit them.


P-51 is a PITA to fly especially with those rockets... snap-stalls like crazy.

You do have a lot of ammo in realistic (in simulation is bad due to viewing distance and the milky atmosphere... at least on britain map)




To be more clear... IL-2 1946 can be tone down in realism a heck lot more than WoP at simulation mode. In fact WoP seems very little behind to IL-2 in some fine aspects of flying but because the enviroment is so much more life like is hard to "digitize".

Oh... WoP has support for Freetrack or TrackIR by default... 6DoF... and whats even more funny... in Spitfire you get the same "bug" while looking back to one side like in IL-2 1946 with 6DoF Mod (praise sHr once more, S!)



The radio comms are nice too... pitty you can't ask for instructions etc... but is nice to hear the tower asking for status and the pilot saying... "come again, your breaking up..." :D


P.S. For ppl in South Africa etc with small bandwith... the demo of the game is available in torrent download which works better in such small bandwidth and can be resumed anytime you want... the demo contains the full game but you have to purchase it online to enable it full... I guess is a good option.

later edit..

a nice ingame movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnE7SfEgCn8&fmt=22

later later edit... the famous 6DoF bug :D

http://i48.tinypic.com/xdzhqb.png

[mungee]

just spotted this...WOW...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mcT_giikC4
Awesome clip/sequence in the '262!!

The scenery and buildings are quite outstanding - it looks like Berlin - am I correct? - I thought I got a quick glimpse of the Reichstag and the 'Tiergarten flakturm'.

Did you notice the awesome lighting effects/shadows in the cockpit?

I agree, "WOW!"

[airmalik]

Awesome clip/sequence in the '262!!
I agree, "WOW!"

I'm SOLD! Again :)

I haven't flown this low over a city in RL but I've watched in-cockpit videos of low level airshow flights and the sensation of being there is SPOT ON!

[Necrobaron]

Haha, well it just goes to show that some people prefer things that glitter and shine!
________
Weed (http://wwweed.com/)

[furbs]

we all know IL2 and SOW are and will be better SIMS...i cant wait for SOW and im sure it will be even better than WOP in every way....but...as for now...show me a game that LOOKS better than that flying over a city down low.

[Desode]

Haha, well it just goes to show that some people prefer things that glitter and shine!

LOL ! Thats a riot man !

Still though it would be a real shame for the Sim community not to support this game. It is using the Il2 1946 flight models and though its not as hard core as 1946, its right under it by a notch or two.

We need to support any game that comes to our sim commuinity, especially one that has a Dev team that is willing to give their time and energy to make the game the way we want it. These Dev's are trying to do just that.
Wop is a work in progress still and they have stated that if we support them they will do their best to make WOP grow and change to everything we want it to be. I have been a sim fan for 30 yrs and sometimes I see people in our community that are so impatient and picky that I hold them at the top of the list for why our Sim industry is in such bad shape. They pick and gripe about everything instead of supporting a game and doing everything they can to make it become a much needed franchise in the Sim scene. Then inturn I hear these same people gripe about how flight Sims are a dying breed !
It really amazes me.

I hope everyone will support this game by buying it and then I hope they will go to the WOP forums and give their opinions on how the dev's can make WOP better. We can never have to many good sims !

Thanks for your time and consideration , Desode

[furbs]

spot on post mate. :)

[zaelu]

I don't think I will buy it... it's OK for others to support the game if they can but I have to make some choices between priorities :D.

The game does look refreshing over standard IL-2 even moded... some classes in visuals but...


There are some things quite annoying in it, to be fair... the over exaggerated bloom (which the developer said in SimHQ interview that will not change and which is enough for me not to buy SoW not to mention WoP... I have sensible eyes you know...:) ), lack of options in many regards... like if you make a mission in Sim mode... the replay is locked in "the cockpit"... which is... dumb? At least in demo is so. Some controls are really funny... like: you have separate flaps controls (up/down) but you have a so called (ridiculous) 'toggle flaps (simulator)"... which in case of the Spit it cycles through combat/take off/landing very conveniently when you need them as opposed to the non sim... up/down that has only raised and landing... doh! :D

The fact that you get to land only if the map have an airfield and only if you really hurry to the airfield... otherwise it just cuts to the inter mission scene "movie"...

And that milk over England... I hoped it will be a tweak or something but... they said it will stay cause it's realistic... sorry to say... it's not.

Also from the interview I understand it doesn't have even a small QMB... just some 20 mission offline and some online... which is not enough to asure a long life for the game... sadly... and IMHO.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

Haha, well it just goes to show that some people prefer things that glitter and shine!

Haha ... Just goes to show that some people are no account noobs.

Just downloaded the new P40 and I LOVED it. Show some love to this game and it will reward you. I haven't had his much fun since Forgotten Battles. :)

[kirq]

I just went through this topic and I have to say that I'm suprised by people reaction for BoP. Why don't You Guys just sit and enjoy this extremly beautiful looking game? Instead, you keep saying how unrealistic it looks and how much more realistic SoW will look. Show me the game that gets near this visiual quality and then we'll talk about unrealistic haze and filters. It doesn't make sense at all.

Some of You (especialy those in loop of denial) sounds like regular fanboys. Why can't You just play both games? BoP is in the stores so why not support this tallented devs, they might come back with somethis as pretty and much more "simulation like" in future. Especialy not knowing when we can expect to see SoW.

PS. +1 on every single 13th Hsqn Protos post.

[jt_medina]

Hi there!,

I bought a few days ago WOP and the only thing I can say is I am sold.
Like many here we have been flying IL2 series for years now, but its true that Wings of Prey despite it is in beta stage they are doing pretty well.

Wings of Prey is clearly behind of IL21946 in terms of AI, flight model and multiplayer but I guess this is gonna change once they start patching it after beta.
When the first IL2 was released it also had a lot of glitches and flight model also had problems.(I bought it first day it was released by the way :grin: )

We should feel happy that someone else is interested to deliver a decent sim with amazing graphics and a graphic engine that can be run on almost any modern PC, because it is remarkable that those graphics can be ran on a lowend GT220 with 30+ frames maxed out.

I am sure that Mr Oleg will deliver a 10/10 product but given the lack of simulators and given that clearly on this hobby we are 'a few' we should support any new sim on the market.

Something else to say.
From mid November to almost 24 of December those guys have updated WOP with nearly 1.7 GB in patches as far as I counted they have nearly delivered 10 patches in a month which despite it was in beta it is very remarkable the work they have done.

Support it!,

[Necrobaron]

How am I a noob? A noob of what exactly? Because I don't sit there slack-jawed at the pretty graphics makes me a noob? Just because you have a weird hard-on for this arcade game and decide to get defensive is no need for name calling. Nothing I said was untrue. Clearly some of you guys like this game for the graphics, as has been stated by yourselves many times over. I think it's funny that the WoP fanboys are calling other people fanboys because not everyone agrees with them. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

To be clear, I have nothing against the WoP/BoP devs and wish them luck. I've not kept up with the patches (are they trying to patch it up to a proper sim?), but the last I checked it's just a pretty arcade game, using watered down assets from the IL-2 series but with oversaturated, whiz-bang graphics, originally made for consoles and then offered to the PC community under a slightly different guise. I fail to see how supporting this game furthers the sim community in any significant way. It's for a whole other gaming niche entirely.

Sims are arguably a dying breed, but this certainly is not the direction I want to see them go. A "Sim-lite" or a sim-"ish" arcade game like BoP does not interest me at all. Either it's a true sim or it isn't. Don't wallow in-between.

Haha ... Just goes to show that some people are no account noobs.

Just downloaded the new P40 and I LOVED it. Show some love to this game and it will reward you. I haven't had his much fun since Forgotten Battles. :)
________
Launch box (http://mflbvaporizer.com)

[AdMan]

SoW fanboys are setting themselves up for disappointment. People are acting like SoW is going to ship with a brainchip - it's still a game folks, there will be hundreds of things that you will be able to point out that are unrealistic about SoW, just look at the screenshot discussions. Heck I have yet to even see a "flat-bottom" cloud in a SoW screen shot.

*inspired a post for update thread*

[Necrobaron]

Who is acting like SoW will be perfect upon release?

Just a hunch, but flawed or not, I'm guessing SoW ships with a far more advanced flight and damage model than any WWII flight sim to date. I know the all important flat bottom clouds might be absent upon release, but I'm sure they'll be patched in later. If that's not acceptable I'm sure BoP will oblige because...geez...it's pretty!
________
SchoolGirls (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/SchoolGirls/)

[crazyivan1970]

1) I wouldn`t make any judgment on how SOW will look like just yet and especially compare it with the product that is already gone gold.
2) Comparing a brand new product to 9 year old sim is kinda silly.. Needless to say that IL-2 is still superior to WOP in few departments as was already mentioned.
3) I would love for WOP to succeed, and i hope that developers will not stop in the process of closing the gap between flight sim wannabe and the actual flight sim.
4) Don`t think for a second that Maddox is scared of competition, he will only welcome it... and you know who will win at the end? Us, and only us.
5) Yes, i bought WOP and i think developers did an excellent job and i have a feeling that they will do much more to please air combat junkies. I can only wish them best of luck in their venture.

and finally...
6) Yes i am still alive and kicking :) Happy New Year all :D

[proton45]

Hey, you guys who like to play with "BoP" or "WoP" should have some fun and enjoy yourself....but whats with the bad mouthing of "SoW"? Why do you need to tear down "SoW" just to justify your enjoyment of "BoP"? I think thats kind of lame...

[Desode]

How am I a noob? A noob of what exactly? Because I don't sit there slack-jawed at the pretty graphics makes me a noob? Just because you have a weird hard-on for this arcade game and decide to get defensive is no need for name calling. Nothing I said was untrue. Clearly some of you guys like this game for the graphics, as has been stated by yourselves many times over. I think it's funny that the WoP fanboys are calling other people fanboys because not everyone agrees with them. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

To be clear, I have nothing against the WoP/BoP devs and wish them luck. I've not kept up with the patches (are they trying to patch it up to a proper sim?), but the last I checked it's just a pretty arcade game, using watered down assets from the IL-2 series but with oversaturated, whiz-bang graphics, originally made for consoles and then offered to the PC community under a slightly different guise. I fail to see how supporting this game furthers the sim community in any significant way. It's for a whole other gaming niche entirely.

Sims are arguably a dying breed, but this certainly is not the direction I want to see them go. A "Sim-lite" or a sim-"ish" arcade game like BoP does not interest me at all. Either it's a true sim or it isn't. Don't wallow in-between.


In all honesty you seem to know nothing about the game. I respect your opinion but you have never played WOP. Who in the freakin world is telling you its a arcade game ? Thats such BS its a freakin Riot !

Let me ask you this, When was the last time you saw a Arcade game with full left Aileron trim, Aileron right trim , evelator trim, Full flap control, full Prop pitch control, Fuel mixture control, wheel brake, open and close cowl, Full engine managment clear down to the supercharger, Spins , Stalls, Red outs, Black outs, When you pull G's the force pulls your head around in the plane more realistic then any other sim I have ever played. A Amazing game wind engine , where every close pass of any plan ( PROP WASH) throws you around , even your own prop wash from the ground when you dive to close can wreak you in a tenth of a second.

Really, I'm floored that you call this a arcade game. The only reason I call it a light Simulation game is because there is no Mission editor yet and I say yet because the Dev's are looking to make one.

I have played Sims for 30+ years, I am as Hard core as any Sim Fan out there. I play Black Shark like it is going out of style on full sim settings.
I play ROF every other day and Il2 1946 (AAA) still atleast 15 hrs a week.

Who in the Hell is telling you this is a arcade game ? Where did you get that from ? Its just like Il2 1946, You can tweak the settings from a arcade style clear to full simulation. Its no different.
I really think someone gave you some Bad info on WOP.
I wouldn't be playing it if it was a arcade game, even if it was full mind blowing photo realism with the graphics !


Now don't take this post as any kind of attack against you, Please don't ,,because Its not one in any way. I respect your opinion and your right to voice that opinion, its just your so off base in your comments here that its really almost funny. I don't find it funny though, because I'm getting the feeling that your just miss informed about WOP.
If I come across as blunt, its mostly my complete and Utter Shock that you and others call this game a Arcade game.


And,
As for whoever it was that called you a noob, well thats just BS too. You don't even know anything about Necrobaron.


PS , And anyone who isn't looking forward to SOW ,,, WELL GO JUMP IN A NEAR FROZEN LAKE ! LOL If you aren't looking forward to SOW then you shouldn't even be here ! Even if SOW has some issue on launch, OLEG will fix them and it will become a legendary WWII sim. Thats one thing I 'll bet on.

DESODE

[crazyivan1970]

Hey, you guys who like to play with "BoP" or "WoP" should have some fun and enjoy yourself....but whats with the bad mouthing of "SoW"? Why do you need to tear down "SoW" just to justify your enjoyment of "BoP"? I think thats kind of lame...

It`s like calling unborn baby ugly... i guess some can judge just by looking at the sonogram :D

[13th Hsqn Protos]

It`s like calling unborn baby ugly... i guess some can judge just by looking at the sonogram :D

S~! My brother from another mother !!!

No but you can see birth defects :cool:

[crazyivan1970]

S~! My brother from another mother !!!

No but you can see birth defects :cool:

Birth defects would have something to do with birth :D That`s why they call them birth defects... no? ;)

[13th Hsqn Protos]

S~! CrazyIvan

In honor of your return to the forums. I will this one time let you slide.

Welcome back Bro and a very Happy New Year to you and all who bought Wings of Prey.

P.S
Can't wait to flame you in W.o.P tommorow :-P

[crazyivan1970]

S~! CrazyIvan

In honor of your return to the forums. I will this one time let you slide.

Welcome back Bro and a very Happy New Year to you and all who bought Wings of Prey.

P.S
Can't wait to flame you in W.o.P tommorow :-P

Ok your majesty, thanks for sparing my existence :) and i will not comment on PS part :D

[13th Hsqn Protos]

Yes, i bought WOP and i think developers did an excellent job and i have a feeling that they will do much more to please air combat junkies. I can only wish them best of luck in their venture.

The Archbishop of the church of Oleg has spoken.

Birds of Prey is Good !

Let us pray that Pope Oleg will bring forth the miracle.

I did mine, got CrazyIvan playing W.o.P and excited to fly again. :cool:

+1 for Desode post. Nice job.

[zaelu]

I just remembered... IL-2 prior to 4.0 wasn't that "sim" isn't it? WoP has apparently the 4.0 FM in it.... like the torque etc. Remember when 4.0 came out and all the planes suddenly started to desperately need rudder pedals? C'mon... you must remember :D .

For people calling WoP just an arcade I dare them to try the demo with full sim settings and then play "IL-2 Sturmovik" demo which was a sim from the start and make a comparison.

Just don't mind the joke/mistake that flaps toggle is called "simulation" but flaps up and down aren't although they do are more realistically simulated. Example... toggle flaps (which is called simulation) gives you in a dive nice convenient combat flaps on Spitfire or landing flaps if you land or take off flaps if you take off as opposed with "non simulation" flaps up/down that has only raised and landing in the same Spitfire and guarantees jamming in a fast dive. I must say too that the dives near ground are adrenaline rush in this game... boy the sounds and the shakes!

Don't mind the AI that is a bit retarded but at least has numbers.

Also be tolerant to the lack of many features that adds complexity to IL-2 1946 but not necessarily simulation of real thing. Like: open/close canopies at 400km/h, locking the tail wheel just to get yourself in the woods, CEM that gives no real trouble for planes not too automatic, nice variety of bombs but with effects far off reality such 1000kg near tank and no scratch, bombers with nice bombsights but with bombs falling the same and with disregard to weather etc, gunners that are all Zaitsevs, bridges that can be distroyed with 60 kilos bombs and trains that go boom from few MG's rounds, G forces modeled the same for each plane as long it has a human piloting it, fuel distributed in one big single tank, unrealistic airfields, unrealistic AI view, unrealistic clouds flying (heck, only with 6DoF mod on you can get yourself really shake in the clouds), unrealistic guns shooting at any Gs, big maps with schematic cities that nobody can or want to fly over... etc etc etc... I let you continue...

Sure you will think... but the 1946 game is old has limitations... of course. that was my point to show how relative the thing is. I just pointed many things that are modeled in 1946 but they just give the impression they are simulating something realistically ... like in RPGs where you simulated an armor by some general points. Is still a simulation but... very crude.

So... is Christmas holidays... maybe you have more time... try the demo... have a bit of fun.


Joke aside... I think SoW will look even better than WoP cause Oleg stated he will use DirectX although he was saying till recently (I think) that the game is still OpenGl... I guess he changed the engine and I wouldn't be very surprised to see Dagor Engine 4.0 powering SoW.


Finally do remember that Oleg Maddox is in the WoP game credits! I mean... WoP is not quite the competition... you know... is like calling Honda: "Hey Honda, watch out for Lexus! Boo!"

I still hate that blinding bloom... I find it arcade-ish... but, that P-51 looks criminal... minus the rockets :P

[6S.Manu]

This is a good post from the game's official board:

The dev's have already said that this game isnt going to be as super realistic like IL2. IMHO its far from ace combat style aircade for sure. The FM in this game isnt as historically accurate as IL2... the characteristics of the plane are definately there, but things like climb rates and acceleration is just higher than normal.

In fact in simulation mode its really not that bad at all (difference between sim and the rest of the modes is like night and day), you have to manage your radiator, flip on superchargers at alt, watch your gauges and you have no hud or target diamonds nor can you view outside the plane. you still have to lead targets while shooting but its just been made more forgiving. the other modes let my non-flight sim friends jump on andcan actually play the game competitively with me.. now they are enticed into learning a bit more, so thats helping lead more people into flight sims. Not many play flight sims these days, lets be honest our community is very small and aging.

long story short, dont play this game expecting IL2.. play it expecting an arcade game that looks like SoW:BoB and flip it into simulator mode... it definately lives up to its design goal of being "fun". When i'm itching for that realistic carrier landing in my F4u, i can always fire up my modded il2. the graphics in this thing is a dream, gotta get used to it for SoW:BoB :) if you're fixed on only playing extremely realistic sims, then definately this isnt your cup of tea.


One of my former squadmates tested the beta... he's enthusiastic for all the visual effects (ground and inflight effect like the oil trails who soils your canopy) but he's a little concerned by the fact he can (could?) do candle at cruise speed to gain 2,5km of altitude...

Personally I search for flight model accuracy, and by now WoP can't give it to me.

[Necrobaron]

Thanks for the adult attitude and you don't come across as blunt at all. Admittedly, I understand it is somewhat of an exaggeration to call it purely an arcade game (at least when compared to HAWX or Ace Combat), but is Wings of Prey not essentially a PC edition of Birds of Prey? I have had the misfortune of playing Birds of Prey and to call it a sim is to do so in the loosest of terms, even on "realistic" settings. It had some sim elements, for a console game, but I can't imagine anyone who is into sims seriously calling it a sim. Are these two games totally different? If so, I'll admit that I've been mistaken. I'm not saying WoP/BoP isn't fun for those who are into that sort of thing (more power to you), but don't jump on those of us who don't think its sim enough to be taken seriously. Again, if WoP is totally different than BoP and is in fact simply IL-2:1946 with better (albeit overdone) graphics, then I'll put my foot in my mouth/eat my hat/eat crow, take your pick. My understanding was that WoP and BoP were essentially the same thing for different platforms.

Oh, and a "Hello!" to CrazyIvan! I haven't seen you since the Ubi days!

In all honesty you seem to know nothing about the game. I respect your opinion but you have never played WOP. Who in the freakin world is telling you its a arcade game ? Thats such BS its a freakin Riot !

Let me ask you this, When was the last time you saw a Arcade game with full left Aileron trim, Aileron right trim , evelator trim, Full flap control, full Prop pitch control, Fuel mixture control, wheel brake, open and close cowl, Full engine managment clear down to the supercharger, Spins , Stalls, Red outs, Black outs, When you pull G's the force pulls your head around in the plane more realistic then any other sim I have ever played. A Amazing game wind engine , where every close pass of any plan ( PROP WASH) throws you around , even your own prop wash from the ground when you dive to close can wreak you in a tenth of a second.

Really, I'm floored that you call this a arcade game. The only reason I call it a light Simulation game is because there is no Mission editor yet and I say yet because the Dev's are looking to make one.

I have played Sims for 30+ years, I am as Hard core as any Sim Fan out there. I play Black Shark like it is going out of style on full sim settings.
I play ROF every other day and Il2 1946 (AAA) still atleast 15 hrs a week.

Who in the Hell is telling you this is a arcade game ? Where did you get that from ? Its just like Il2 1946, You can tweak the settings from a arcade style clear to full simulation. Its no different.
I really think someone gave you some Bad info on WOP.
I wouldn't be playing it if it was a arcade game, even if it was full mind blowing photo realism with the graphics !


Now don't take this post as any kind of attack against you, Please don't ,,because Its not one in any way. I respect your opinion and your right to voice that opinion, its just your so off base in your comments here that its really almost funny. I don't find it funny though, because I'm getting the feeling that your just miss informed about WOP.
If I come across as blunt, its mostly my complete and Utter Shock that you and others call this game a Arcade game.


And,
As for whoever it was that called you a noob, well thats just BS too. You don't even know anything about Necrobaron.


PS , And anyone who isn't looking forward to SOW ,,, WELL GO JUMP IN A NEAR FROZEN LAKE ! LOL If you aren't looking forward to SOW then you shouldn't even be here ! Even if SOW has some issue on launch, OLEG will fix them and it will become a legendary WWII sim. Thats one thing I 'll bet on.

DESODE
________
Volcano Vaporizers (http://volcanovaporizer.net/)

[zaelu]

I updated the demo and i found 2 nice things and one so-so...

1. You have now a toggle gunsight button which is more sim-realistic than IL-2 1946 :P... you know in 1946 it just lock you to the gunsight and you are an ace... or something (kidding, right?), well, in WoP it just turns off the gunsight... the reflector light... uber! I asked for a mod in 1946 and no one did it :LOL: . maybe in SoW we get the feature of changing the light bulb in the air if it burns out :D .

2. Less milk in BoB map... a bit better

3. The demo map with "battle of the Bulge" changed to "battle of Berlin" where you get an La-7... :( I don't know... That P-51 beats everything at least in the looks... the real plane too.

[Desode]

Thanks for the adult attitude and you don't come across as blunt at all. Admittedly, I understand it is somewhat of an exaggeration to call it purely an arcade game (at least when compared to HAWX or Ace Combat), but is Wings of Prey not essentially a PC edition of Birds of Prey? I have had the misfortune of playing Birds of Prey and to call it a sim is to do so in the loosest of terms, even on "realistic" settings. It had some sim elements, for a console game, but I can't imagine anyone who is into sims seriously calling it a sim. Are these two games totally different? If so, I'll admit that I've been mistaken. I'm not saying WoP/BoP isn't fun for those who are into that sort of thing (more power to you), but don't jump on those of us who don't think its sim enough to be taken seriously. Again, if WoP is totally different than BoP and is in fact simply IL-2:1946 with better (albeit overdone) graphics, then I'll put my foot in my mouth/eat my hat/eat crow, take your pick. My understanding was that WoP and BoP were essentially the same thing for different platforms.

Oh, and a "Hello!" to CrazyIvan! I haven't seen you since the Ubi days!

Id say the best way to describe it is,, they took lots of things out for the console version. I personally have my idea that it was made for Pc then dubbed down and put on console, then finally released on Pc.

Its way different in WOP. You have all the things that I mentioned, and those weren't in the console version. The Dev's had issues with the BOP publisher.
The Publisher did all kinds of stupid shit like group market testing and things of that nature and then forced the Dev's under contract to take these things out of BOP. Just one example is the Red outs and Blackouts. The test group told the publisher that they were confused by this being in the game, so the publisher made them take it out of BOP.
That was just one of the things that Anton pointed out months before BOP was released. You could tell by his posts in the BOP section, that I'd say about 3 months before release the Dev team was really bummed by what the publisher would let them release.
They clearly had a vision of Il2 1946 with better graphics and the publisher screwed them out of releasing the game they wanted to release.

Hence the new Name "Wings of Prey".
It wasn't about making a different name to release it on Pc for no reason. They wanted the game released without being controlled by that publisher. I'd say thats why its called WOP, and not BOP. They had to change the name for legal reasons so they could release it on Pc.

A example of how different it is now:
In BOP (Console), I could set 16 enemy planes in the QMB(training) and I could jump in a La 7 and crush them all in 5 minutes and not die once. In WOP your honestly hard pressed to take even 2 enemys out, without dieing ! God forbid you put 5 in there , cause they will chop you down in seconds !
It really feels like a completly different game. Plus having all the engine managment and things of that nature in the game really changes the whole gameplay. Things like flying a 12,000 + feet will really make certian planes shine.
You didn't have that in BOP.
As for the game itself, yeah its mostly the same campaign but with more missions added and all the german cockpits. When you combine that with the simulation gameplay elements that were cut out of the BOP Ver, you find a real sim at it core now.

I honestly can understand how you could consider BOP(console) more of a arcade style, even on its Sim setting, because you could do things that were complety impossible in any of the real aircraft and that was Bop set on Simulation mode.

My main point is the whole gameplay is damn near Il2 1946 now, its not what BOP was on console. With sim mode on in WOP its Hard as heck !, and you can really see what the Dev team wanted the game to be.


Now, they don't have that Publishers money anymore, so its up to us to support WOP. The Devs have said that if we support them they will make the changes we want, both in features and gameplay. They have really shown this to be true as I have seen in the beta with 10 patches in a month.

I'm sure it really was tuff for them to deal with all this crap on the consoles. Plus even if you set the publisher issue aside they still had to wait on patch certification on consoles just to release 1 single patch !!! That can take 6 weeks !

Can you imagine the Hell this Dev team went through.
First, your forced to hack your game into what you didn't want it to be.
Then when the consumers/Bop community gripes about it and the publisher says " alright patch the game with some of the things you wanted " , then you have to deal with the 6 week console certification process just for 1 patch to make it to the community.



DESODE

[Bloblast]

I pre-ordered the game, this should allow you to play the demo.
But the download does not work for me. I only downloads a 2,5MB file.

I cancelled the order and asked for refund. Heard nothing yet so far.

Last time that I bought a download game, I want a disk !!

[furbs]

the 2.5 mb download is just the exe for the full download....just double click it to start the full download of the game...or download the torrent file for etorrent.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

Yes after a lot of positive support in this forum WoP is picking up steam. (Your welcome Anton :rolleyes: )

Shame they are not interested in addressing the multiplayer issues.

- No Dedicated Server
- Inability to set password on server that you host. Anyone who feels like can join your game - whether you like it or not
- Recent lame attempts to force people to fly on lower texture settings = whether they like it or not (but hey we will never notice - cause were stupid.... )
- Patches break MP compatibility. So if you don't like a certain patch - you still cannot connect to someone even on your version.
- Gaijin - assume your machine is for their use and so is your bandwidth.

'Console mentality' as regards to online.
Soon as you set up a room, you have kids joining, screaming into their mic in various languages, no ptt that I saw - just a mess!

They can learn a lot from Oleg in regards to Multiplayer Ethos.

.
.

[Dano]

Yes after a lot of positive support in this forum WoP is picking up steam. (Your welcome Anton :rolleyes: )

Shame they are not interested in addressing the multiplayer issues.

- No Dedicated Server
- Inability to set password on server that you host. Anyone who feels like can join your game - whether you like it or not
- Recent lame attempts to force people to fly on lower texture settings = whether they like it or not (but hey we will never notice - cause were stupid.... )
- Patches break MP compatibility. So if you don't like a certain patch - you still cannot connect to someone even on your version.
- Gaijin - assume your machine is for their use and so is your bandwidth.

'Console mentality' as regards to online.
Soon as you set up a room, you have kids joining, screaming into their mic in various languages, no ptt that I saw - just a mess!

They can learn a lot from Oleg in regards to Multiplayer Ethos.

.
.

Dedicated servers are planned, the texture thing online was fixed within something like 48 hours, patches that break MP compatibility, never heard of that before ever...

Not sure why you seem to think the multiplayer password wont get fixed either, everything Gaijin have done so far leads me to think it will be sooner or later.

As for you wanting some sort of recognition for promoting Wings of Prey, after the above... seriously?

[13th Hsqn Protos]

The online textures were fixed after I and a few others MADE them fix it. -- that must be the part that really bothers you.

[insert sarcasm]

I will listen/trust you Dano - causes you are always 'ahead of the curve' ...... in the Flight Sim world .... :rolleyes:

seriously..

[Dano]

the online textures were fixed after i and a few others made them fix it. -- that must be the part that really bothers you.

[insert sarcasm]

i will listen/trust you dano - causes you are always 'ahead of the curve' ...... In the flight sim world .... :rolleyes:

Seriously..

lmao.

[Bloblast]

I played the demo.


THIS IS NO SIM IT'S KIDSPLAY (ARCADE) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


City looks good from above but less good when closer to the ground.

[Necrobaron]

Definately seems to be a lot of conflicting information regarding WoP...
________
Motorcycle Tires (http://www.motorcycle-tech.com/tires/motorcycle-tires)

[David603]

I played the demo.


THIS IS NO SIM IT'S KIDSPLAY (ARCADE) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


City looks good from above but less good when closer to the ground.
If I remember right from the Xbox 360 demo, you need to play the tutorial missions to unlock realistic and simulation difficulties. Anyone playing with only arcade difficulty unlocked would indeed call it childs play........

[13th Hsqn Protos]

S~!

Not really all that hard to understand........
Best Terrain Engine ever made in a flight sim = people giving them money in the hopes that they might actually do something with it.
W.o.P did us ALL a favor - It made what were now going to get in S.o.W exponentially better.
Be Sure ... A competitive Oleg is a wonderful thing :wink:



As for W.o.P
It comes from a console game.
Its console roots are particularly evident in the fms/ and multiplayer aspect (which is currently a joke).
Also their community is nothing like ours ..... average age here is 38 with many actually holding a PPL or Glider Rating. There its in the teens.
This will be hard to overcome - but they seem to want to do it. They deserve a chance to.
I am hopeful that they will mature into our market.


If not .... its simple .... they will die.

Its up to them now.

.
.

[crazyivan1970]

Definately seems to be a lot of conflicting information regarding WoP...

I`ll sum it up for you, IT`S MY OPINION OF COURSE :)

Comparing to SOW in any department... i dont think so...

I`ll just compare to IL2.. Things are better or equal...

Planes - external model is close to IL2 quality, but some modders pushed IL2 ahead.

Pits - some better some worse, better ones might win with help of dynamic lightning which take pits to new level. But once again, mods have pits with fresh textures that are fantastic

FM - not quiet there yet... options to be a flight sim are there.... but feeling of flight is odd, it feels like even high end aircraft is struggling to stay in the air.. And headshake is too much IMO.

DM - Similar to IL2 visually, too early to tell about impact of damage on the flight behavior

AI - i wont say anything....

MP - lack of it

SP- didnt check yet... but based on how AI flies... i donno.

Visuals - definitely a strong point, ground is fantastic, forest, mountains, etc... Not too impressed with the water tho. Tracers are nice too IMO. Smoke, explosions are up there too.

Overall Potential? Definitely yes... How much of potential... that`s up to dev team :D

Now i am going to duck....really low ;)

[proton45]

Am I right in assuming that the primary purpose of this topic is to scare Oleg into producing a visually stunning landscape for "SoW"? Am I also right in assuming that "13th Hsqn Protos" (& possibly others) feel that Oleg needs this "encouragement" to produce a visually stunning world around our beautiful new cockpits? Am I also correct in assuming that when we finally do see screen shots of the "in-game" terrain, that we will have to thank "13th Hsqn Protos" (& zakkandrachoff for the topic) for scaring Oleg into making a better (city) landscape then "WoP"? Well, in that case...I'll just get it out of the way now and thank you all. ;)

[crazyivan1970]

Am I right in assuming that the primary purpose of this topic is to scare Oleg into producing a visually stunning landscape for "SoW"? Am I also right in assuming that "13th Hsqn Protos" (& possibly others) feel that Oleg needs this "encouragement" to produce a visually stunning world around our beautiful new cockpits? Am I also correct in assuming that when we finally do see screen shots of the "in-game" terrain, that we will have to thank "13th Hsqn Protos" (among others) for scaring Oleg into making a better (city) landscape then "WoP"? Well, in that case...I'll just get it out of the way now and thank you all.

Now now Proton, comrade Protos just want SOW to succeed, just like a rest of us. Personally i dont see anything scary yet. Time will show :D

[Dano]

Am I right in assuming that the primary purpose of this topic is to scare Oleg into producing a visually stunning landscape for "SoW"? Am I also right in assuming that "13th Hsqn Protos" (& possibly others) feel that Oleg needs this "encouragement" to produce a visually stunning world around our beautiful new cockpits? Am I also correct in assuming that when we finally do see screen shots of the "in-game" terrain, that we will have to thank "13th Hsqn Protos" (& zakkandrachoff for the topic) for scaring Oleg into making a better (city) landscape then "WoP"? Well, in that case...I'll just get it out of the way now and thank you all. ;)

;)

[Tree_UK]

Am I right in assuming that the primary purpose of this topic is to scare Oleg into producing a visually stunning landscape for "SoW"? Am I also right in assuming that "13th Hsqn Protos" (& possibly others) feel that Oleg needs this "encouragement" to produce a visually stunning world around our beautiful new cockpits? Am I also correct in assuming that when we finally do see screen shots of the "in-game" terrain, that we will have to thank "13th Hsqn Protos" (& zakkandrachoff for the topic) for scaring Oleg into making a better (city) landscape then "WoP"? Well, in that case...I'll just get it out of the way now and thank you all. ;)

I dont think WOP is going to scare OLeg, its a great piece of work which shows what could of been done with IL2 (in some areas). The landscape is very good and very very similar to that shown on the SOW DVD all them years ago. The game runs very smooth and the FPS does not drop at all on my rig with everything 'whacked up' something I have never been able to achieve with IL2. Personally I think Oleg has been involved in this project more than most of us think, which can only be a good thing and is probably the reason why he would not be concerned about WOP being serious competion to SOW as a flight sim.

[TheGrunch]

I dont think WOP is going to scare OLeg, its a great piece of work which shows what could of been done with IL2 (in some areas).
I highly doubt that, since IL-2 was originally developed in the late nineties. But yeah, I agree, it looks very good, and terrain-wise it certainly looks much, much better than anything we've seen from SoW so far, despite how much some people like to delude themselves. I don't know why they're worrying yet, though, long time before the game's released still.

[yakaddict]

I tried this games demo. I am not impressed. Its physics are somewhat bad, nothing like il2, the planes are too easy to fly, the sounds are decent sometimes, horrible others, the land textures are good but honestly rise of flight has better ground, with moving grass and everything, and it actually has very good physics. This game is no competition whatsoever to il2 except for the graphics department (of which the explosions are not really any better either).

[13th Hsqn Protos]

the land textures are good but honestly rise of flight has better ground, with moving grass and everything


Got Screenshot ?

[yakaddict]

Got Screenshot ?

No unfortunately and my demo ran out cant open it anymore. Ill see if I can pull one off youtube.

[yakaddict]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63KW_EQ72yU
The best I can do on such short notice. Watch in 1080p, makes it really hit home. THIS should be storm of war right now. Lets hope SOW exceeds this level of awesomeness.

[proton45]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63KW_EQ72yU
The best I can do on such short notice. Watch in 1080p, makes it really hit home. THIS should be storm of war right now. Lets hope SOW exceeds this level of awesomeness.

Thats some nice footage...I like the waving grass, it opens my mind to the possibility's.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

S~!

Its ok, but it reminds me of IL2. The scale is the same ..... off.

Can't touch the terrain in the Wings of Prey -- my favorite map is 'Bulge'. I can't ask for more than this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCmMCd6BfJQ


I personally don't care for that kind of grass. It would be fine in a tank or infrantry sim but seems out of place/unnecessary to me. IMHO not single cpu cycle should be spent on waving grass.

W.o.P has done terrain properly for a flight sim.

However ..... taste is a personal thing. Good flights in RoF.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I have some screenshots here (running in lowest settings as my computer isn't exactly NASA standard). Trees and grass are set to "Low", as they're some good FPS killers and, in such close combat, I can't afford any lag.

Rise of Flight did a nice job in archieving eye-candy in a realistic way, specially with the reflections. Not really important on this discussion, anyway, but I think they also got the 'drama' factor right. I felt a bit weird after my plane got one wing bent, I tried to recover but, already low, the wing was ripped of and it dived towards the ground... This only happened once in IL-2, there it's just hit Ctrl+E and see if the pilot jumps, and if he smashes into the ground. When you can't even jump, things are different.

http://images.orkut.com/orkut/photos/OgAAAFaqRyIy3ScWjSPHpghCVC0rrYZj8l-XBC7a8U1JdR3LZAUo1CkPp6UAjFV5CSFSwdYBRHVDiomabwWrD M1cHYEAm1T1UEM0i_kdE4cU1yteM7cDe0WVvXbt.jpg

http://images.orkut.com/orkut/photos/OgAAAHGdMRRqkMD71mPHDcmOSATL93Y7_o8-Nn_tW-4_MLwk1dWfmvFx3lCH-TlxHCjg_b7neub-UZ374JTtqMdoANIAm1T1UJCxny2QbFtKFmMwCR2TdNBg3Pf-.jpg

http://images.orkut.com/orkut/photos/OgAAAJE1OvXKj6uE4M8Xw-WWcR2CAdxfAZOT2-ooLPb_0oXTUMeDrLG3Y-1OKvpMU43bLZD30_6ed7_X9apGWEfIhd0Am1T1UDb4OPFF5sDl 6AQMSYFD2BrtkrWG.jpg

http://images.orkut.com/orkut/photos/OgAAAHD0kOLTRRzuoc5gequdQtVxjuU45lkuOSiRXHGWWo_8W_ r9xyPehDrI35kZZdCaUDYefFKC85uqWYKVlcHRPM8Am1T1UJ4W rq5NbLdo8YHzgG-QEWzZvWf2.jpg

http://images.orkut.com/orkut/photos/OgAAAGgZFgh2W8QDgLg-0kZVpfFSkE5EZNDMgWj85rSlUt8aWwFxfpbgypZMPbpoIByF0k llaIRV7qCHh8LNCSEASh0Am1T1UDKvtoHKnW7MBjv0ASTebpSA 18Fa.jpg

http://images.orkut.com/orkut/photos/OgAAAKfkad5wqlNBrCtmoEYqIkEI92jYNi0f_OlN-hETfRccvEar4E2Eb_x7fevxQAh5B5XeSfbVqSw9DF8bgTeEZnU Am1T1UIBgMyiNspcc1npZhOrUNqXpAeRg.jpg

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Eagle Dynamics also has some pretty good-looking environment, specially if we're talking about DCS. Again, very low settings, so it does not show the full potential of the sim.

http://images.orkut.com/orkut/photos/OgAAAIsoF-J5rOb8FGW50s-jttwckQlNAAvPcgu-xMbP9UPk_noRQ7gTrNv1GkzdlXiKyx5l1LCWI2-nhr-uxjZQRoIAm1T1ULeR9Ww6zIaocs7uvf0IjEkQWjgW.jpg

http://images.orkut.com/orkut/photos/OgAAAPI9Z-EdvhypyRZ51APMhhB6ovRyYbNjvn6xlckjP8l73WxpXmOgCq6r NvxbvUxKHf5k72qa_T_1mc7k4lt1VDMAm1T1UKCLcagZbzD2s6 pR1iNYKy-o669u.jpg

http://images.orkut.com/orkut/photos/OgAAAN-vHyG6ZqZkXYxvQE1Dq2B1EXPJjbeYYatDnrjeEhl5UrQmBrqqR DB8A9bOWI4ViqpSPRW9X-kFQ4tj8nBCaKUAm1T1UPVCyKiqvveCzlyplWGJsE55TqQ2.jpg

http://images.orkut.com/orkut/photos/OgAAAAk_yxZMh6AzTaqX1z3cIFcGyEADZAbK5P9pHfELRq04ny oHS_2wUwZ-7b6Ldk_6dXhF7MJ6g6DDI48YSXZIynIAm1T1UKJBL4sIycsBJw VfQFrrhURMHJrZ.jpg

http://images.orkut.com/orkut/photos/OgAAAPzKGY1zMe2_vnYtldlCVfe7s1Vp7KqMf1prtxWPTalvGY AL-jjyjnPR1B04dFOatWhzSWUm7w7jyGWrXsaW6n0Am1T1UKgOH7T UVo0khhyBysIp7KTCNbAp.jpg

http://images.orkut.com/orkut/photos/OgAAAIMZwfwwmFsp9sBIf10CiMQNcAu7lW0XpLIac9L8UbQoBU qLUqyFMx0BE317yWAmFi6E_mebdrPEnZ0C8T5mHtgAm1T1UCan 3EKcQLEGOTBf3RJz7B2BCibc.jpg

http://images.orkut.com/orkut/photos/OgAAAOqZdgVS6aYfw_qj2vN-EeYuAfnRPKWasYF0Y-GEZcUeBTR_8Hw7ilbvqnVJjRRhFOQn-mPQ0MsAhfIIsqxcWc4Am1T1UGTkvG0gCYC1JVMNT8LdmwhxPQR A.jpg

[diveplane]

am really enjoying wings of prey , it has a lot of potential , imo its middle of the road in terms of flight models.

very enjoyable.

[yakaddict]

S~!

Its ok, but it reminds me of IL2. The scale is the same ..... off.

Can't touch the terrain in the Wings of Prey -- my favorite map is 'Bulge'. I can't ask for more than this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCmMCd6BfJQ


I personally don't care for that kind of grass. It would be fine in a tank or infrantry sim but seems out of place/unnecessary to me. IMHO not single cpu cycle should be spent on waving grass.

W.o.P has done terrain properly for a flight sim.

However ..... taste is a personal thing. Good flights in RoF.

I just dont see how the terrain is much better than RoF at altitude. I dont mind the grass, it makes it more immersive and on my computer ran at max graphics at a high fps level. People with older machines might take issue however. Im not sure what you mean by scale, as I felt the same flying RoF and WoP in terms of scale, only that RoF actually has a good flight model (very good actually). There isnt too much to expect from a ww1 flight sim anyway, cuz honestly, there wasnt that much going on in the air in that time...ground forces and stuff would be nice though. Dcs black shark has both scale and great physics and I love it, only the coding is so bad that it slows down on max graphics on a brand new gaming rig so thats rather tragic. A good flight sim, to me, should have good graphics and good physics, and that includes the flight model of black shark or RoF and graphics such as grass, good shadows, reflections etc. RoF has both, Dcs has them too. WoP has potential, unfortunately that is all it has for now, its too arcadish, both in flight model and options. Ill be waiting till SoW comes out or WoP is realistic enough to give it a second look, but honestly flight model should be the most important consideration when making a sim. Just my (long) opinion.

[Desode]

I just dont see how the terrain is much better than RoF at altitude. I dont mind the grass, it makes it more immersive and on my computer ran at max graphics at a high fps level. People with older machines might take issue however. Im not sure what you mean by scale, as I felt the same flying RoF and WoP in terms of scale, only that RoF actually has a good flight model (very good actually). There isnt too much to expect from a ww1 flight sim anyway, cuz honestly, there wasnt that much going on in the air in that time...ground forces and stuff would be nice though. Dcs black shark has both scale and great physics and I love it, only the coding is so bad that it slows down on max graphics on a brand new gaming rig so thats rather tragic. A good flight sim, to me, should have good graphics and good physics, and that includes the flight model of black shark or RoF and graphics such as grass, good shadows, reflections etc. RoF has both, Dcs has them too. WoP has potential, unfortunately that is all it has for now, its too arcadish, both in flight model and options. Ill be waiting till SoW comes out or WoP is realistic enough to give it a second look, but honestly flight model should be the most important consideration when making a sim. Just my (long) opinion.


I have a question so you can finish the whole campaign and single missions on full Sim mode with Limited fuel and limited ammo and no retrys ?

I'd love to see someone do this and post a video of each mission. I'm personally finding myself hard pressed to pull it off.

Desode

[yakaddict]

I have a question so you can finish the whole campaign and single missions on full Sim mode with Limited fuel and limited ammo and no retrys ?

I'd love to see someone do this and post a video of each mission. I'm personally finding myself hard pressed to pull it off.

Desode

I believe so. I dont have the unlocked version. Its the full game but in demo mode (weird I know) but yo ucan as far as I can tell. Unfortunately what gets me is that the sim mode isnt realistic enough, not that the game has arcade modes, which is fine with me.

[Desode]

I believe so. I dont have the unlocked version. Its the full game but in demo mode (weird I know) but yo ucan as far as I can tell. Unfortunately what gets me is that the sim mode isnt realistic enough, not that the game has arcade modes, which is fine with me.


What isn't realistic enough about it ? Be specific, so the Dev's know what your talking about. They have said they are willing to work with the Sim Community to change things but people have to be specific.

What do you find different between the FM of Il2 1946 and WOP ?
I play both and have flown each plane from WOP then switched to Il2 and flew the same plane and I can't tell much difference. They stall and spin at the same speeds and everything. The only thing I can think it people have their Stick sensitivity set different on the 2 games. If you tweek the sensitivity on both games so they match you will see the FM are the same.

I'm not trying to argue in any way , I just want to understand what you mean you, so I can check it out and post it for the Dev team.
Desode
PS
The first couple of missions are pretty easy even on sim but the missons get Crazy hard pretty fast. How many missions can you fly in the demo ?

[yakaddict]

What isn't realistic enough about it ? Be specific, so the Dev's know what your talking about. They have said they are willing to work with the Sim Community to change things but people have to be specific.

What do you find different between the FM of Il2 1946 and WOP ?
I play both and have flown each plane from WOP then switched to Il2 and flew the same plane and I can't tell much difference. They stall and spin at the same speeds and everything. The only thing I can think it people have their Stick sensitivity set different on the 2 games. If you tweek the sensitivity on both games so they match you will see the FM are the same.

I'm not trying to argue in any way , I just want to understand what you mean you, so I can check it out and post it for the Dev team.
Desode
PS
The first couple of missions are pretty easy even on sim but the missons get Crazy hard pretty fast. How many missions can you fly in the demo ?

Cool. Ok the planes I tried, spitfire and p-51, this is whats wrong (mostly with the spitfire, I havent tried the 51 enough). Its too easy to land, the narrow landing gear isnt simulated well enough to display the dangerous effects of a bad landing. The cannon and machine guns sound the same and have about the same damage effect (or lack thereof randomly). Damage to the airframe appears to have little effect on the flight model (I have yet to evaluate that more thouroughly in the simulator mode). The plane climbs too agressively. I reached altitude too fast and at too high an angle of attack, and the stalls are either on or off, the spinning which appears great, is actually too easy to exit and stabilize. The plane accelerates from standstill to tail airbourne and then wheels off the ground too quickly and in general it appears to have too much lift at the wings. The plane also accelerates to maximum velocity much faster than it should, its far too powerfull (maximum velocity does seem about right though). I will evaluate the 51 more but thats what I saw with the spit, then Ill get back to you. Its not that the flight model is BAD, it isnt really. Its just far enough away from real to make it annoying because you can see all its potential sitting right there. Also, a nice panel of switches for in game realism settings like il2 has would be a great option to have beside the 3 main arcade, real, and simulator settings. Hope that clarifies my opinion a bit.

[Desode]

Cool. Ok the planes I tried, spitfire and p-51, this is whats wrong (mostly with the spitfire, I havent tried the 51 enough). Its too easy to land, the narrow landing gear isnt simulated well enough to display the dangerous effects of a bad landing. The cannon and machine guns sound the same and have about the same damage effect (or lack thereof randomly). Damage to the airframe appears to have little effect on the flight model (I have yet to evaluate that more thouroughly in the simulator mode). The plane climbs too agressively. I reached altitude too fast and at too high an angle of attack, and the stalls are either on or off, the spinning which appears great, is actually too easy to exit and stabilize. The plane accelerates from standstill to tail airbourne and then wheels off the ground too quickly and in general it appears to have too much lift at the wings. The plane also accelerates to maximum velocity much faster than it should, its far too powerfull (maximum velocity does seem about right though). I will evaluate the 51 more but thats what I saw with the spit, then Ill get back to you. Its not that the flight model is BAD, it isnt really. Its just far enough away from real to make it annoying because you can see all its potential sitting right there. Also, a nice panel of switches for in game realism settings like il2 has would be a great option to have beside the 3 main arcade, real, and simulator settings. Hope that clarifies my opinion a bit.

Now thats good info, Make sure to post this at the DEV forums http://forum.yuplay.com/ under the WOP section.

Aslo

Make sure you have your sensetivity increased in WOP. It will effect the FM characteristics. I would recommed starting with it at High and then coming down till you find the FM's spins and stalls matching Il2 1946 for the same plane.
The Fm's in Wop are from directly from Il2 and Oleg is in the Game credits for them.

Have you looked at the stats for the model of the Spitfire which you are flying in the demo and timed the climb rate with the real stats for the plane ?
As for the Damage model , you are sure you are using the sim settings ? I experience a great deal of change from the damage. Sometimes its to to point you can't fly the plane and have to bail out, other times the plane take varied degrees of compensation to maintain level flight, depending on the amont of damage done.

Desode

[13th Hsqn Protos]

S~! Desode

I am one of the biggest supporters of what W.o.P can be. However .....

... to say that there is not much difference between W.o.P and IL2 flight models is 100% ridiculous ....... Acceleration/climb aerodynamics ect.... are vastly different.

IL2 is superior in every regard when it comes to physics.

Now you give me IL2 physics with W.o.P graphics and I will drop 100 dollars/euros INSTANTLY. But until then w.o.p is work in progress. Work that is held back by its console roots/community.

Also W.o.P forums are a bloody mess.... and ask yourself if they would ever tolerate a thread like this in their forum ???? Never.


Its a sign of the maturity of the mods/Oleg/ and 1c that this discussion is even allowed to take place here. Thats why we are all still trusting in him. Oleg has BIG respect in all flight sim communities. Don't let the fact that some of us have lovers spats with him occasionally fool you. WERE STILL MARRIED :razz:

.
.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

On that note - I think that this thread has served its purpose. ;)

Time to lock it.

Happy New Year to ALL.

[Desode]

I agree on the Acceleration/climb aerodynamics but with the sensitivity changed in WOP the stalls and spins are the exact same speeds on every plane. We should all mention the Acceleration/climb aerodynamics on the WOP forums. I know somethings where changed on the FM's in console version.
I also agree Il2 is way better in every way, so don't think I'm in any way trying to say WOP is better.

I just can't stress enough how much the sensetivity settings in WOP change the FM as far as turns and stalls. It makes such a difference that if the sensetivity is turned down, just about none of the planes will stall or spin. It completly changes the FM in that aspect.

DESODE

[diveplane]

I agree on the Acceleration/climb aerodynamics but with the sensitivity changed in WOP the stalls and spins are the exact same speeds on every plane. We should all mention the Acceleration/climb aerodynamics on the WOP forums. I know somethings where changed on the FM's in console version.
I also agree Il2 is way better in every way, so don't think I'm in any way trying to say WOP is better.

I just can't stress enough how much the sensetivity settings in WOP change the FM as far as turns and stalls. It makes such a difference that if the sensetivity is turned down, just about none of the planes will stall or spin. It completly changes the FM in that aspect.

DESODE

wop does have the potential , once it gets the flight models in some shape it will be a winner. imo its not to bad atm ..

middle of the road. having never flew a real spitfire or bf109 or any aircraft for that matter i cant compare.
but it sure feels not to bad against il2 .

[sweln]

I believe WoP fills the gap between pure arcade game and sim. And that's all what is needed. For sim there's Il-2 and one day SoW, and for arcade game there's plenty small games or whatever Ubi has released.

I have bought WoP, I'm pretty happy with it even if I find quite some stupid errors : explosions and other FX, non-plane models, bad speed impression.
But the game is beautifull, and it will help SoW have a quality standard for release concerning those graphics.

Of what can see SoW is really much more detailed, just that the screens never use AA and other polish effects so yeah it still looks like Il-2 with more loads of detailed 3D models.

BUT what I would love to hear / read, is Oleg's own opinion about Wings of Prey! Monsieur Oleg?

[Flanker35M]

S!

Without going into FM/DM or effects and other stuff I must say this after testing the demo. If WoP is based on IL2 engine then PLEASE give that code to IL2. I ran the other demo for VVS flying La7 over Berlin. There is a LOT going on with artillery and flak firing, battle raging on, smoke pillars rising all over Berlin and planes plummeting down and of course lot of planes and buildings. And there is NO STUTTER whatsoever! The game runs smooth. Try same in IL2 and you look at a slide show at best even with most powerful rigs :(

Another thing is that WoP demo worked without ANY tweaking in graphics or similar on ATI 5870HD card. If it uses OpenGL as IL2 (have not checked so deep yet), then please add the same support from WoP to IL-2 ;) :D I dare to say if IL2 engine got the improvements shown in WoP, then SoW would have a VERY strong competitor as IL2 has a ton more stuff already in it what SoW will not have at release..and most importantly runs on lesser hardware as well. Just my 2 cents..

[zakkandrachoff]

I think oleg will not have competition of any Cain, except the Wings Of prey, that will keep the noobs flight simulator users.

Thunder Works and Fighters Ops is like dead projects, anyway, this are not competition for Storm Of War. Maybe if appears some "combat flight simulator X" or "Rise Of Flight 2", anyway, this are not comparison whit SOW.

Oleg has been doing a great job postings the advances "in work" to eliminate errors in a forum. Is very intelligent. The Best Part for oleg games is that every year we will buy a new scenery for SOW series: continuous money ingress.

Storm Of war will be the compared to ArmA2 in FPS. Noobs will play wings of Prey forever, in this case, Call of Duty MW:-P

maybe I will buy WOP, but only for keep my nerves calm for a wail in the eternal wait for SOW:rolleyes:

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Storm of War, when released, won't face any competition, probably. Why? Because the only World-War 2 simulator that was dominating so far is from the same developers. The rest doesn't stand a chance.

Jet Thunder and Fighter Ops, although promising, deal with a completely different area. I'm not very into details of Fighter Ops so I can't compare to anything, but about Jet Thunder, it won't even compete with DCS. Why? Because it depicts aerial warfare in a specific conflict and time, while DCS works on fictional but possible scenarios in the Caucasus area.

So, we'll probably have:

- Storm of War lonely as top World War II flight-simulation, in terms of realism.

- Rise of Flight alone in nº1 position for fans of the Great War.

- DCS for the hardcore fans of modern airwarfare; with some competition with Jet Thunder, but these are more likely to co-exist in our HDs, instead of competing.

Enough options for every simmers. And for those who, as said by a member at Eagle Dynamics, don't like to "kill anything but time", there will still exist Microboring Flight Simulator X :-P

As the noseart on the P-47 says, "NO GUNS, NO GLORY". Oh wait, it's "GUTS". But the first version shall prevail :mrgreen:

PS: I don't know what Fighter Ops will try to replicate, so I don't know in what level we can put it. Because of it, it was left out of the comparsion.

[Desode]

Side by side comparison video between il2 FM and WOP FM on the Bf109 G6.

I thought some of you might find it intersting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPuXvo4DSmg



Desode

[Lucas_From_Hell]

It's funny.

People flamed Rise of Flight because it didn't have some features at the start, but they're supporting Wings of Prey even considering the developers forgot to implement major features that interfere directly with the aircraft's behaviour?!

And, curiously, while the fact of it lacking some features in the very beginning was an excuse not to buy Rise of Flight, the same thing is used as an excuse to put faith on Wings of Prey. In the end some sound like "No, but it's still in development, buy it, they can fix it! Please, believe me!!" :mrgreen:

I'll stick with good and old IL-2, that was already developed and flies and looks closer to reality than Wings of Prey :)

[Desode]

It's funny.

People flamed Rise of Flight because it didn't have some features at the start, but they're supporting Wings of Prey even considering the developers forgot to implement major features that interfere directly with the aircraft's behaviour?!

And, curiously, while the fact of it lacking some features in the very beginning was an excuse not to buy Rise of Flight, the same thing is used as an excuse to put faith on Wings of Prey. In the end some sound like "No, but it's still in development, buy it, they can fix it! Please, believe me!!" :mrgreen:

I'll stick with good and old IL-2, that was already developed and flies and looks closer to reality than Wings of Prey :)


LOL yeah I agree with your comments on the ROF thing !
Sad to hear you don't like Wop though.
I say buy the game , Support any form of Sim that comes to our Dieing Market. We have to few of them to bitch about.
I still play il2 and that will never change. I have 4hrs in already today flying some Il2 1946 missions.
At 1pm its ROF time till 4pm and then WOP from 5pm to 9pm !
Then DCS Black Shark at 9pm till 1 am !! LOL
Just bought OFF today so when it gets here I will add it into the list.

You just got to love Saturdays ! and like I said you can never have enough Great flight combat sims to enjoy.

Forever supporting any Flight Combat Sim I can afford, DESODE

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I tried to download the demo, but the only thing the installer did was to slow down my computer. Didn't even open! I'm trying again today to see if it works, but it's really weird.

I'm just saying it based on the oppinions from supporters I've seen here. I dislike the graphics already, and it seems that flight models need some fine tuning.

By the way, as you mentioned "our dieing market", check this out:

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/features/52220/Voodoo-Extreme-Best-PC-Game-of-2009-Voting

We see a flight simulator leading the poll of "Best PC Game of 2009", beating RPGs, shooters and everything else.

So, how dieing do you think our market is?

:mrgreen:

[Desode]

I tried to download the demo, but the only thing the installer did was to slow down my computer. Didn't even open! I'm trying again today to see if it works, but it's really weird.

I'm just saying it based on the oppinions from supporters I've seen here. I dislike the graphics already, and it seems that flight models need some fine tuning.

By the way, as you mentioned "our dieing market", check this out:

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/features/52220/Voodoo-Extreme-Best-PC-Game-of-2009-Voting

We see a flight simulator leading the poll of "Best PC Game of 2009", beating RPGs, shooters and everything else.

So, how dieing do you think our market is?

:mrgreen:

Ah yes I have voted on it from 10 connections and have Forced 27 of my friends to vote for this too !!! I'm crying tears of joy that we have gotten SOW up there. Its great news. Trust me I'm doing everything I humanly can to make our market better. The community really came together on the Poll.
It made me very proud to see.
DESODE

[Lucas_From_Hell]

EDIT: Nevermind, now it's installing. Let's see if it's really worth it.

[yakaddict]

It's funny.

People flamed Rise of Flight because it didn't have some features at the start, but they're supporting Wings of Prey even considering the developers forgot to implement major features that interfere directly with the aircraft's behaviour?!

And, curiously, while the fact of it lacking some features in the very beginning was an excuse not to buy Rise of Flight, the same thing is used as an excuse to put faith on Wings of Prey. In the end some sound like "No, but it's still in development, buy it, they can fix it! Please, believe me!!" :mrgreen:

I'll stick with good and old IL-2, that was already developed and flies and looks closer to reality than Wings of Prey :)

I very much agree. RoF is everything a good flight sim should be in terms of graphics and physics, WoP is still in development, but here is the thing. WoP started out with roll models like il2 and others, it didnt have to build up a quality base from scratch. All they had to do was imitate the quality of il2 and bingo, you have a great flight sim. Instead I dont know what we got. I am going to evaluate the flight models of the p-51 and spitfire comprehensively against il2 and against records of both planes, probably tommorow. It seems that the 109 model is about right in the game, what I noticed is that the stall in WoP is just too easy to manage. Perhaps this is a game that will get very good with time, and I might even start posting comments in their forum to help, but here is an example of a game that should have had it right, the FIRST TIME out, not several patches later.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Looking at the Bf109G-6 video. The differences are not big, this possibly because the pilot flying IL-2 has it configured and flown it for ages whereas WoP has different way of setting up controllers and different FM, which makes it easier to make errors. I would not compare WoP or IL2 directly. The feel of them is different from the short time I've tested it.

Supporting flight sims..well since Commodore 64! Still got cassette version of the Project:Stealth Fighter. Bought RoF as well, will buy WoP and of course SoW, when released. Still got Flanker 1.0, 1.5, Squadron Commander's Edition and 2.0, Jane's F/A-18, Jane's WW2 Fighters, Pacific Air War + add-ons, European Air War, B17 The Mighty 8th II, Battle Of Britain 1 & 2, EF2000, Hind, Falcon 4.0, IL-2 original + add-ons, Russian version, 1946, CFS 3 etc. All sitting on shelf :) Still a few I need to get to complete the collection ;)

As much as I wait for SoW myself too, it is funny to see how people think it will be out of this world. It will be a benchmark for sure, but didn't Oleg say somewhere that if the DM/FM was cranked up to maximum the game engine is capable of then the FPS above water without clouds or anything was something like 2FPS?! So if you really think the fidelity of DM/FM will be set to maximum in release..dream on ;) It will be advanced over IL-2 but at cost of hugely increased system requirements. You can not get it all without making sacrifices ;)

As of WoP. Sure console legacy shows, but it has potential as has RoF. So I would not diss it. Remember that developers of the WoP have all the tools and game engine info needed to change it. In IL2 the "not official add-on makers" do not have them and lot is based on trial & error thus making it slow in advances.

RoF is a good game. Runs flawlessly and has nice FM and DM..and the vintage feel :) What I personally dislike is the interface for configuring the joystick and other controls, way too clumsy. IL-2 still has one of the easiest ones to configure and seems WoP has too.

So what do we have in the end? A bunch of flight games of various degrees, and one to be released this year so we all can enjoy :)

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I decided to play it for a bit and, as expected, it's arcadish and isn't even close to a simulation yet.

Graphics are a tad exaggerated and too dark.

Got to fly the B-17L, a light-weight variant produced in Russia, also known as La-7. It carries 32 bombs under the very same wing pylons. Whoa, those Russian engineers are good, aren't they :eek:?

Things are way too shaky from inside the cockpit, and views need some tuning.

Planes start burning in one short burst, no matter what.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, and I could go on forever, but I'll keep this short.

I have to say, the whole atmosphere of the mission is good, and the radio messages are nice. Still, it's not a simumlator in any way. Maybe I feel like this because I'm a bit spoiled by IL-2

A good arcade-like aviation game. Won't get any close to IL-2's 6, however.

[Desode]

I decided to play it for a bit and, as expected, it's arcadish and isn't even close to a simulation yet.

Graphics are a tad exaggerated and too dark.

Got to fly the B-17L, a light-weight variant produced in Russia, also known as La-7. It carries 32 bombs under the very same wing pylons. Whoa, those Russian engineers are good, aren't they :eek:?

Things are way too shaky from inside the cockpit, and views need some tuning.

Planes start burning in one short burst, no matter what.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, and I could go on forever, but I'll keep this short.

I have to say, the whole atmosphere of the mission is good, and the radio messages are nice. Still, it's not a simumlator in any way. Maybe I feel like this because I'm a bit spoiled by IL-2

A good arcade-like aviation game. Won't get any close to IL-2's 6, however.
U sure you have it on Sim mode, It just sounds like your describing arcade mode. I have spent 5 minutes trying to drop 1 b17 in Sim mode, pieces peeling off like crazy, one engine on fire, Huge holes all through the plane and its still pumping lead at me.

Your using full left Aileron trim, Aileron right trim , evelator trim, Full flap control, full Prop pitch control, Fuel mixture control, wheel brake, open and close cowl, Full engine managment clear down to the supercharger, Spins , Stalls, Red outs, Black outs, If you aren't your playing arcade mode. I don't how the pc demo works but in the console demo you have to unlock Sim mode to play it. In arcade mode you can drop a plane with 1 round.

Do you have your sensetivity (wop settings) turned all the way up so you can get experince the FM ? If not you will have almost no stalls and spins.
You won't have all those bombs if you turn on the Sim setting and set it to limited fuel and ammo.

I have never in my life of 30+ years of playing sims seen a arcade game with those features.

I still have yet to see one person be able to beat the game on full sim with limited ammo and fuel and no retrys. I have 6 of my DCS friends trying to do it and none of us can pull it off.

I really want to see someone pull this off, They will be a god in my book.

Sorry you feel the way you do , atleast you gave it a try, I guess the full version is a way different game then the demo, thank heavens I never tried the demo before I bought it.
Desode

[Desode]

S!

Looking at the Bf109G-6 video. The differences are not big, this possibly because the pilot flying IL-2 has it configured and flown it for ages whereas WoP has different way of setting up controllers and different FM, which makes it easier to make errors. I would not compare WoP or IL2 directly. The feel of them is different from the short time I've tested it.

Supporting flight sims..well since Commodore 64! Still got cassette version of the Project:Stealth Fighter. Bought RoF as well, will buy WoP and of course SoW, when released. Still got Flanker 1.0, 1.5, Squadron Commander's Edition and 2.0, Jane's F/A-18, Jane's WW2 Fighters, Pacific Air War + add-ons, European Air War, B17 The Mighty 8th II, Battle Of Britain 1 & 2, EF2000, Hind, Falcon 4.0, IL-2 original + add-ons, Russian version, 1946, CFS 3 etc. All sitting on shelf :) Still a few I need to get to complete the collection ;)

As much as I wait for SoW myself too, it is funny to see how people think it will be out of this world. It will be a benchmark for sure, but didn't Oleg say somewhere that if the DM/FM was cranked up to maximum the game engine is capable of then the FPS above water without clouds or anything was something like 2FPS?! So if you really think the fidelity of DM/FM will be set to maximum in release..dream on ;) It will be advanced over IL-2 but at cost of hugely increased system requirements. You can not get it all without making sacrifices ;)

As of WoP. Sure console legacy shows, but it has potential as has RoF. So I would not diss it. Remember that developers of the WoP have all the tools and game engine info needed to change it. In IL2 the "not official add-on makers" do not have them and lot is based on trial & error thus making it slow in advances.

RoF is a good game. Runs flawlessly and has nice FM and DM..and the vintage feel :) What I personally dislike is the interface for configuring the joystick and other controls, way too clumsy. IL-2 still has one of the easiest ones to configure and seems WoP has too.

So what do we have in the end? A bunch of flight games of various degrees, and one to be released this year so we all can enjoy :)



LOL Yeah I still have 2 C64's set up in my Den ! Those where the good old days. You know your getting old when you grew up in those days. Before the WWW ! LOL We had modems set in Baud not even KB yet !

DESODE

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I'm playing the demo.

Yes, plane stalls (sometimes even when it wasn't supposed to do so), blackouts (ridiculous, in this case; pilot passes out at the slightest sign of G force), engine overheats...

It's not arcade, but it isn't quite a sim yet.

I prefer good and old IL-2, the whole graphics stuff is just too dramatic to me.

[Desode]

I'm playing the demo.

Yes, plane stalls (sometimes even when it wasn't supposed to do so), blackouts (ridiculous, in this case; pilot passes out at the slightest sign of G force), engine overheats...

It's not arcade, but it isn't quite a sim yet.

I prefer good and old IL-2, the whole graphics stuff is just too dramatic to me.

I hear you, I will always perfer Il2 over WOP if I had to pick, I just can't wait for the day of Photo realism to get here, after ROF and WOP came out, Il2's GFX kind of lost the feeling for me a little. It still looks good but, the lighting just isn't doing it for me. Thats the one huge aspect of WOP I really love. The lighting and shadows just really make any game for me. You should not be able to see your flight panels perfect all the time. In real life lighting is a huge aspect of flight. It played a Big roll in all early air combat techniques. The other thing I like about WOP and ROF is the sense of speed, In both games if your buzzing the ground and zoom all the way out, the feeling of speed is spot on for the Aircraft of those times. I never get that feeling of 200 to 300 mph in Il2. I have flown 300 mph at 75 ft off the ground and it is really fast. Flying 50 off the ground in Il2 looks like 55 in my car.
I would love to have both the wind engines from ROF and WOP combined for, Il2. Wop has some of the best prop wash effects I have ever seen, and Rof's tail winds and wind in general are really good.
Il2 is the standard for Fm's and mission building, skins all that good stuff and it has given me years of Love.
I wish I could take the best of all three of these games (il2,WOP, Rof)and combine it together ! Then I would be pretty darn happy.
I just hope and pray SOW is really good.

DESODE

[diveplane]

nice video done here , wops not that far behind il2 in flight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPuXvo4DSmg ;)

[kimosabi]

Another thing I noticed in that vid is that the pilot doesn't press down, or lift up in the seat during turns in WoP and the aircraft moves alot more like on rails when it should shudder and slip out more, especially in the high g turns. Gorgeous looking game that WoP but they'll have to patch it up further before I pull the trigger.

[diveplane]

made a nice MP action vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9LUkcNL84E

[sweln]

Nice vid.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

That's what I'm talking about. See what it took for that first 109 to burst in flames?

I have to say, movies do look awesome in this sim, because it already has all the movie effects most movie-makers use to give their productions a more dramatic look. The music, even if not exactly realistic, gives an amazing atmosphere to the whole thing. It's no simulator, but when you're just looking for some action and everything, it's great.

[diveplane]

That's what I'm talking about. See what it took for that first 109 to burst in flames?

I have to say, movies do look awesome in this sim, because it already has all the movie effects most movie-makers use to give their productions a more dramatic look. The music, even if not exactly realistic, gives an amazing atmosphere to the whole thing. It's no simulator, but when you're just looking for some action and everything, it's great.

the flight parameters are not far behind il2 1946 someone made a video showing this.

sure they will also tweak the damage model more.

looking at some gun camera footage some of the planes get taken out very quick
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6OTxPiViHk

give it time imo .

[Lucas_From_Hell]

But there you can observe some very specific damage, for example, the FW-190 that blew up were hit in the wings, probably where the cannon shells were. In WoP it seems that every hit ignites the planes.

But you're right, I'll give it time... Maybe I'm wrong, maybe not. Ah, whatever, Storm of War will do the trick for me :mrgreen:

[Flanker35M]

S!

Desode..true ;) In 80's when most of today's IL2 hotshots were still crapping their nappies we were fiddling with the floppies, cassettes and TurboLoaders ;) Commodore 64 was great until Amiga500 came and ruined my day ;) But time goes on and it is youth that rule now..hehe!

As of WoP and IL2. WoP is based on IL2 engine if I am not mistaken, but seems it has been heavily modified. What IL2 engine could take from WoP, making IL2 totally new game would be in my opinion the following:

1) Lighting. Self shadows and lighting in general is improved over IL2.
2) Sound engine. No more cracks, pops or planes heard miles away etc.
3) Code how big cities are handled! Look at demo and Berlin mission, not a single stutter or slowdown even with a lot of action. Seems that WoP let's the GPU do the work instead of CPU.
4) Plane models smoothened out, more detail. He111 for example, compare to IL2 and you know what I mean ;)

Those are some pointers. In general it seems WoP is using newer OpenGL than IL2(has v1.1 I think) and has better performance even under heavy action. So combine the code improvements to IL2 with all the new content and huh, we have a colossal game still..after 10 years of existence! Maybe we should hijack Gaijin guys and persuade them to improve IL2 :D

RoF also shows how IL2 engine can be improved and updated. If IL2 would get a treatment like that it would keep a lot of people with not so HiTech computers very happy :) SoW will demand a LOT of power if you want both eye candy to the maximum and complex FM/DM. OR Oleg's team have created a code that can simulate all this on a regular desktop machine not requiring a super computer ;) :D

[Desode]

Yeah I'm a little nervous about SOW and what I'm going to be able to get with it on my PC. I just built this PC a couple of months ago and I don't plan on building another one for a couple of years. I haven't overclocked anything yet so we'll just see when SOW finally gets here. I will be Bummed if I can't run it at pretty high settings.
I'm running ROF at all Max settings so I'm keeping my fingers crossed with Dreams of SOW.


Processor: AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black edition 3.00ghz
Ram 4 GB
Mobo: ASUS M3N72-D Nividia 750a sli

Graphic card : GIGABYTE GV-N26SO-896I GeForce GTX 260 Super Overclock 896MB 448-bit GDDR3
Core Clock 680MHz
Shader Clock 1500MHz
Memory Clock 2500MHz

OS :Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit

[Flanker35M]

S!

SoW will require a very high end machine to run all the bells and whistles. AS you have read, DirectX 11 can use CPU to calculate those gfx gimmicks the GPU does not support. And we know that the FM/DM/AI are already calculated by the CPU so this is only extra stress to it thus lowering performance. SoW will be way more complicated and will require a lot of horsepower, but that is the price to pay for more fidelity and all that ;)

It is surprising how well IL2 engine still holds on after 10 years. Modified in RoF and WoP and see what you get! Totally new effects, smoother gameplay etc. Just a wet dream that the code improvements could be brought to IL2, especially how it handles big cities etc. In WoP Berlin map with tons of buildings did not slow down my rig at all with all maxed out in 1920x1200! In IL2 the same would just make my rig do the slide show ;)

Intel i7 920 CPU
Intel DX58SO motherboard + HD Audio enabled
XFX 5870HD 1Gb graphics card
24" BenQ 16:10 screen
Windows 7 64-bit (home premium)
etc yadda yadda ;)

[Chromius]

Ok so full real sims do not gather the kiddies and relaxed players that form the masses and bring in the dollars.

So what, that does not mean that we need to take a step BACK realism/simulation wise in flight sims. Why cant WoP have a full real settings and a relaxed settings, thus catering to the needs of both parties. Though this would have to include missions from take off to landing.

I am tired of seeing many things take a step back because it does not cater to the masses, look at how the trend in TV and entertainment is to dumb everything down to satisfy everyone.

As for myself I wont support WoP in any way as a serious simmer, I would say it is a great sim for relaxed players, but I do not want that to be the trend that simulations follow. I would rather have people like myself who get shot down a lot in a fighter in full real mp IL-2, stick with it vs jumping ship to something easier and more accessible but hey that's me just being selfish.

I guess I am happy for people that are enjoying it, but many here probably have very different views of the differences of what makes an acceptable Simulation.

Ill always hold out for the most realistic thing. Dont let IL-2 go the way of Papyrus's Nascar series, Falcon 4.0 , Baldurs Gate. (Thank god we are getting SH5)

I am so narrowminded I think I might get some type of "ANTI-Console Gamer" bumpersticker, lol (JK)

[Desode]

Ok so full real sims do not gather the kiddies and relaxed players that form the masses and bring in the dollars.

So what, that does not mean that we need to take a step BACK realism/simulation wise in flight sims. Why cant WoP have a full real settings and a relaxed settings, thus catering to the needs of both parties. Though this would have to include missions from take off to landing.

I am tired of seeing many things take a step back because it does not cater to the masses, look at how the trend in TV and entertainment is to dumb everything down to satisfy everyone.

As for myself I wont support WoP in any way as a serious simmer, I would say it is a great sim for relaxed players, but I do not want that to be the trend that simulations follow. I would rather have people like myself who get shot down a lot in a fighter in full real mp IL-2, stick with it vs jumping ship to something easier and more accessible but hey that's me just being selfish.

I guess I am happy for people that are enjoying it, but many here probably have very different views of the differences of what makes an acceptable Simulation.

Ill always hold out for the most realistic thing. Dont let IL-2 go the way of Papyrus's Nascar series, Falcon 4.0 , Baldurs Gate. (Thank god we are getting SH5)

I am so narrowminded I think I might get some type of "ANTI-Console Gamer" bumpersticker, lol (JK)

Well, to each their own. I guess I'm not a serious simmer since I play DCS and Rof and Il2 and then screw my reputation up by playing a "relaxed SIM like WOP" !

Darn it ! I so wanted to call my self a Serious Simmer ! Where is my Lolly pop and cookies ! I don't want to cry myself to sleep ! LOL


Sorry man, all in good fun I just found that kind of funny.

I'm more concerned with games not using dedicated servers then anything else.
I campaign against that with everything I have in me !
Thanks for the post , Desode

[jippy13]

Privet Oleg,

First, thank you a lot for all the good time I spent playing IL2.

Like some simmers in this forum, I tested the demo version of WoP, and I was really impressed by the detailed graphics of this game, especially during overflights near cities or coasts

However I would not say that this game is a real flight simulator,like IL2. I would say it is between an arcade game and a real flight sim.

But Oleg, please, give us more item on the future bob that should come out this year. The little movie file you posted, is better than nothing, but a beta version of BoB would be a sacred gift for all fans of il2 who are waiting bob as the messiah.

Anyway, Oleg, I really hope that BoB will be released this year and that it will be as successful as its predecessor IL2 because of its graphic qualities and characteristics unique to real flight simulator.

Bonne année 2010 et meilleurs voeux

С новым 2010 годом и наилучшие пожелания

[Flanker35M]

S!

Hard core simmer or not, there are several things in WoP and RoF that clearly show how much IL2 engine can be improved with new code without a totally new GFX engine. IL2 original engine is like 10 years old now and there has not been any major updates in the code even hardware has improved since release.

WoP and RoF take advantage of this and it shows with far better performance in certain conditions, like over cities and with lot of fire/smoke and other action around. If these new code improvements could be brought to IL2 then it's life could be extended a lot longer for those who do not have the money to upgrade for SoW. Because the truth is that you will not run SoW at maximum settings and get smooth game play with most of the "regular" hardware people have these days. The majority still run "normal" machines, not these overclocked high eng beasts. These geeks are a minority or most of them play FPS games mostly.

[JVM]

S!

there are several things in WoP and RoF that clearly show how much IL2 engine can be improved with new code without a totally new GFX engine.
...
WoP and RoF take advantage of this and it shows with far better performance in certain conditions, like over cities and with lot of fire/smoke and other action around.

You said it...WoP and RoF are 2009 games! They use 2009 programming technologies where Il2 is using at its core 2000 technologies...
You seem surprised that there was no effort to bring these 2009 technologies to IL2...the answer is simple: it is possible, you "just" have to rewrite entirely the Il2 code!

As it happens this exercise is taking place just now under the secret code name SoW-BoB...

From another standpoint, do you really believe it would be financially wise from 1C and MG to try keeping afloat technology-wise an engine as "limited" as Il2? Expectations have leap-frogged several times since Il2 was published; it is unfortunate that so many people will not purchase SoW...according to you, that is!
I had the impression that Oleg's team did know one or two things about performance scaling...

I guess you will purchase it at first sight, like the rest of us....

JV

[sweln]

Well anyway I'm very curious about what will SoW look like with all options activated.
Oleg should post something close to actual footage with most of graphical options activated.

From what I can see ground detail and ground units are REALLY better than what WoP offers (grass, very decent modellisation of tanks, AA canons etc).
Same way, ingame physics and models are better : boats don't just explode always in the same way. Really good.

I'm just worried about all the FX stuff, and I have no idea if SoW will feature many eye candies.

examples :

Self shadow (used in Crysis, Far Cry 2, WoP PC version (only on planes), HAWX, Ghost Recon Warfighter) :

http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/783/screenshot-hawx.jpg
Looks great when applied on clouds. Too bad it's not the case in WoP.

And other stuff like heat effect, haze, real time shadows for everything, etc.

With nowadays computers and the power that will be available in 6 months / 1 year, it is absolutly correct to imagine Crysis (2 years now!) graphical quality in a sim, without activating AA, Anistropic and Vsync.

[nearmiss]

BOP screenshots are strange

All the black gradient borders... I just don't connect with that.

I would think those borders would work on your psyche after a while - depressing

Otherwise the graphics look very good

[sweln]

BOP screenshots are strange
All the black gradient borders... I just don't connect with that.


BOP?

The gradient borders are what you see when there is a cinematic moment : it allows the player to understand when it's a "movie" moment and not a "hands on" moment of the game.

The game on the picture is HAWX(ubisoft) btw. There's a demo for PC version.

[Feuerfalke]

Well anyway I'm very curious about what will SoW look like with all options activated.
Oleg should post something close to actual footage with most of graphical options activated.

From what I can see ground detail and ground units are REALLY better than what WoP offers (grass, very decent modellisation of tanks, AA canons etc).
Same way, ingame physics and models are better : boats don't just explode always in the same way. Really good.

I'm just worried about all the FX stuff, and I have no idea if SoW will feature many eye candies.

examples :

Self shadow (used in Crysis, Far Cry 2, WoP PC version (only on planes), HAWX, Ghost Recon Warfighter) :

http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/783/screenshot-hawx.jpg
Looks great when applied on clouds. Too bad it's not the case in WoP.

And other stuff like heat effect, haze, real time shadows for everything, etc.

With nowadays computers and the power that will be available in 6 months / 1 year, it is absolutly correct to imagine Crysis (2 years now!) graphical quality in a sim, without activating AA, Anistropic and Vsync.

Actually, that's not self-shadowing, it's atmospheric effects to simulate what's called "Ray of god". The shadows themselves in the screenshot are not realistic at all, as the objects only cast shadows on the ground, but not on other objects and there is no difference between the lighting of the objects under the shadow and in the direct sun. ;)
(Apart from that, the term ray of god is because you can see brighter areas against the surrounding - it highly doubtful that you'd see such a single shadow on a bright day - the brighter areas would simply predominate the darker areas, blinding you)

[sweln]

Yeah I know it's supposed to be called god rays or ray of god, it just depends on what object it's used on.

Some pictures here show that its casted on models (the plane) : http://www.flickr.com/photos/46251923@N07/sets/72157623021332077/ (pictures from me playing WoP on PC).

Well about if it's looking real or not, since I've been flying quite a lot in my life I would say that with so much intensity, no, it doesen't look like that exactly, but you can see it many times on a bright day.

Where you see it most is when there is loads of clouds and the sun over it, then you'll see rays of light instead of shadows.

The effect in the game gives one nice avantage : the scenery has much more depth, just like what happened on our screens with cloud shadows on the ground with vanilla Il-2.
WoP uses that effect on your plane in a much better way HAWX does, and it looks much more real.

I believe using that effect like what WoP does on both planes and clouds would really make SoW look great and real. Afterwards, if you can activate it or not with an option is always the best choice for everybody! :)

I remember this screen : http://cdn.cnetnetworks.fr/gamekult-com/images/photos/00/00/37/55/ME0000375549_2.jpg who does?

[Chivas]

S!

Hard core simmer or not, there are several things in WoP and RoF that clearly show how much IL2 engine can be improved with new code without a totally new GFX engine. IL2 original engine is like 10 years old now and there has not been any major updates in the code even hardware has improved since release.

WoP and RoF take advantage of this and it shows with far better performance in certain conditions, like over cities and with lot of fire/smoke and other action around. If these new code improvements could be brought to IL2 then it's life could be extended a lot longer for those who do not have the money to upgrade for SoW. Because the truth is that you will not run SoW at maximum settings and get smooth game play with most of the "regular" hardware people have these days. The majority still run "normal" machines, not these overclocked high eng beasts. These geeks are a minority or most of them play FPS games mostly.

The WOP Gaijin game engine has nothing to do with the IL-2 game engine other than WOP borrowing IL-2's FM and AI. WOP does a very good job on their own terrain engine, but I doubt it will stand up to the detail in SOW's terrain engine. Every terrain object in SOW will be more detailed with an elevation terrain that will include river banks.

WOP does a excellent job combining the detail they do have in a very playable frame rate without those ugly LOD pop up buildings etc. Although WOP did this with very small maps.
This will be SOW biggest challenge getting much larger maps with far more detailed objects to work with playable frame rates with no pop ups. This will be quite the feat if they pull it off.

The IL-2 engine is ten years and old and its long past time for the immergence of a new more expandable game engine.

[proton45]

One of the key points of any game, is the ability to suspend ones skepticism to the point where they can (somewhat) forget that they are sitting at a computer playing a game...Anything that is built into a game that can help the player indulge the fantasy is good. In some cases, like with "BoP", the makers attempt to nudge our willingness to "play" by tapping into the fantasy and enthusiasm that one feels while watching a good movie...like "Saving Private Ryan" or "Band of Brothers". I for one prefer a "closer to reality" look that makes me feel that Im seeing things the way they where "back then"...If I play a game that looks "like the real world" (like I'm looking out the window) then when I see an "ME109" or the "White Cliff of Dover"...I feel transported back in time.

[RomBinDaHouse]

but I doubt it will stand up to the detail in SOW's terrain engine. Every terrain object in SOW will be more detailed with an elevation terrain that will include river banks.

Endless detailing is clear idiotism(based on idialism?) and self-killing. There's deadline for devs\business\human mind\etc. The product must be done when it planned.
You waiting BoB from 2005-2007, you know? Now is 2010.

Although WOP did this with very small maps.

100x100 km is smal for you? U wanna 65000x65000km map, probably whole galaxy modelled? Far from actual reality.
Yeah, maps can be 400x400km and bigger, but goals of this project were another, sorry. It's better when game works smoothly, whithout streaming in this case. Because it made for console market initially. Birds of Prey it calls.


This will be SOW biggest challenge getting much larger maps with far more detailed objects to work with playable frame rates with no pop ups.

For sure, pop-ups,lags,etc PC-games uglies will be present in BoB, 'cos maddox team never work on hard "console" optimization ruled by Sony or Microsoft TCR\TRC-conditions.

[sweln]

If a game could make me believe i'm really playing in "Porco Rosso" or in "The Cockpit"... geee.
Well somehow, I think that SoW, if it looks better than WoP and is a bit moddable, yup, it will be possible.

Other way around, it will be another 10 years to wait before we can get our hands on enough power and tech to have a sim that really looks like real stuff.

[RomBinDaHouse]

Other way around, it will be another 10 years to wait before we can get our hands on enough power and tech to have a sim that really looks like real stuff.

No, man. It's closer. 3-4-5 years, no more.

But when it comes, all the guys will say in horus: "Whata Faaa??? I need REALISM, not da SHEEET".

It will be forever. Virtual Reality not for "pseudo"-gurmans, sorry people. It is for approximation of reality aye, that's for sure.
And finally - it's a GAME.. like your fantasy-WoW-Dream-'bout-elven\orc-gay.

You can get "simulator" on VIP- big spherical screen in aviation-school for more money, that cost home entertainment. For sure. And it will be again - only approximation of reality...


PS sorry for english =)

[sweln]

Well next generation of consoles will be in 3-4 years. And it will still be a little not powerfull enough for photo realism. Same for physics. So I'd say another generation more (and PC equivalent).

Big school sims do have all the mechanical stuff, but the graphics... doooo... nope, I can tell, they are all outdated.

[Chromius]

Really to sum up my previous post which is not targeted at WoP to flame it, but to say "hey do not throw out all these graphic pictures and say Oleg, SoW better be able to do this or else" I am glad someone else took the time to create a new WW2 combat flight sim. The market does need more people in it.

But I would not want potential simulation developers to get fixated on the graphical aspect as being the most important. Just because you all say so.

Heightened realism in a Simulation is not dependent on its graphical representation but primarily on the mechanics at work behind the graphics, do you think a real life 747 or any military simulation had a requirement for good graphics as being the key part?

Thus its called a Simulation and not a game wanting to be a simulation.

Yes graphics do add immensely to the immersion but I would not think it is the "key" element to a simulation.

Ok its WW2 and we had supercomputers early (fantasy obviously) and needed a Combat simulator to train pilots, what would the military want as key training elements in its flight simulator? good AI tactics, realistic Take-offs and landings , startup by checklist? Complex FM's DM's and engine management?

Then there is the whole other aspect Mods, Multiplayer, and all the things that can be done in a mission editor ect.....ground objects and interaction.

If I liked graphics I would not be playing War In the Pacific AE, HOI3 (counters on), TOAW3 along with other simulations.

One that many may not care about as a comparison, Baldurs Gate to Dragon Age, yeah fancy graphics, yeah it has classes and story and skills but god I think its about 3 steps back , but its quite popular go figure? I couldnt even finish it.

But yes WoP will satisfy the needs of many people and I am happy that it will, but I would never want graphics to take precedence in anything labeled as a simulation. But then again I am the minority in this so I lose.

No, man. It's closer. 3-4-5 years, no more.

But when it comes, all the guys will say in horus: "Whata Faaa??? I need REALISM, not da SHEEET".

It will be forever. Virtual Reality not for "pseudo"-gurmans, sorry people. It is for approximation of reality aye, that's for sure.
And finally - it's a GAME.. like your fantasy-WoW-Dream-'bout-elven\orc-gay.

You can get "simulator" on VIP- big spherical screen in aviation-school for more money, that cost home entertainment. For sure. And it will be again - only approximation of reality...


PS sorry for english =)

I beg to differ, If you fly stock fsx-fs9 and do not attempt to fly by the flight rules and limitations of the engines/aircraft then yes its a game. If you fly fsx-fs9 with addon aircraft, addon weather, plan the flight correctly using real routes taking into account winds/weather , fly online vatsim using real atc and flying by real aircraft limitations and flight rules and regulations as per region specific and aircraft POH/FCOM's then no its not a game but a simulation. Real World Pilots and pilots in training fly in many Online Virtual Airlines and in FS-9/FSX just so they can fly aircraft they do not get to fly in real life. Years ago there was a tutorial on flying an add-on 737 by a regular airline pilot saying that if you can do that you can do the real thing, in fact it is harder for a simmer to hone his/her skills since you cannot feel the aircraft movement and react,(a huge liabilty for visuals is no track ir) which comes as second nature like driving straight down the road and moving the wheel back and forth to stay straight down the road, you stop noticing it.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

I doubt it will stand up to the detail in SOW's terrain engine. Every terrain object in SOW will be more detailed with an elevation terrain that will include river banks.

Unfortunately there is not a shred of evidence so far to support that.

Just a lot of propaganda started in response to wop terrain textures. They got caught with their pants down by W.o.P terrain. Be sure.

I would love to be wrong ....... but not hopeful of all the 'qualifiers' I have heard.

Lets see.

[RomBinDaHouse]

Yes graphics do add immensely to the immersion but I would not think it is the "key" element to a simulation.


+100500

graphics is only "trick" for "immersion"

[RomBinDaHouse]

Lets see.

Yeah, will see.

I whish maddox team can make pure coool graphics (PC-looking, all in one breath), no "hoollywoodish"-style, but pure realistic, whis high-detailed landscape. Highly detailed in everything. Blaaahueeee.. (puke)

But one thing i doubt - they can't give it on 30FPS (on medium rig), upward they will lose in this competition.

[sweln]

Yes, graphics are immersion, but also a simulation of reality. Getting blind because of light you can fake it with lightness, but it's ugly. HDR looks better and so on.

Professional sims don't have beautifull graphics, for sure. That's because they don't have to sell it to the global public!

Of course the main object for SoW is to become the most advanced sim of WW2 flights, and that is mostly physics and FM.
But without up to date top notch graphics, the game won't sell as good as it should, because the simmers community isn't big enough for Oleg and his team to eat everyday. Otherwise there would be even more sims out there.

So SoW has to please future simmers, and the best way to achieve it is by working on every aspect of the game, graphics included. That is why e are all excited (for good or not) about WoP, because we all want SoW to be better in every domain than WoP!

I would like to remind that when Il-2 came out, it was graphically oustanding. And that also made the game's reputation. It was a very good looking and was a deep sim. Everything was over the rest.

SoW has to beat that same challenge. No?

WoP is a good test, and a good first step for Oleg and team to have a good idea of what's "do-able" in terms of graphics (even with a limited terrain and ground objects). Now all the rest has to be as good as that :) .
I also wonder what are the links between the Il-2 Birds of Prey project and Il-2 / SoW / Oleg Maddox... isn't Birds of Prey published by 1C? And isn't Oleg Maddox a producer at 1C? I'm confused! :D

Can't Oleg just give his opinion? That would help!

EDIT
I also want to add this, about hollywoodish graphics :
haze and colors, blur and HDR, god rays and other "impressive" FX and cinematographic effects can all be graphical options.
So it is best for Oleg to implement them in SoW (WoP style) and leave the possibility for each of us to tweak the result he wants (Il-2 difficulty settings style)!

[Flanker35M]

S!

So if it is hard and solid info that WoP is NOT based on IL2 engine, then I stand corrected. Might have got wrong info myself then and can admit it if I am wrong :) To my understanding Rise Of Flight is modified IL2 engine though. Has nice self shadowing and lighting on planes etc.

IL2 sure is 10 years old, but it has more content than ANY WW2 game yet. It will take SoW lot of time to bring even a fraction of it, like MTO etc. The curse word "modding" has done that to IL2 and of course Team Daidalos with bringing in new officially endorsed stuff. So it is far from dead :) Some code changes are a dream and sure not priority for OM :(

As of detailed structures or such in landscape. Personally I do not give a damn if the tractor in the field has the Massey-Ferguson stenciled on it when I zoom over it at around 500km/h or if every door knob in a town is individually made..you get the pic. Sure for screenshots or movies fine, but otherwise you do not see it while playing. Immersion does not need all bells and whistles ;)

It is just waste of resources if going too deep to the detail factory ;) I am an online player and there all that matters is PING and PERFORMANCE. You do NOT want stutter from hyperdetailed objects or stuff like that, it kills gameplay. And online you are not there to admire if grass sweeps in wind or the water is exactly the right color..you die if you day dream ;) For an online the dots, plane shapes and such matter more than if a small gimmick is right or wrong on the ground.

Do not get me wrong, I like nice graphics. But they have to serve the game, NOT distract away from the game, replace content or decrease overall performance. SoW will be VERY intensive on your machine because it will have a high fidelity DM/FM + new AI and more planes in the air. Also plane models have far more details/polygons which all take more horsepower.

Even Oleg's team for sure has good programmers, there is a limit what one can do. A constant balance between being playable and just a nice slide show. Oleg would not make a game that would run just OK on today's rig and wait for better hardware to appear. He will release a product that runs on a broad spectrum = SALES and INCOME! Sure with the option for the tech freaks to bring their machines to their knees by turning it all ON in options ;) A plus is that if SoW is DirectX 11 then both ATI(already) and nVidia(soon) will run it fine without gimmicks..Both manufacturers make cards that eat games for lunch.

Oh well, too long rant now. But IL2 is NOT dead, it could use at least some support still. WoP has potential, RoF even more so and is the only WW1 sim at the moment bringing back the bugs between your teeth ;) SoW will start a new era, when released. So times are good for gamers :)

[Chromius]

I agree with the points you have made

Yes, graphics are immersion, but also a simulation of reality. Getting blind because of light you can fake it with lightness, but it's ugly. HDR looks better and so on.

Professional sims don't have beautifull graphics, for sure. That's because they don't have to sell it to the global public!

So yes, focusing on a realistic simulation and not keeping the graphics up to par with current capabilities will most likely result in less sales and a smaller overall community, which everyone has to admit that for the multiplayer to be fun we need a decent pool of players to make it thrive. And for the single player, new campaigns and missions made by interested people. This is the balancing act.

As of detailed structures or such in landscape. Personally I do not give a damn if the tractor in the field has the Massey-Ferguson stenciled on it when I zoom over it at around 500km/h or if every door knob in a town is individually made..you get the pic. Sure for screenshots or movies fine, but otherwise you do not see it while playing. Immersion does not need all bells and whistles ;)

It is just waste of resources if going too deep to the detail factory ;) I am an online player and there all that matters is PING and PERFORMANCE. You do NOT want stutter from hyperdetailed objects or stuff like that, it kills gameplay. And online you are not there to admire if grass sweeps in wind or the water is exactly the right color..you die if you day dream ;) For an online the dots, plane shapes and such matter more than if a small gimmick is right or wrong on the ground.

Do not get me wrong, I like nice graphics. But they have to serve the game, NOT distract away from the game, replace content or decrease overall performance. SoW will be VERY intensive on your machine because it will have a high fidelity DM/FM + new AI and more planes in the air. Also plane models have far more details/polygons which all take more horsepower.

Even Oleg's team for sure has good programmers, there is a limit what one can do. A constant balance between being playable and just a nice slide show. Oleg would not make a game that would run just OK on today's rig and wait for better hardware to appear. He will release a product that runs on a broad spectrum = SALES and INCOME! Sure with the option for the tech freaks to bring their machines to their knees by turning it all ON in options ;) A plus is that if SoW is DirectX 11 then both ATI(already) and nVidia(soon) will run it fine without gimmicks..Both manufacturers make cards that eat games for lunch.

Yes the other big tricky balance, how much of it is going to work in Multiplayer for fps and Pings. #1 Immersion breaker in Multiplayer, how smooth it plays.

[Chivas]

Unfortunately there is not a shred of evidence so far to support that.

Just a lot of propaganda started in response to wop terrain textures. They got caught with their pants down by W.o.P terrain. Be sure.

I would love to be wrong ....... but not hopeful of all the 'qualifiers' I have heard.

Lets see.

Well I'm not sure where you've been looking but I've seen the screenshot of the elevation grid map showing the river banks etc. that will be in SOW.

Also every screenshot of aircraft, buildings, and vehicles of SOW have been more detailed than BOP.

Oleg also says in these forums that everything is better in SOW. I have no doubt with Oleg being a professional photographer, he knows what the terrain in England should looked like in 1939 and should be able to convey this in his sim.

Why should I believe Oleg...well he has already delivered the best combat flight sim in the IL-2 series so has a possitive history. Sure SOW is late but in that time he delivered Pacific Fighters, IL-2 1946 etc...

I have no reason to believe any na sayers who never contributed anything to my sim enjoyment.


I helped beta test WOP and enjoyed it very much. I was blown away with the graphics and thought they were the best I've seen in a combat flight sim. That said theres plenty of room of improvement.

ie. River Banks
Better roads and railways { I don't think I seen a railway track on the BOB map.
Much larger Map {especially the BOB map} this also would facilitate opposition airfields
Clouds
Moving weather patterns

Lighting in WOP killed the game for me in Simulation mode. Aircraft disappeared anywhere in the sky 180 degrees on the side of the sun in many missions. No amount of Nvidia brightness, gamma, etc would fix it.

Like I said earlier WOP did an excellent job with frame rates and LOD's, this will be Olegs toughtest job with the high detail of SOW.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

Yes those riverbanks will definitely enhance the feeling of flight ....

In about 3 months there will be an in game movie with some terrain and then some actual comparisons can be made.

Show me ..... that is my motto.

I don't blindly 'believe' in anything or anyone ...... only that game design is a business. ;)

As for how it will run, that is a legitimate concern. There is no excuse for it not being blazing fast. There are tons of code optimizers out there for game designers to take advantage of --- and hardware is plenty fast enough to rip any game to shreds.

It won't be that long now. Will S.o.W be evolutionary or revolutionary. Thats the real question. Wait I guess thats naysaying ....

.
.

[nearmiss]

WOP looks good, now we should all understand why Oleg hasn't been an open book about what will be in the BOB SOW.

I don't blame him a bit. There is always someone looking to take away your candy. :evil:

[Lucas_From_Hell]

...and there's the "surpise" factor.

Would you actually be surprised if they gave away everything we'll have in Storm of War? They want high levels of WTF?!ing going on after the release, and some secrecy helps on this matter.

Just give them time. Anyone remember how surprised you were when you saw some of the interviews Oleg and Ilya gave, where they told little features, nothing really big? Well, if we were that impressed with that, no doubt we'll be even more impressed after the release.

F****** guaranteed, trust me ;).

[nearmiss]

Good for you lucas

I've been IL2 since 2001 and I can tell you with no hesitation.
Oleg has never failed to deliver far and away more than was ever expected.
A very sincere man about his work, which means the SOW final will probably just blow everyone away.

[Romanator21]

Well, in the Il-2 years, you never expected to be blown away. When you expect to be blown away, 99% of the time, you aren't.

"Yes those riverbanks will definitely enhance the feeling of flight .... "

I thought your whole argument was the WoP had the best detail/presentation/realism. Now suddenly it doesn't matter? To me this seems self-contradictory. Also, WoP hasn't demonstrated a superior "feeling of flight", especially when it's obvious that a basic thing as recoil is not implemented. Even worse for the 'immersion' are the American pilots who sound like Homestar Runner. I just can't help but giggle.

Well, I guess I'm an Oleg Fanboi for saying anything to criticize WoP.

I do love the urban riverbanks though: They are built up with stones, not flat beaches like in Il-2. Cities are also dense, which is visually pleasing. Graphics in general are eye-candy and the game is fun too.

[Flagrum_3]

Well, in the Il-2 years, you never expected to be blown away. When you expect to be blown away, 99% of the time, you aren't.

"Yes those riverbanks will definitely enhance the feeling of flight .... "

I thought your whole argument was the WoP had the best detail/presentation/realism. Now suddenly it doesn't matter? To me this seems self-contradictory. Also, WoP hasn't demonstrated a superior "feeling of flight", especially when it's obvious that a basic thing as recoil is not implemented. Even worse for the 'immersion' are the American pilots who sound like Homestar Runner. I just can't help but giggle.

Well, I guess I'm an Oleg Fanboi for saying anything to criticize WoP.

I do love the urban riverbanks though: They are built up with stones, not flat beaches like in Il-2. Cities are also dense, which is visually pleasing. Graphics in general are eye-candy and the game is fun too.

Well I might get reamed here for some things I'm about to say but what the hay...I gotta get it off my chest :-)....I've been flying sims for atleast 2 decades.I purchased the orig IL-2 when it first came out and was totally blown away by it's realism in all aspects...Sure it wasn't perfect but the numerous 'free' upgrades turned it into possibly the best flight sim ever made and I believe 'still' as people started to push Oleg and team for more planes, more graphics, more planes, more graphics and the whole while nothing was done to improve the important things like FM and AI.I purchased all subsequent versions of the game right thru till 1946 hoping that things other then graphics would change but was dissapointed.I still believe that the original is still the best if you forget about graphics...It sounded better, AI worked better and flight dynamics were way more realistic then any version afterwards....thats why I still play it. :)

So although I understand that "Graphics" are needed to bring in the 'larger crowd', 'younger players'... and Im not against it as it does add to the immersion effect but I just hope with SOW, Oleg and team put 'as much' emphasis on the important things like true FM, AI etc; for us Ol' guys who have tagged along for almost a decade online and offline.

I ask Oleg to go back and play the original and please bring back that feeling again!!

Eye candy is sweet but true immersion is realism in the cockpit :!:

I've also played WOP and BOP and believe me, take away the graphics and they have nothing on IL2 IMHO.


F_3

[sweln]

Well, I'm pretty sure Oleg's team can do both : graphics and sim gameplay. For graphics you need modelers and rendering programmers. And for simulation you need game designers and gameplay + physics + AI programmers. So it's not the same job. Not the same persons.

Actually for the graphics you don't need that much rendering programmers. The engine has to be solid and smart, then it's just a good polish over it.

I'm confident that SoW will be a very good simulation, and perhaps visually nicer than BoP / WoP.

Abou the graphics themselves, I'm unsure of the quality possible for this reason : in order to make a very impressive simulator you need quite a huge amount of power for physics and all the stuff happening while you are flying (AI, vehicles moving all around on the ground, detailed map, atmosphere singularities and wathever I can't think of).
So once you have your simulation all set up, I wonder what's left in terms of ressources for graphics.

WoP is beautifull but doesen't simulate much stuff. Less than Il-2 for sure. And it runs just fine on my Quad Core Q6600 + GeForce 8800GTX. I don't think that it would run correctly with an added layer of heavy simulation and detailed ground objects (tanks, cars, stuff).

In my opinion, unless SoW's engine is a absolute code beauty, on my system SoW won't be as apealing as WoP. Well, that's the price for simulation.

But, I truly hope that the game will be better looking as WoP because one day I'll have a system that will run it a it's full potential. And also because beautifull graphics is overall nice and because people want nice looking stuff with a good simulation!

So... what where we arguing about already?

[Desode]

There is no doubt that we can have both Mind blowing Fm/Dm simulation and amazing graphics.
Grant it ROF is WWI but it is trully amazing on a system maxed out. The FM is the best Biplane model I have ever seen and I have close to 175 hrs logged in flying Biplanes in real life. Most of those hours are in a 87 acrosport 2 and also I have some hours in a custom Stearman,with a Pratt and Whitney 986 (450 hp) engine, that was a down right beast.

Rof does it, almost to perfection. Now yes it has problems and it took me 2 months of tweaking before I got the game to run right. Still the Graphics are amazing on both ground and aircraft and the DM and FM is as real as I have have ever seen in 20+ years of playing flight sims.

There is no doubt in my mind that SOW will pull it off. If ROF can be that good then I can only imagine what Oleg will give to us.
I also believe that if you have a nice quad 3.0 + with a nice middle of the road GFX card(Gtx 260+) or better ,,, you'll be able to really enjoy SOW.

The percentage of people in the world that have a quad pc is only at 28% according to most marketing info. Sure the game will run better and the GFX will increase as PC tech gets better, thats understood, but they aren't going to release a game that even a $1500+ pc can't run on max settings. If they do I will be really shocked. I'm sure the new Sow game engine is so advanced that things will become available in the futre so we can take full advantage of the engine as the pc tech market grows.
DESODE

[proton45]

Unfortunately there is not a shred of evidence so far to support that.

Just a lot of propaganda started in response to wop terrain textures. They got caught with their pants down by W.o.P terrain. Be sure.

I would love to be wrong ....... but not hopeful of all the 'qualifiers' I have heard.

Lets see.

God, you really love "WoP/BoP" don't you (lol)...I think the point you are missing is that, because Oleg has indicated that he is not using the (Hollywood) "Saving Private Ryan" color-tweaking look for "SoW"...the look of "SoW" is already going to be preferable over "WoP/BoP" for many people here.

[Flagrum_3]

There is no doubt that we can have both Mind blowing Fm/Dm simulation and amazing graphics.
Grant it ROF is WWI but it is trully amazing on a system maxed out. The FM is the best Biplane model I have ever seen and I have close to 175 hrs logged in flying Biplanes in real life. Most of those hours are in a 87 acrosport 2 and also I have some hours in a custom Stearman,with a Pratt and Whitney 986 (450 hp) engine, that was a down right beast.

Rof does it, almost to perfection. Now yes it has problems and it took me 2 months of tweaking before I got the game to run right. Still the Graphics are amazing on both ground and aircraft and the DM and FM is as real as I have have ever seen in 20+ years of playing flight sims.

There is no doubt in my mind that SOW will pull it off. If ROF can be that good then I can only imagine what Oleg will give to us. I also believe that if you have a nice quad 3.0 + with a nice middle of the road GFX card(Gtx 260+) or better ,,, you'll be able to really enjoy SOW.

The percentage of people in the world that have a quad pc is only at 28% according to most marketing info. Sure the game will run better and the GFX will increase as PC tech gets better, thats understood, but they aren't going to release a game that even a $1500+ pc can't run on max settings. If they do I will be really shocked. I'm sure the new Sow game engine is so advanced that things will become available in the futre so we can take full advantage of the engine as the pc tech market grows.
DESODE

I sure hope so!! and I have no doubt that Oleg and team can pull it off aslong as that's thier intention...

My whole point is that because of pressure to increase other things i.e; number of flyable planes, graphics in the game, the FM/DM etc suffered....it actually started going south starting with Forgotten battles!!
Sure it was nice getting all the new planes, cockpits, pretty exterior plane details but alot of the immersion was lost due to all of a sudden Uber performance from all planes, totally screwed up FM model, wacked out AI and last but not least sound realism, which I'll admit has seemed to improve recently.

I am only assuming here but believe Oleg was swayed from his original idea/concept, or dream by the above mentioned pressures and I truly hope he can pull it off but pray he emphasizes on whats truly important in a Flight Simulator/Combat sim which is flight dynamics/gunnery/DM/AI etc; imho....I personally could care less if I can see rocks on the shore or nameplates on vehicles, I'll be to busy trying not to get shot down. :)


F_3

[Romanator21]

I would argue that the current FM is way better than how it was before. DM has only been getting better, excepting old planes which have not been updated. FM DM, and graphics departments are totally non-related, and with enough work force, good fidelity in both can be achieved.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

God, you really love "WoP/BoP" don't you (lol)...I think the point you are missing is that, because Oleg has indicated that he is not using the (Hollywood) "Saving Private Ryan" color-tweaking look for "SoW"...the look of "SoW" is already going to be preferable over "WoP/BoP" for many people here.

As usual your behind the curve ...... lol

What exactly do you find 'Hollywood' or 'Saving Private Ryan' about these graphics .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCmMCd6BfJQ

[Romanator21]

Umm...all of it? :grin:

Again, nice graphics, but not 'realistic' through a human eye. It's 'realistic' through a camera filter.

Not complaining about it, and it is sure better than Il-2. It was smooth, and pretty, but not realistic.

[KG26_Alpha]

Something is not right with the saturation.

I looks too dull and dingy even in perfectly well lit situations.

Though I will never buy the thing anyway these clips just confirm that fact for me.

I don't know why a comparison was made in the OP post regarding competition for Sow, the two things are miles apart as far as immersion and FM DM from these vid clips.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

Yeah your right !! Totally Unrealistic
Perhaps you have something more realistic ?

ahhhh well ..... I got some free time on a friends bird tomorrow afternoon. Perhaps I will be better able to judge 'realistic' better after an hour or so in the air to refresh my memory ???

I definitely need some practice ....... we have some world class 'keyboard' fliers in here ....... got to compete at their high level of realism evaluation :grin::grin:

[TheGrunch]

I definitely need some practice ....... we have some world class 'keyboard' fliers in here ....... got to compete at their high level of realism evaluation :grin::grin:
Considering that your level of realism evaluation only takes into account the amount of polygons and the texture resolution, it's not hard. You only have to walk outside to see how unrealistic WoP is. I'll tell you about something more realistic. Try FSX. I don't even like it, don't play it, but it's more visually realistic than WoP, especially at medium to high altitude.

[Romanator21]

Well, if you saw the link I posted a while back, you see some scenery without bogus saturation and without appearance of filters. It is still not perfect, but at least it is more realistic.

And be careful about who you assume is just a keyboard flier. ;)

EDIT:
http://www.jaggyroadfilms.com/showFilm.php?film=World%20of%20FTX

Here it is again, so you won't have to dig through the thread. Now, I am not talking about LOD, Polygons, Textures, etc. I'm talking about saturation, hues, and filters.

When you go flying, be sure to take some photos and share them with us 'keyboard fliers'. :)

[Desode]

Geez, this thread just makes my day, it never fails. I actually get bummed out when there are no new posts in here for a day.

When I see someone come in these forums and show me a video of them flying a P-51 or FW190 and they say this FM in "that game" is right on the money, then I will start comparing every other game's FM to that one. The truth is No one has ever flown one of these planes. We have some stats in some books and even most of those stats have been contradicted by interviews with real WWII Aces. So who can really say anything about these WWII FMs in any of these games.

WOP visually is almost a form of art. They could change some settings and make it look real as heck, maybe they will.

I will say this the city layouts are more historically correct then any flight sim to date, that I know of. The ground/citys were made with real wwII aerial photographs, and WWII photos of the buildings and citys, the streets are exactly the way they were back then. They spent a long time making it and I for one am very impressed.

I know we have amazing sims with perfect replication of todays places but is there any maps out there that it took a year or more to make, that perfectly match the aerial photographs from the time frame of WWII clear down to each street ? Maybe there are ? As of right now, WOP is the only one that I know of.


Now the closest we have to real flight and FM's is Xplane 9 and it can be certified for flight hours towards your PPL in different aircraft .


I thank you guys for so many great posts !
It beats Tv in my book ! DESODE

[proton45]

As usual your behind the curve ...... lol

What exactly do you find 'Hollywood' or 'Saving Private Ryan' about these graphics .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCmMCd6BfJQ

Perhaps your sense of color is not "fine tuned" enough see how the game visuals have been "tweaked for effect"...the most noticeable thing they have done is desaturated the colors. This technique was used to great effect in "Saving Private Ryan".

I can see how it might be frustrating for you, when you don't understand what people are talking about. My suggestion is to keep playing "BoP" and don't worry what other people think...Just enjoy your game play... ;)

[13th Hsqn Protos]

My vision was good enough to get a private pilots license. 22/20 left eye, 24/20 right.

BTW Its W.o.P -- and I never worry about what fanbois have to say.

It would be quite a feat, for a 'keyboard jockey' to frustrate me. Indeed this thread is proof positive that the reverse is true ;)

Thanks for your concern though.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

It would be wonderful if the chaps from Flying Legends, BBMF, USAF Heritage Flight and other companies commented in the game's flight model. Then we'd get a decent veredict.

[Wolf_Rider]

err, I tried downloading the demo [yuplay download] and my Norton AntiVirus (sonar) ripped it out of the folder the exe was saved in when I tried to run it and stomped on it, as "acting suspiciously on this computer".

is this just one of those "false postives"? the AV lists the actual site as safe


HTTP download wants a premium subscription fee, which is just plain c.r.a.p.
and I won't use bittorrent

[Flagrum_3]

I would argue that the current FM is way better than how it was before. DM has only been getting better, excepting old planes which have not been updated. FM DM, and graphics departments are totally non-related, and with enough work force, good fidelity in both can be achieved.

I won't sit here and argue FM, but I would suggest flying both the original IL-2 and then anything afterward in order, then tell me I'm wrong!....Flying in anything after IL-2, I can't seem to stall anything unless I pull some truly unrealistic movement or can I get a plane to slow down for the life of me, even with a 30% upward pitch lol without flaps, just to name a couple of things...Pitch, roll especially seem way too easy.Apparently you`ve flown some planes in real life as have I, so I would assume you should be able to feel the difference I`m talking about.

I`m editting this after reading Desode`s comments, I know your comments may not be aimed at me in particular and I`m not saying I could recognize the FM of any plane in particular flown in WW2 but I have flown and can tell the difference between realistic and Uber....As I would suspect alot on here could do the same, even without actual flying time.But if your highly versed in the attributes of some of the fighters simulated on here you would aslo be able to tell the difference in FM....and I agree with you it still beats TV ;-)

F_3

[Flagrum_3]

Umm...all of it? :grin:

Again, nice graphics, but not 'realistic' through a human eye. It's 'realistic' through a camera filter.

Not complaining about it, and it is sure better than Il-2. It was smooth, and pretty, but not realistic.

I agree its NOT realistic, but there may be reason for it! I was up just last weekend, midday sunshine with snow covered ground areas, same conditions as simulated in the video and I gotta tell you visibility is blinding!! Ground colors and detail are much filtered as is lighting in the extreme in the game but I would assume this is done for better gameplay as otherwise you`d have a hard time seeing your advesary or anything for that matter.



F_3

[sweln]

Eeeer what are you guys complaining about? WoP is just a half arcade half sim WW2 aircraft game with very nice graphics and a decent gameplay. Leave it as it is! :D

Yes, it's not a sim, so nothing in the game is meant to be 100 or 90% accurate.

But it's a good game to get people want to move further to playing sims! It fills the gap between pure arcade games and sims. Isn't it what was needed to help people cross the bridge towards sims?

Geee.

[Romanator21]

Well, stall behavior in Il-2 has always been a little wonky, but yaw from engine torque/p-factor/gyro-precession/prop wash seems to only have been implemented after Pacific Fighters. Before it seemed planes were on rails and all I had to do was point a vector and go there.

I'm not saying that FM for specific aircraft are better than before. As I've never flown in a WWII plane, I can't argue about anything in that area. What I was talking about was overall 'feel' and impressions. The latest version seems better than the oldest, but let me be the first to say that it is still very far from perfect.

Sadly, even using a restored plane to base a flight model off of is still imperfect. Today, those planes use different fuels, and are never opened up to full power, to prevent any kind of damage to the priceless and rare engines. It would involve a lot of extrapolation, which may end up being way off, and the costs of taking a WWII plane up with accelerometers would be immense for any flight sim developer.

[RomBinDaHouse]

BTW it's on steam now! :!:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/45300/

[zakkandrachoff]

someone know when this going to be for sale in a Box??. I don't going to buy a download. I want something physic. and I see a Zero in the preview and in the game download are not the pacific theatre

[GF_Mastiff]

Wow! Right off the demo if the demo's this good. I like it already; another fine WWII flight sim/hybred for me. I'm buying it off of steam..
I'm just having a little difficulty with the input setting as far as the joysticks concerned. the Trk ir works perfect.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Mastiff, check the ready profiles in setup and work on them. That is how I did it on my Cougar. The demo is nice, gonna get the boxed version. Even if it is not a full blown sim, it is still a WW2 plane thingy = has a place on my shelf.

[MikkOwl]

I'm a 29 year old Swedish (of Finnish descent) hardcore appreciator of games/sims ever since I was a child (started in 1985, I've gone through many loved flying games in particular since. How about "Ace of Aces" on the Commodore 64 (flying Mosquotos, didn't even know what they were), F/A-18 Interceptor on the Amiga 500, F-19 Stealth Fighter (I still read the manual from time to time, great stuff), the master piece "Their Finest Hour" also on Amiga 500 (the manual was the best I've ever seen, a nicely bounded history book basically, with great pictures, pilot quotes etc). I'm driven by a big fascination with machinery, especially the flying kind, and history. Simming is great. Immersion is the key. I got IL-2 in 2002 but didn't fly it much due to various reasons, then bought 1946 last year. Now I have a TrackIR 5, Logitech G940 (a week old), Saitek Quadrant, decent monitor etc.

Anyway, Wings of Prey looked absurdly good in some of the videos I've seen on youtube. I've read interviews with the developers and comments from many who played it (and who didn't). Here's my demo impressions. I can't call it a review since I did not bother exploring everything.

It is graphically impressive overall. Especially the battle of berlin mission included in the demo. When it starts, and FPS is high, it's absolutely breathtakingly good looking. It's like crysis in the air, with a huge city looking completely convincing essentially and tons of battling going on. It has a large amount of atmosphere. There's so many planes, details, smoke plumes, clouds, etc that it's almost impossible to get a grip on who's who and what's going on down low over Berlin (which is in many ways a good thing). It becomes massively more demanding however as soon as any action/enemies appear, and that real amazing framerate + details is bogged down. There's in general though so many awesome effects that every flight sim should have, graphically. Long rendering distance, nice sun glare effect where the eyes adjust after a few moments, the cloud effects, rain.

However, the graphical effects venture into Hollywood-esque artistic license. The British environment looks nothing like that in real life (the color red appears to have been filtered out, what remains is shades of green and blue mostly). It's like those color filters they put on movies to give them a certain surreal look. It looks impressive but 'wrong'. The Berlin environment did look a lot more like reality however.

I was hoping that the Simulator mode would provide something approximating IL-2 levels of realism, but the game is just too different. The whole design/setup is like pretty similar to the Ace Combat series (which I have not played, but seen videos of and read about). But there's one game that really captures the essense of playing sim mode in Wings of Prey in the sim mode - Codemaster's "GRID" for consoles and PC, with just a tad bit less arcadish physics. It's almost as if they copied the whole concept and applied it to WW2 fighter planes instead of race cars.

It does attempt to cater to even hardcore people, but it fails in this regard. It's sim mode is more like a blend between arcade and hardcore simulation. This is not a bad thing, as I've already seen people gone from the arcade mode to being curious about the sim mode, and how those planes really worked and so on. We all had steps to climb to get to real simming levels.

There's basically no planning, no getting to read about your pilots, no dynamic campaigns, no realistic campaigns either, no choosing load-outs (as far as I'm aware), no flight plans with waypoints, no command structure (you are the leader of a flight and some scripted commanding figure over radio keeps giving you ever more ambitious odd targets), there's only four radio commands that can be given, no clearance to take off or land - just straight to the point. A GPS all-seeing radar map is always available no matter what realism setting, showing the bad guys, good guys and the targets, all clearly marked. You can take off if you want but it's not as in-depth as IL-2.

The mission goals seem to have unexpected elements and vary a lot, which isn't bad in itself, but it's way over the top. Follow the Battle of Berlin mission for example. You set out with a flight to attack an enemy make-shift airfield on the streets of Berlin (cool!). Although it shows up on the ultra-radar it was extremely hard to see it with your bare eyes. I could not despite many passes, and my wingmen eventually took it out (I couldn't tell). This continued being the theme, ground targets impossible to spot in the big real looking city. Before one can get to the airfield one is attacked by a bunch of 109's. Then the airfield. Then unexpectedly assigned to take out Tiger tanks in another part of the city. Then unexpectedly assigned to bomb a a fortified house. Then without any break it turned into flying escort duty for IL-2 Sturmoviks being attacked by more 109's. Actually, the 109's never seemed to stop coming during this whole time. Target after target being impossible to distinguish, as there had been no briefings, flight plans or warnings about what one is expected to carry out. The absurdity is that one was given a single drop of free-fall bombs for use against the airfield. Then what? Didn't have anything left for all the other targets. Kept bailing out and respawning in the air to get more bombs to drop on the targets. I didn't keep playing beyond the escort duty so I don't know how long it kept going with new over the top things. All these missions took place within a 2x2km radius pretty much, hyper intense, not a moment of non-combat or time to gather your wits. The british mission was somewhat similar in how it moved you from mission to mission in a single flight, but one did get the order to land to refuel and re-arm before proceeding to the next step. But everything is very close by, the map is very small. No need for time accel, or to keep a look-out (magic radar).

On to the more technical points:

- No Force Feedback. I had actually been inspired to try it hoping that it would have more proper force feedback than IL-2, which doesn't provide control resistance in the middle 33% of stick motion (what a bummer that is! My greatest wish is that they patch that in, along with twin throttle support).

- Setting up the controls was irritating (beyond the fact that they are lost each time one exits and reloads the demo) - most axis behaved opposite to how they would logically appear. I ended up with almost every axis acting the opposite way of what I intended (i.e. you'd think that seeing your stick move a dot up in the axis setup screen when you push a lever forward would mean that it 'increases' something like prop pitch, throttle, fuel mix, radiator etc, but the game thinks that moving down = more). There's also a whole lot of menus to navigate through back and forth when just doing a single small adjustment, every time.

- The weapons are very seriously different from reality. The rate of fire seems to be extremey low (perhaps 1/5 to 1/20th) of what it should be. The Spitfire has four 7.62mm machine guns that all fire at the same time each at a high rate of fire, with only some bullets being tracers. It's a bullet shower in real life. In Wings of Prey all the bullets that aren't tracers in real life don't exist at all - there's no sound FX for them and they don't seem to be fired at all either - only the tracered bullets exist, hit stuff, make a sound. Also only two of the four machine guns seem to make any sound and shoot things at all. As a result, shooting the four high RPM machine guns looks like and sounds not entirely disimilar to having two wing mounted MG/FF in IL-2, low rate of fire with big tracers, things flying between the projectiles due to low volume of fire. This might slip by people who do not posess any knowledge of firearms and airplane weaponry, but for me it's hard to swallow. My imperssion was that the projectiles moved slower through the air than IL-2. Part of this impression may be from the large size of projectiles and the low amounts of them. Hitting targets was quite difficult, more so than IL-2. The machine guns and cannons also seem to have unlimited ammo.

- The weapon damage to yourself and the enemy is fairly hardcore, but the 'system' seems far less advanced than IL-2. In the Berlin map I was blown out of the sky very quickly by the slightest hits, and enemy fighters and bombers would respond somewhat like in IL-2 to being hit, apart from being much harder to hit due to the extremely low volume of fire your planes output. Damage effects are supremely awesome looking, with great holes straight through the wing that looks convincing, oil spluttering on windshields and tons of things to that effect. Shooting cannons that hit the enemy's wing, you can actually see a nice explosion and completely convincing hole straight through the wing. On the negative side, it appeared to be mostly 'all or nothing', even very large holes and control surfaces missing on your own plane didn't seem to affect the plane much. Flight model seems mostlyunaffected by the large pieces of your airframe missing. I would fly around and not even realize half the wing area was missing until I later noticed those huge holes looking out the side of the canopy.

- Bail-outs are instantaneous. You can respawn instantly near you got taken out whenever you bail out, get killed or whatever. There's no consequences.

- The engines have nice controls assignable to axis. Fuel mix, prop pitch, radiator (axis, wohoo). There's even a supercharger toggle. But no flaps bindable to an axis. None of these things seem to have any use what so ever as the game is extremely(!) fast paced, with extreme amounts of highly varied action taking place within a few square kilometers. Maybe in some custom made more realistic missions if that's possible. There's none of that in the campaigns.

- The engine behaves strangely. It has 'normal' operating range, and then when you reach 75% or more throttle, it snaps instantly into super high RPM with extreme loudness and shaking of the airplane (very cool effect when giving it max throttle chasing bombers or otherwise, gunsights shaking). Something is clearly messed up here.

- The engines itself has a high quality nice sound effect, but as I haven't flown or heard high quality recordings of these engines except from a Bf 109 I am unable to verify how authentic they sound. Sound effects vary in quality overall. The machineguns sound absurd (like a single MG firing when there should be 4 etc), while cannons sound similar to any of the various amount of cannon sounds floating around IL-2 and it's mods.

- Sound effects are 'balanced' so you can hear everything well in the environment, a bit like Call of Duty series. You easily hear enemy engines, their guns and so on as if you were hanging under a basic glider with no cockpits, headphones or anything. As far as I know, this is not how things sound like in real life. Your own engine is extremely loud in real life, and you have vibrations and also a sealed cockpit around you.

- I don't think I noticed sound traveling at the speed of sounds (i.e. watch something happen, hear it delayed after); and I don't recall noticing doppler effect from moving sources. More like instantaneous sound travel. I may be wrong on this.

- Physics: I could not provoke snap-rolls in either the spitfire or the LA-7 (max elevator back, then max rudder to either side). I did manage to provoke spins, but only after trying the snap roll maneuver going nose up for a while until airspeed dropped enough. It doesn't seem to let you pull hard enough on the elevators to get into turbolent buffeting/near stall or stall. Instead the the plane keeps turning and turning, always pulling enough G's to black out the pilot. None of that 'low slow and flapping around helplessly in front of someone's guns'.

- Spins: When spins occured, they could sometimes be prevented from escalating by instant stick forward and opposite rudder (also reducing throttle), but also often they would become impossible or near impossible to recover from. The spitfire would keep spinning like crazy (not a flatspin, a moderate or low nose spin) even when I early in the spin had performed all the correct spin recovery methods (see above). IL-2 behaves very differently in this respect - enters spins and stalls much more easily, but also sorts itself out if you take proper action fast enough. Not having read or flown these planes in reality I cannot say if spin recovery is more realistic in either game/sim, but I believe IL-2 is probably closer.

- Torque effects are very powerful and noticable when in the air, though not as hardcore on the ground (rudder is necessary for take off nonetheless). At least the torque effect of the plane wanting to roll left or right depending on how much the prop is being forced to spin. It is definitely much more of that than IL-2 (spitfire comparison). Again, I don't know which is more real, but the Spitfire was very tedius to try to fly except at the power setting where it didn't want to roll left or right all the time. There is proper trimming just like IL-2 and they work exactly the same.

- I was tasked with preventing Ju 87 Stukas from dive bombing ships on the beach (basically) in Dover. I had large amounts of my wings missing from being shot up by He-111's earlier in the mission, and even at my low speed and the low speed of the Stuka, it started doing constant loops, and I'd follow, with no problems what so ever with stalling out or otherwise. Going from 15m above the water to maybe 100-150, around and around. From having flown the Stuka myself in other sims as well as general knowledge, I do not think there's any chance in hell it could possibly do loops at low speed in tight turning radiuses. The engine is far too weak for those kind of stunts. The spitfire was damaged to hell and yet it did it without any effort or drama. I was just pulling the stuck back and following, shooting whenever I got it in my sights (hard to hit, harder than IL-2, due to earlier stated reasons).

Summary:

And there you have it. Wings of Prey is like GRID: Race Driver meets Call of Duty 5: World at War, but in the air, with an option for semi-realistic physics. It's mindblowingly gorgeous, awesome graphics engine, decent sounds, intensely atmospheric. But it is shallow, lacking depth, authenticity and leaves out that which is not direct combat (well, there is an option for taking off before a mission...). Overly dramatized. Think about the flight scenes from the movie "Pearl Harbor" or "The Red Baron" from a few years ago. Bending the laws of physics, historical inaccuracies, unreal and over the top but impressive effects. For anyone who wants to understand and experience these machines and air combat for what it was, this is rubbish. For those who don't have those kind of interests foremost and can suspend their disbelief easily (perhaps due to the amazing graphics), and just care & want to have action all the time, this is the ticket. Can't think of any better arcade flying game that handles WW2 fighter planes. This game won't teach you anything except how chaotic and emotional something like the Battle of Berlin might truly have looked like - something IL-2 and any other flight sim has been completely unable to convey. I tired of it after a couple of hours, I miss the flight sims too much.

[zakkandrachoff]

"""GRID: Race Driver is like Wings of prey"""

Grid is the best car simulator that is in the market. the correct is said Grid is like Storm Of war

[MikkOwl]

"""GRID: Race Driver is like Wings of prey"""

Grid is the best car simulator that is in the market. the correct is said Grid is like Storm Of war
Not to deviate too far from the topic, it requires some clarification on what it means to be compared to GRID:

GRID is a thorough to the bone arcade racing game (I hold some considerable authority on this topic, as racing/driving sims and real cars has been a significant interest for me since 2001). It's physics have nothing to do with the real world at all, except some basic concept of that wheel turns and pedals go slower or faster. However, it has a nice polished presentation and most of the effort has gone into the audio/visual aspect of the game as well as making it accessible to anyone no matter how ignorant or unskilled they may be of the topic. Wings of Prey shares the basic game approach/design outline closely with GRID.

IL-2 1946's most similar games in the racing side of things may be "iRacing", "Live for Speed" or "Race 07" with it's several expansions.

On a different note, I watched a youtube video after I wrote my impressions of someone flying the Me-262A1 aganist two P-51 Mustangs. Incredible landscape and graphical effects. The temporary switch in FOV to more zoomed in and back is expertly made, smooth panning. However, watching the 262 go around the way he was flying it (turn and burn style more or less) it was running in circles around the Mustangs in their little dogfight, and shot them both down. It's performance looked pretty much like that of a 1970's era jet, like the F-16 Falcon or F-15 Eagle. Not even close to stall, go vertical, down, hard turns, no problem. The 262 is indeed supposed to be awesome but not as a dogifighter. :)

[GF_Mastiff]

MMM I can't get on there web site it wont registar me..

I need to go to there forums and find out why my setting don't save they change every single time I restart the game!!! This is very bad!!!

[Desode]

@Mikkowl, Turn your sensitivity all the way up in the wop settings. It completety effects the FM of the aircraft. You can adjust it to where there are no spins and stalls or you can crank it and the planes will act completly different. It makes a huge difference, in the FM's.
DESODE

[kimosabi]

I got IL-2 in 2002 but didn't fly it much due to various reasons, then bought 1946 last year. Now I have a TrackIR 5, Logitech G940 (a week old), Saitek Quadrant, decent monitor etc.


Good man, liking the G940? Love mine, need a bigger monitor though, even a 24" "shrinks" over time. :)

The rest of your post was outstanding.

~S~

[zakkandrachoff]

MMM I can't get on there web site it wont registar me..

I need to go to there forums and find out why my setting don't save they change every single time I restart the game!!! This is very bad!!!

Yes , I have the same problem. I download the Demo of Wings of prey and the settings is dont save when i restart the sim , i need config the damn jostick all the time ... this is bull's##t, and in the Berlin Map the russian plane have all the time the Bombs, How I can put Limited weapon? this is like very very arcade if i cant do that oprion. i can't combat in that way

And in some places i read that Stom of War dont will have best graphics that Wings Of Prey...:confused:
http://i970.photobucket.com/albums/ae188/zakkandrachoff/comp.jpg?t=1263070721

:confused:

[Lucas_From_Hell]

But it is limited. You only need to drop 32 bombs with your La-7, then you run out of them.

If you ask me, first picture looks way better - actually, not better, but realistic. And that's only an old DX8 render without any fancy filters or whatsoever... Oh boy, I can't even imagine how it will look final!

[Desode]

Yes , I have the same problem. I download the Demo of Wings of prey and the settings is dont save when i restart the sim , i need config the damn jostick all the time ... this is bull's##t, and in the Berlin Map the russian plane have all the time the Bombs, How I can put Limited weapon? this is like very very arcade if i cant do that oprion. i can't combat in that way

And in some places i read that Stom of War dont will have best graphics that Wings Of Prey...:confused:
http://i970.photobucket.com/albums/ae188/zakkandrachoff/comp.jpg?t=1263070721

:confused:

I don't know about the demo but in the full version you can set it to limited ammo and fuel before each mission , both Mp and Sp, Then you only have 2 bombs and the ammo the planes had in real life.

[MikkOwl]

@Mikkowl, Turn your sensitivity all the way up in the wop settings. It completety effects the FM of the aircraft. You can adjust it to where there are no spins and stalls or you can crank it and the planes will act completly different. It makes a huge difference, in the FM's.
DESODE
Thanks for the tip. I believe that the default of the sensitivity was maxed out every time I looked through that screen. The planes seemed to respond somewhat similar to IL-2 (from how much you yank the stick around), so what I reported was more of the differences in flight model rather than setup of the controls.

Good man, liking the G940? Love mine, need a bigger monitor though, even a 24" "shrinks" over time. The rest of your post was outstanding.
I have a 24" also (16:10) but compared to you I'm satisfied with it (TrackIR5 made the window into the world seem a lot 'larger' if you know what I mean). I do sit pretty damned close to it though, might have something to do with it (maybe 50-60cm?).

I own a CH Combat Stick (F16 clone from my 1996 onwards days) with a CH Throttle but they didn't work anymore due to pots and gameport connector. I flew tons of sims in my earliest days until late 90's, and after trying IL-2 I stopped flying apart from stints in OP Flashpoint and Armed Assault (how sad). This is mostly due to how hardcore IL-2 was and I did not have rudders, nor did I appreciate how important rudders would be. Was more noob than I realized ;) This fall I gave WW2 online a go (again) and got myself a cheap Logitech "Extreme 3D Pro" and rigged my G25 pedals as rudders and the wheel itself like a (very realistic and EXTREMELY well functioning) elevator trim wheel, and the Saitek Quadrant as throttle, prop. pitch and flaps. Also got myself IL-2 1946 off of steam. Totally hooked again! So happy to have found my way back to my beloved flight sims. Ok ok, trying to stick to the topic of controllers :P Needed to explain where I am coming from, no Saitek and recent CH gear experience etc. Read tons of reviews and forums about them though. The G940 is a mixed bag. I now realize I have too much to say about it to fit it here, as it's not on-topic enough and I don't want to bother people who came here to read about Wings of Prey. I will say that the lack of Force Feedback as well as throttle lights support in Wings of Prey is a big letdown and a strong incentive for a G940 owner to fly something else.

Glad you enjoyed the post. :) I'm talkative and extremely analytical, love to evaluate and analyze everything. I did not bother structuring my post well though, could have been much shorter and easier to read. Time to go do a nice post for the G940, I'll post it in the G940 topic that already exists in this forum. I'll write it and post it before posting this post. Here we go: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=135012&postcount=17


And in some places i read that Stom of War dont will have best graphics that Wings Of Prey...
If you ask me, first picture looks way better - actually, not better, but realistic. And that's only an old DX8 render without any fancy filters or whatsoever... Oh boy, I can't even imagine how it will look final!
It is not unthinkable that Wings of Prey will be more eyecatching and atmospheric graphically than Storm of War. I ran Wings of Prey in Dx9 mode and I'm just blown away by much of the graphics presented, though the artistic license taken in places does not belong to a hardcore sim experience.

The image comparison is interesting. I'm a hobby photographer since late 2002 and a freelancing illustrator (drawing/painting stuff on the computer for clients, mostly sci-fi stuff) so similar to Oleg Maddox I guess I have the background necessary to, uh, have an eye for detail? I am beginning to feel like I am presenting myself as some braggart narcissist. In the screenshot comparison:

Storm of War picture appears to be in full daylight, no clouds and no atmospheric effects, or if they exist, it's set to extremely long visibility (not talking about rendering distance in the engine, but how much humidity is in the air limiting how far one can see). The sun gives warm colors. The palette in the pic is not quite right, though Oleg has commented they know this and the work was not yet completed. The terrain is also a test, where they try different ways of doing things to see what works/looks/runs better, and the image itself is now half a years(?) old.

Wings of Prey picture: Looks like the demo mission. Lots of humid atmospheric effects. The general impression is that of a very overcast, humid English weather (that they really do get a lot there, if you are flying below the cloud cover). But no matter where you fly you still get that murky overcast effect even when the sun is not blocked by any clouds, blinding you and casting shadows and reflection on planes and the water. The colours look like one is looking through some green coloured sunglasses (which I used a few years ago). Most likely they took some artistic license (means to alter things from reality/authenticity to achieve a purpose) in order to convey typical English weather/environment. I think they successfully achieve this. But the unreal mix of bright sun and overcast murk coexisting at the same time, and the green coloured glasses makes it feel surreal, or unreal even. It looks like out of some movie production rather than reality. I would like to point out that the other map in the demo, battle of Berlin, seems to look much closer to reality while being hugely impressive in it's details and mood.

[Desode]

Thanks for the tip. I believe that the default of the sensitivity was maxed out every time I looked through that screen. The planes seemed to respond somewhat similar to IL-2 (from how much you yank the stick around), so what I reported was more of the differences in flight model rather than setup of the controls.


I have a 24" also (16:10) but compared to you I'm satisfied with it (TrackIR5 made the window into the world seem a lot 'larger' if you know what I mean). I do sit pretty damned close to it though, might have something to do with it (maybe 50-60cm?).

I own a CH Combat Stick (F16 clone from my 1996 onwards days) with a CH Throttle but they didn't work anymore due to pots and gameport connector. I flew tons of sims in my earliest days until late 90's, and after trying IL-2 I stopped flying apart from stints in OP Flashpoint and Armed Assault (how sad). This is mostly due to how hardcore IL-2 was and I did not have rudders, nor did I appreciate how important rudders would be. Was more noob than I realized ;) This fall I gave WW2 online a go (again) and got myself a cheap Logitech "Extreme 3D Pro" and rigged my G25 pedals as rudders and the wheel itself like a (very realistic and EXTREMELY well functioning) elevator trim wheel, and the Saitek Quadrant as throttle, prop. pitch and flaps. Also got myself IL-2 1946 off of steam. Totally hooked again! So happy to have found my way back to my beloved flight sims. Ok ok, trying to stick to the topic of controllers :P Needed to explain where I am coming from, no Saitek and recent CH gear experience etc. Read tons of reviews and forums about them though. The G940 is a mixed bag. I now realize I have too much to say about it to fit it here, as it's not on-topic enough and I don't want to bother people who came here to read about Wings of Prey. I will say that the lack of Force Feedback as well as throttle lights support in Wings of Prey is a big letdown and a strong incentive for a G940 owner to fly something else.

Glad you enjoyed the post. :) I'm talkative and extremely analytical, love to evaluate and analyze everything. I did not bother structuring my post well though, could have been much shorter and easier to read. Time to go do a nice post for the G940, I'll post it in the G940 topic that already exists in this forum. I'll write it and post it before posting this post. Here we go: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=135012&postcount=17




It is not unthinkable that Wings of Prey will be more eyecatching and atmospheric graphically than Storm of War. I ran Wings of Prey in Dx9 mode and I'm just blown away by much of the graphics presented, though the artistic license taken in places does not belong to a hardcore sim experience.

The image comparison is interesting. I'm a hobby photographer since late 2002 and a freelancing illustrator (drawing/painting stuff on the computer for clients, mostly sci-fi stuff) so similar to Oleg Maddox I guess I have the background necessary to, uh, have an eye for detail? I am beginning to feel like I am presenting myself as some braggart narcissist. In the screenshot comparison:

Storm of War picture appears to be in full daylight, no clouds and no atmospheric effects, or if they exist, it's set to extremely long visibility (not talking about rendering distance in the engine, but how much humidity is in the air limiting how far one can see). The sun gives warm colors. The palette in the pic is not quite right, though Oleg has commented they know this and the work was not yet completed. The terrain is also a test, where they try different ways of doing things to see what works/looks/runs better, and the image itself is now half a years(?) old.

Wings of Prey picture: Looks like the demo mission. Lots of humid atmospheric effects. The general impression is that of a very overcast, humid English weather (that they really do get a lot there, if you are flying below the cloud cover). But no matter where you fly you still get that murky overcast effect even when the sun is not blocked by any clouds, blinding you and casting shadows and reflection on planes and the water. The colours look like one is looking through some green coloured sunglasses (which I used a few years ago). Most likely they took some artistic license (means to alter things from reality/authenticity to achieve a purpose) in order to convey typical English weather/environment. I think they successfully achieve this. But the unreal mix of bright sun and overcast murk coexisting at the same time, and the green coloured glasses makes it feel surreal, or unreal even. It looks like out of some movie production rather than reality. I would like to point out that the other map in the demo, battle of Berlin, seems to look much closer to reality while being hugely impressive in it's details and mood.

The only point I don't agree with is "unreal mix of bright sun ". I take it you don't fly in real life. The sun isn't bright enough in the game. If if was like real life you wouldn't want to play it or all we would hear is complaints from 90% of the games consumers.
I flew yesterday and with the snow on the ground and the glare off the snow every place, you almost couldn't see anything anywhere. Keep in mind to that these planes are single seaters and there is just glass over your head, so it is even worse then what I went through yesterday in my cessna skylane C-182L.
Desode

[MikkOwl]

The only point I don't agree with is "unreal mix of bright sun ". I take it you don't fly in real life. The sun isn't bright enough in the game. If if was like real life you wouldn't want to play it or all we would hear is complaints from 90% of the games consumers.
I flew yesterday and with the snow on the ground and the glare off the snow every place, you almost couldn't see anything anywhere. Keep in mind to that these planes are single seaters and there is just glass over your head, so it is even worse then what I went through yesterday in my cessna skylane C-182L.
Desode
You misinterpreted; what I was saying was that in the game the palette and shading of the ground implies thick overcast, but at the same time it can be barely any clouds or mist cover at all and sun shining brightly - it cannot be both in reality. If it is somewhat clear weather and sunny, then one gets warm colors and sharp contrasts/shadows. If very overcast and misty murky, then things can look flat, soft, muted colors. But simultaneously? :P

The sun blinding effect in the game was pretty good btw, even looking in the general direction of the sun, the ground/sea was totally overexposed bright for several seconds before the virtual eyes adjusted and some details started coming through. I'm not sure IL-2 is strong enough however.

And no, not a pilot. Flew in a Cessna once in the late 80's as a kid, took a bunch of pictures, and then some airliners. :)

[Desode]

You misinterpreted; what I was saying was that in the game the palette and shading of the ground implies thick overcast, but at the same time it can be barely any clouds or mist cover at all and sun shining brightly - it cannot be both in reality. If it is somewhat clear weather and sunny, then one gets warm colors and sharp contrasts/shadows. If very overcast and misty murky, then things can look flat, soft, muted colors. But simultaneously? :P

The sun blinding effect in the game was pretty good btw, even looking in the general direction of the sun, the ground/sea was totally overexposed bright for several seconds before the virtual eyes adjusted and some details started coming through. I'm not sure IL-2 is strong enough however.

And no, not a pilot. Flew in a Cessna once in the late 80's as a kid, took a bunch of pictures, and then some airliners. :)

I got ya, thank heavens there are no sun spots. Imagine being in a vertical dogfight in WWII and climbing into the sun. You would be seeing sun spots like crazy ! Then on top of that your fighting for your life. It was no doubt a visual Hell for fighter pilots !

I have flown to New orleans for Mardi Gras a couple of times. The haze and humidity was visually interesting to fly in. Its like a Glaze in the air.

I must say though WOP and ROF give the two best feelings of actual flight out of any other sim, I have played. I can't put my finger on what exactly it is that does this for me, but I think its a combination of different things.
I'm really impressed with WOP's shadow system, Its very good in my opinion, maybe one of the best I have seen.

Here is some info on the Dagor game engine. This engine is doing somethings that have never been done in visual aspects, It may explain why the game looks different then any other flight sim. Check it out and read what all the engines abilitys are. I would say that in certain acpects the WOP Dev team is maybe pushing some of these effects to show off the new engine. I know I hope to see more sims made with Dagor, its a very smooth running engine.
http://www.gaijinent.com/projects/dagor.htm
Desode

[Desode]

Here is a couple of videos of real flights, one modern and one from WWII. I'm wondering what you guys think about how well they match to Wop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIUpvtoX0_E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0kmUwp1TKk

Now tell me which sims out there looks like this real footage the most ?
Wop or others ?

I'm just curious.

I'd say this footage is a example of what the Wop Dev's where watching & trying to match. The colors are just about a perfect match.
DESODE

[Skoshi Tiger]

I think you hit the point there that everyone is going on about. WOP is trying to simulate the look of 1940's gun and cini camera footage. If that was the intent of the developers they've hit the mark.

This is still not simulating the look of real life, no more than the modern re-coloured B/W WWII footage is life like.

Yes I have my private pilots licence, and even though it's been a while since I've got behind the controls of plane (about the time life caught up with me and I got kids!) the video's I've seen for WOP or even IL2 for that matter, do not match what I saw out the window of the pipers and cessna's I got my licence in.

But like anything, little step's forward and we will get there in the end. It will be a while till we get holo-decks to fly our flight sims in!

Cheers!

[MikkOwl]

I must say though WOP and ROF give the two best feelings of actual flight out of any other sim, I have played. I can't put my finger on what exactly it is that does this for me, but I think its a combination of different things. I'm really impressed with WOP's shadow system, Its very good in my opinion, maybe one of the best I have seen.
Flight sims are few and far between, so them having the latest goodies is a rare occurance. No doubt they set up the engine with a load of effects quite nicely for the most part. Since most of us never flew anything at home with graphics like this, it is no surprise we are so impressed. And let me see if the reasons you think it feels 'real' is the same as I do, especially compared to, for example, IL-2:

- Foremost, the graphical effects and details. The cockpit windows look more stained around the edges of the frames/pillars and there area more shaders at work. Long distance rendering with very well defined atmospheric effects, lots of planes visilbe at the same time, high rendering quality and decent speed doing it, shadows being cast by aircraft parts into the cockpit, higher quality textures of own plane when looking out from cockpit, neat reflective/bump mapping effects. In general, a lot of activity, the world is filled with things going on visibly and aurally.

- Specific immersive additions: The pilot being heard breathing in a strained way when pulling G's, the G-forces acting on the pilot's head being VERY well tweaked (even without headtracking - a real human head is dampened from G-forces and vibrations in a good way due to the neck and it's muscles, giving a bit of a delayed smoothed movement), all changes in field of view (FOV, zoom) take place smoothly without sudden jerky changes, the airframe and view really starts vibrating when going fast, as well as having high throttle setting (got this while trying to catch up with He-111 bombers, tried to shoot like that too, not easy).

- Perhaps the music for some. It's always there. I turned it off however.

Add it all together and for your eyes and ears, in many ways, it fools you better than the rest. At the same time, there are things which are not there correctly and these break the immersion (depending on the person). Each time I started that Battle of Berlin mission in the La-7, the first few seconds when it flows smoothly and I just look around (trackIR) it is a monumental sight, that things can look 'that good and convincing'.

Here is a couple of videos of real flights, one modern and one from WWII. which sims out there looks like this real footage the most ?
Wop or others ? I'd say this footage is a example of what the Wop Dev's where watching & trying to match. The colors are just about a perfect match.
The footage there is grainy or shot with a not so well set up camera, and neither are a good representation of how things look like in reality. For example, in the Stuka flight, the camera often adjusted its exposure to match the bright sky, and not the (far far darker) landscape, leading to the landscape looking much darker, even underexposed, compared to how it should be (on a side note, I was taken by how similar it looked to looking around with TrackIR, haha, headmounted cam or something). The WW2 era footage (which I have seen many times before :) ) is discolored and of poor quality.

Either way, I don't think any sim matches those clips much. The vibrations from engine and explosions certainly lend themselves more to Wings of Prey, while the colors of the stuka clip (pretty real, at least) are pretty similar to FSX (micorsoft combat simulator).

the video's I've seen for WOP or even IL2 for that matter, do not match what I saw out the window of the pipers and cessna's I got my licence in.

But like anything, little step's forward and we will get there in the end. It will be a while till we get holo-decks to fly our flight sims in!
How about microsoft Flight simulator + FSX?
Holo decks... I want. But then I'd move in there and not want to leave.

[nearmiss]

I'm a 29 year old Swedish (of Finnish descent) hardcore appreciator of games/sims ever since I was a child (started in 1985, I've gone through many loved flying games in particular since. How about "Ace of Aces" on the Commodore 64 (flying Mosquotos, didn't even know what they were), F/A-18 Interceptor on the Amiga 500, F-19 Stealth Fighter (I still read the manual from time to time, great stuff), the master piece "Their Finest Hour" also on Amiga 500 (the manual was the best I've ever seen, a nicely bounded history book basically, with great pictures, pilot quotes etc). I'm driven by a big fascination with machinery, especially the flying kind, and history. Simming is great. Immersion is the key. I got IL-2 in 2002 but didn't fly it much due to various reasons, then bought 1946 last year. Now I have a TrackIR 5, Logitech G940 (a week old), Saitek Quadrant, decent monitor etc.

Anyway, Wings of Prey looked absurdly good in some of the videos I've seen on youtube. I've read interviews with the developers and comments from many who played it (and who didn't). Here's my demo impressions. I can't call it a review since I did not bother exploring everything.

It is graphically impressive overall. Especially the battle of berlin mission included in the demo. When it starts, and FPS is high, it's absolutely breathtakingly good looking. It's like crysis in the air, with a huge city looking completely convincing essentially and tons of battling going on. It has a large amount of atmosphere. There's so many planes, details, smoke plumes, clouds, etc that it's almost impossible to get a grip on who's who and what's going on down low over Berlin (which is in many ways a good thing). It becomes massively more demanding however as soon as any action/enemies appear, and that real amazing framerate + details is bogged down. There's in general though so many awesome effects that every flight sim should have, graphically. Long rendering distance, nice sun glare effect where the eyes adjust after a few moments, the cloud effects, rain.

However, the graphical effects venture into Hollywood-esque artistic license. The British environment looks nothing like that in real life (the color red appears to have been filtered out, what remains is shades of green and blue mostly). It's like those color filters they put on movies to give them a certain surreal look. It looks impressive but 'wrong'. The Berlin environment did look a lot more like reality however.

I was hoping that the Simulator mode would provide something approximating IL-2 levels of realism, but the game is just too different. The whole design/setup is like pretty similar to the Ace Combat series (which I have not played, but seen videos of and read about). But there's one game that really captures the essense of playing sim mode in Wings of Prey in the sim mode - Codemaster's "GRID" for consoles and PC, with just a tad bit less arcadish physics. It's almost as if they copied the whole concept and applied it to WW2 fighter planes instead of race cars.

It does attempt to cater to even hardcore people, but it fails in this regard. It's sim mode is more like a blend between arcade and hardcore simulation. This is not a bad thing, as I've already seen people gone from the arcade mode to being curious about the sim mode, and how those planes really worked and so on. We all had steps to climb to get to real simming levels.

There's basically no planning, no getting to read about your pilots, no dynamic campaigns, no realistic campaigns either, no choosing load-outs (as far as I'm aware), no flight plans with waypoints, no command structure (you are the leader of a flight and some scripted commanding figure over radio keeps giving you ever more ambitious odd targets), there's only four radio commands that can be given, no clearance to take off or land - just straight to the point. A GPS all-seeing radar map is always available no matter what realism setting, showing the bad guys, good guys and the targets, all clearly marked. You can take off if you want but it's not as in-depth as IL-2.

The mission goals seem to have unexpected elements and vary a lot, which isn't bad in itself, but it's way over the top. Follow the Battle of Berlin mission for example. You set out with a flight to attack an enemy make-shift airfield on the streets of Berlin (cool!). Although it shows up on the ultra-radar it was extremely hard to see it with your bare eyes. I could not despite many passes, and my wingmen eventually took it out (I couldn't tell). This continued being the theme, ground targets impossible to spot in the big real looking city. Before one can get to the airfield one is attacked by a bunch of 109's. Then the airfield. Then unexpectedly assigned to take out Tiger tanks in another part of the city. Then unexpectedly assigned to bomb a a fortified house. Then without any break it turned into flying escort duty for IL-2 Sturmoviks being attacked by more 109's. Actually, the 109's never seemed to stop coming during this whole time. Target after target being impossible to distinguish, as there had been no briefings, flight plans or warnings about what one is expected to carry out. The absurdity is that one was given a single drop of free-fall bombs for use against the airfield. Then what? Didn't have anything left for all the other targets. Kept bailing out and respawning in the air to get more bombs to drop on the targets. I didn't keep playing beyond the escort duty so I don't know how long it kept going with new over the top things. All these missions took place within a 2x2km radius pretty much, hyper intense, not a moment of non-combat or time to gather your wits. The british mission was somewhat similar in how it moved you from mission to mission in a single flight, but one did get the order to land to refuel and re-arm before proceeding to the next step. But everything is very close by, the map is very small. No need for time accel, or to keep a look-out (magic radar).

On to the more technical points:

- No Force Feedback. I had actually been inspired to try it hoping that it would have more proper force feedback than IL-2, which doesn't provide control resistance in the middle 33% of stick motion (what a bummer that is! My greatest wish is that they patch that in, along with twin throttle support).

- Setting up the controls was irritating (beyond the fact that they are lost each time one exits and reloads the demo) - most axis behaved opposite to how they would logically appear. I ended up with almost every axis acting the opposite way of what I intended (i.e. you'd think that seeing your stick move a dot up in the axis setup screen when you push a lever forward would mean that it 'increases' something like prop pitch, throttle, fuel mix, radiator etc, but the game thinks that moving down = more). There's also a whole lot of menus to navigate through back and forth when just doing a single small adjustment, every time.

- The weapons are very seriously different from reality. The rate of fire seems to be extremey low (perhaps 1/5 to 1/20th) of what it should be. The Spitfire has four 7.62mm machine guns that all fire at the same time each at a high rate of fire, with only some bullets being tracers. It's a bullet shower in real life. In Wings of Prey all the bullets that aren't tracers in real life don't exist at all - there's no sound FX for them and they don't seem to be fired at all either - only the tracered bullets exist, hit stuff, make a sound. Also only two of the four machine guns seem to make any sound and shoot things at all. As a result, shooting the four high RPM machine guns looks like and sounds not entirely disimilar to having two wing mounted MG/FF in IL-2, low rate of fire with big tracers, things flying between the projectiles due to low volume of fire. This might slip by people who do not posess any knowledge of firearms and airplane weaponry, but for me it's hard to swallow. My imperssion was that the projectiles moved slower through the air than IL-2. Part of this impression may be from the large size of projectiles and the low amounts of them. Hitting targets was quite difficult, more so than IL-2. The machine guns and cannons also seem to have unlimited ammo.

- The weapon damage to yourself and the enemy is fairly hardcore, but the 'system' seems far less advanced than IL-2. In the Berlin map I was blown out of the sky very quickly by the slightest hits, and enemy fighters and bombers would respond somewhat like in IL-2 to being hit, apart from being much harder to hit due to the extremely low volume of fire your planes output. Damage effects are supremely awesome looking, with great holes straight through the wing that looks convincing, oil spluttering on windshields and tons of things to that effect. Shooting cannons that hit the enemy's wing, you can actually see a nice explosion and completely convincing hole straight through the wing. On the negative side, it appeared to be mostly 'all or nothing', even very large holes and control surfaces missing on your own plane didn't seem to affect the plane much. Flight model seems mostlyunaffected by the large pieces of your airframe missing. I would fly around and not even realize half the wing area was missing until I later noticed those huge holes looking out the side of the canopy.

- Bail-outs are instantaneous. You can respawn instantly near you got taken out whenever you bail out, get killed or whatever. There's no consequences.

- The engines have nice controls assignable to axis. Fuel mix, prop pitch, radiator (axis, wohoo). There's even a supercharger toggle. But no flaps bindable to an axis. None of these things seem to have any use what so ever as the game is extremely(!) fast paced, with extreme amounts of highly varied action taking place within a few square kilometers. Maybe in some custom made more realistic missions if that's possible. There's none of that in the campaigns.

- The engine behaves strangely. It has 'normal' operating range, and then when you reach 75% or more throttle, it snaps instantly into super high RPM with extreme loudness and shaking of the airplane (very cool effect when giving it max throttle chasing bombers or otherwise, gunsights shaking). Something is clearly messed up here.

- The engines itself has a high quality nice sound effect, but as I haven't flown or heard high quality recordings of these engines except from a Bf 109 I am unable to verify how authentic they sound. Sound effects vary in quality overall. The machineguns sound absurd (like a single MG firing when there should be 4 etc), while cannons sound similar to any of the various amount of cannon sounds floating around IL-2 and it's mods.

- Sound effects are 'balanced' so you can hear everything well in the environment, a bit like Call of Duty series. You easily hear enemy engines, their guns and so on as if you were hanging under a basic glider with no cockpits, headphones or anything. As far as I know, this is not how things sound like in real life. Your own engine is extremely loud in real life, and you have vibrations and also a sealed cockpit around you.

- I don't think I noticed sound traveling at the speed of sounds (i.e. watch something happen, hear it delayed after); and I don't recall noticing doppler effect from moving sources. More like instantaneous sound travel. I may be wrong on this.

- Physics: I could not provoke snap-rolls in either the spitfire or the LA-7 (max elevator back, then max rudder to either side). I did manage to provoke spins, but only after trying the snap roll maneuver going nose up for a while until airspeed dropped enough. It doesn't seem to let you pull hard enough on the elevators to get into turbolent buffeting/near stall or stall. Instead the the plane keeps turning and turning, always pulling enough G's to black out the pilot. None of that 'low slow and flapping around helplessly in front of someone's guns'.

- Spins: When spins occured, they could sometimes be prevented from escalating by instant stick forward and opposite rudder (also reducing throttle), but also often they would become impossible or near impossible to recover from. The spitfire would keep spinning like crazy (not a flatspin, a moderate or low nose spin) even when I early in the spin had performed all the correct spin recovery methods (see above). IL-2 behaves very differently in this respect - enters spins and stalls much more easily, but also sorts itself out if you take proper action fast enough. Not having read or flown these planes in reality I cannot say if spin recovery is more realistic in either game/sim, but I believe IL-2 is probably closer.

- Torque effects are very powerful and noticable when in the air, though not as hardcore on the ground (rudder is necessary for take off nonetheless). At least the torque effect of the plane wanting to roll left or right depending on how much the prop is being forced to spin. It is definitely much more of that than IL-2 (spitfire comparison). Again, I don't know which is more real, but the Spitfire was very tedius to try to fly except at the power setting where it didn't want to roll left or right all the time. There is proper trimming just like IL-2 and they work exactly the same.

- I was tasked with preventing Ju 87 Stukas from dive bombing ships on the beach (basically) in Dover. I had large amounts of my wings missing from being shot up by He-111's earlier in the mission, and even at my low speed and the low speed of the Stuka, it started doing constant loops, and I'd follow, with no problems what so ever with stalling out or otherwise. Going from 15m above the water to maybe 100-150, around and around. From having flown the Stuka myself in other sims as well as general knowledge, I do not think there's any chance in hell it could possibly do loops at low speed in tight turning radiuses. The engine is far too weak for those kind of stunts. The spitfire was damaged to hell and yet it did it without any effort or drama. I was just pulling the stuck back and following, shooting whenever I got it in my sights (hard to hit, harder than IL-2, due to earlier stated reasons).

Summary:

And there you have it. Wings of Prey is like GRID: Race Driver meets Call of Duty 5: World at War, but in the air, with an option for semi-realistic physics. It's mindblowingly gorgeous, awesome graphics engine, decent sounds, intensely atmospheric. But it is shallow, lacking depth, authenticity and leaves out that which is not direct combat (well, there is an option for taking off before a mission...). Overly dramatized. Think about the flight scenes from the movie "Pearl Harbor" or "The Red Baron" from a few years ago. Bending the laws of physics, historical inaccuracies, unreal and over the top but impressive effects. For anyone who wants to understand and experience these machines and air combat for what it was, this is rubbish. For those who don't have those kind of interests foremost and can suspend their disbelief easily (perhaps due to the amazing graphics), and just care & want to have action all the time, this is the ticket. Can't think of any better arcade flying game that handles WW2 fighter planes. This game won't teach you anything except how chaotic and emotional something like the Battle of Berlin might truly have looked like - something IL-2 and any other flight sim has been completely unable to convey. I tired of it after a couple of hours, I miss the flight sims too much.

Good posting, well done. I knew I wouldn't like it. :roll: