Friday 2010-03-05 Screenshots/Video and Discussion Thread

[Oleg Maddox]

Hi,

Some features of Fligth Sim engine. Openable doors - for future. But we may allmost all things dicscuss here. I will be back by March 9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeytE1wZ_kA


Screen shots:

[Dano]

Excellent, now where's the version that has a busty female commander popping out and showing us how gravity affects her assets?

:D

[Skarphol]

This is really impressing, the level of detail is continuing to amaze me.
But I am really starting to wonder if this game will come out this year.

Skarphol

[Fliegenpilz]

Sorry, but I can't agree with HFC_Dolphin...

I don't want a half-finished, in a rush put together flight sim. I simply don't understand the whole fuss about the release date :confused:

Stay patient - and after some more time you'll get the best flight sim you've ever seen! For my part: Nice Update, Oleg! Keep up the outstanding work!

Greetz

[Sutts]

Thanks for the update Oleg, love the wobbly aerials:grin:

I've been playing IL2 and waiting patiently just as long as he has. The difference is I understand that good things take much time to develop. I'm prepared to wait as long as it takes because I'm confident you'll deliver.

Please keep the updates coming. They are appreciated and the contact with you and the team is important, however little you feel you can show us.

[maclean525]

Oleg, as a software developer I understand how incredibly frustrating it is to read negativity when there's absolutely nothing negative to talk about. I for one am happy to see these updates and very much appreciate them! I will keep flying IL2 until SoW is ready. Please don't stop posting these.

Amazing attention to detail :) Thanks!

[kendo65]

(on the positive side though, I do like the battle-damaged Heinkel, and the armoured car 'antennae wobble' is cool.)

But, a few weeks ago, when the Russian TV team were visiting the 1C offices it was mentioned that the you were in process of replacing the 'placeholder' textures on the BOB map with 'final' textures. Ever since I've been hoping to see an inflight screenshot showing the results. (understand that tweaking, etc may be ongoing and that given reaction to previous WIP work you may want to wait until a more 'polished' result is achieved.)

But the question that I'm still desperate to get answered is: is the plan still to have the game out for the 70th anniversary of the battle?

[Drum_tastic]

Oleg is right.

first we complain when there are no updates, then we complain when there are updates. He can't win.

Yes, of course, the waiting is killing us all, but my honest opinion is it will be worth the wait.

I have faith in Oleg and I don't think there is anyone else trying to do this at anywhere near this level.

Rock on my son!

[ChrisDNT]

The movement of the antennas is amazing, this is exactly this kind of details who transform a good sim in a great sim. Devil in the details, maybe, but heaven too, at least for our hobby :-)

Btw, the very good modeling of this "Pan-Pan" makes me imagine a tank sim during the Bataille de France !

[Sutts]

I love the matt and weathered paint work on that 111. I don't think any other sim has managed to get the colors so real and life like. Just think of the movies you could create with an engine like this. I can just see that bomber sitting in a corn field with smoking engines - fantastic.

Wake up people. Who else is going to give us stuff like this? Remember, good things come too those who wait........

[BigC208]

Nice update, looking at that armored vehicle made me wonder. Are the engine cowl panel and other panels on aircraft removable? Might look nice on an airport with mechanics working on the aircraft. Or have a build in viewer where you can get a close look at all the parts.

This sim series is probably going to have a 10 year lifespan so they better take their time to get the basics right. I get the feeling that Oleg needs to get this sim out of the door this year, for economics reasons. Preferably around the 70th anniversary of the BoB. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for an August or September release. I Don't expect a hard release date before they have the Alpha version up and running.

Patience is a virtue. Oleg, keep the updates coming and take all the time you need to give us a bug free experience.

[352ndBushpilot]

Oleg,

Excellent presentation of a gorgeous looking AFV! I mean, look at the way those antennas sway, superb! Indeed, there is no Flight Sim which is able to represent this amount of detail. The only game I see that in is 1943 Kursk, which is a game I love too.

Please take your time to finish this game in a proper way. People are asking us for years to release our CCM map, but we only release when we are sure:"This is what we want. THis is the way it should be represented!". And if that means that we have to double check everything for trees in the water, so be it.

Blue Skies!

352ndBushpilot, 352ndVFG.

[HenFre]

Thanks for the update :grin:

The Panchard looks amazing. Nice attention to detail which really makes it look real :cool:
Is it the ingame lighting?

And I really like the fact that you now show the models in a video. Shows of the model much better than stills.. Keep them coming :)

[Tree_UK]

I would of thought that if the game is going to be released in August or September then the game would be in beta phase so showing a short movie showing a moving dogfight wouldn't be an issue, unless of course Oleg cannot show it because he isn't at that stage yet, in which case a release this year seems unlikely.

[sport02]

another good surprise with this alive antenna !!

thanks

[Eries]

Oleg,
Thank you for taking the time to post these updates.
Many of us who enjoy flying the sim also enjoy reading and sharing what it takes to create something so enjoyable.
We really appreciate and respect your dedication to this project. No one else has dared to undertake such a task.
Your hard work has not only provided an opportunity for us to experience ww2 air combat , but has more importantly provided the opportunity for fellowship with people from all over the world. It has given so many folks a new perspective and chance to learn about what people suffered through during those tragic war years.
The legacy of your hard work will span many generations of men. Not many people can claim such a prize. I am personally glad that I can be amongst those who you shared with , and be a witness to what you have created.
Keep up the fantastic work. We know that when you are ready to deliver the final work , that we will be ready and happy to enjoy it and once again salute you for a job well done.

sincerest regards ,
Eries

[KG26_Alpha]

Oleg

Well done and thanks for the update.

I personally don't mind the wait and I agree that you cant win with releasing these images, dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.


:grin:

[kendo65]

To be fair, the 70th anniversary could be anywhere from July (at the absolute earliest) to September (I believe Sept 15th is 'Battle of Britain day' in UK) and would be the date most identified with the battle.

On the subject of updates generally, I'd much rather see something rather than nothing. The problem is that such a level of anticipation has built up now for each Friday's release - I keep expecting the next level up - videos, inflight screenshots, etc. Expectation is getting the better of me each week for sure.

In a way that's a good thing. Better than no expectation or excitement.

Maybe it's as I put in my first post - we've become spoiled

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Interesting phisics behaviour showed on the video, like the inertia of the antennas and the rotating wheels.

Now, imgining a bomb exploding near the vehicle, will we see partial and diferent damages made to the vehicle? Like a wheel being detached from the vehicle and throw away, or the turres, or some of the doors that are moving missing. Or we will get a destroyed vehicle object like in IL-2?

Seeing some phisics damages and difenrent levels of destruction on tanks and vehicles based on the damage receiveded certainly would be a nice new feature.

[Avimimus]

I've been waiting since 2000 for Oleg Maddox sims. The waiting is one of the best parts.

You never know what new features will be created, how the game engine will behave or what will or will not be completed on time - it is exciting. Then there are Oleg's comments on what is going on. We hear so much of our own opinions (as end users), it is really quite nice to hear the developer's opinion every once in a while.

[AdMan]

see you next friday!

[Feuerfalke]

Personally, I really enjoy all those little teasers you show us coming together into something really big. I love those subtile details that are barely noticed, but make it so much more realistic.


And if somebody doesn't like it, well, nobody forces you to watch them - wait until the official advertising starts and watch in amazement. But if you don't like what's being posted until then, should still show some respect and a social sense to not blow the party everybody else. Thank you.

[ChrisDNT]

Details are everything for a SIMULATION : so I will look at the accuracy of the landscape textures palette choice with as much enthousiam as I appreciated the realistic movement of these antennas ;-)

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Dear Oleg,

as you maybe remember I told you on your photo forum that I work in the movie industry. My identity is not important for the public on the forum, and really doesn't make any difference here. Anyway, I had several times the occasion to read internet critics about WIP stuff or finished stuff I worked on, and several times I was astonished of the "interpretations" of "facts" some people seem to have with 100% conviction -- just that they were plain wrong -- because I actually knew the real facts. On some occasions it can hurt, and sometimes I posted back. The "public" is a strange animal - to be handled with extreme caution. Love and hate are close together. Some people just think you "owe" them something personally. Not unlikely a guy who thinks he already paid you for a job and you better get it done, or...! Of course they live in a fantasy world with an idea of a personal relationship that only exists in their head. Read it, take a walk, come back, laugh about it, and continue to do exactly what you want. Best strategy.

The update you posted is really nice. I am extremely impressed by the physics that affect even vehicles that way. I can only imagine what this means for the rest of the game world in SOW -- and that is for me, the real good news.

Keep it coming!

[DD_crash]

Thanks for the update Oleg I am sure that the game engine will be used for a lot of other games thanks to the accurate detail of you models :)

[Foo'bar]

I'm impressed about the Panchard's lighting and it's specular reflection. Is this what I can expect ingame? The painted surface of the vehicle is looking very realistic imho.

Oleg please check private email.

[AdMan]

I can see those antenna bending from the concussion of a bomb blast

[kimosabi]

Lookin' good, lookin' good. I've just started waiting, or looking forward, to this game so I haven't had the chance to get all grumpy about anything yet. :grin:

Love the damage detail on that 111, I might start collecting holes when it comes out. To see how many you can get and still be in the air.

[AdMan]

Dear Oleg,

as you maybe remember I told you on your photo forum that I work in the movie industry. My identity is not important for the public on the forum, and really doesn't make any difference here. Anyway, I had several times the occasion to read internet critics about WIP stuff or finished stuff I worked on, and several times I was astonished of the "interpretations" of "facts" some people seem to have with 100% conviction -- just that they were plain wrong -- because I actually knew the real facts. On some occasions it can hurt, and sometimes I posted back. The "public" is a strange animal - to be handled with extreme caution. Love and hate are close together. Some people just think you "owe" them something personally. Not unlikely a guy who thinks he already paid you for a job and you better get it done, or...! Of course they live in a fantasy world with an idea of a personal relationship that only exists in their head. Read it, take a walk, come back, laugh about it, and continue to do exactly what you want. Best strategy.

The update you posted is really nice. I am extremely impressed by the physics that affect even vehicles that way. I can only imagine what this means for the rest of the game world in SOW -- and that is for me, the real good news.

Keep it coming!

^Steven Spielberg!? :lol:

[Abbeville-Boy]

thanks for the update Oleg.

[dl-3b]

Fantastic update Oleg as always!!
Keep them coming!
Don't bother to much about a few "negative" comments. The waiting and expectation for this incredible sim is sometimes too much for a few fellow simmers. Please allow us a weak moment now and then.
All the best to you and your team!

[Mango]

The "public" is a strange animal - to be handled with extreme caution. Love and hate are close together. Some people just think you "owe" them something personally. Not unlikely a guy who thinks he already paid you for a job and you better get it done, or...! Of course they live in a fantasy world with an idea of a personal relationship that only exists in their head. Read it, take a walk, come back, laugh about it, and continue to do exactly what you want. Best strategy.


Excellent post, KOM.Nausicaa! I'd also like to add that for every impatient "expert" who thinks he can speak for the rest of us, there are many of us who silently gaze on the Friday updates with great satisfaction.

I've been waiting more than 5 years for this puppy, and of course the initial excitement has worn off. But it's not about the novelty, it's about the detail (which we see every week), the immersion of the sim, and that history that we learn! These are the things that kept IL-2 alive for so long. :grin:

Remember, this time last year SoW still a myth to the general public. Now we've been getting WiP updates EVERY SINGLE FRIDAY! What other developer takes the time to do that?

Updates or no updates, just knowing this software project is coming together is good enough for me. The thought of having this on my PC by October makes me giddy!! :-P

[Letum]

Thankyou for the update Oleg!
It's always great to see them. :grin:

Don't waste your time, thoughts or words on Dolphin.

[mauld]

'Battle of Britain' Day 15th September

[Oleg Maddox]

1. Yeah, I know how you feel. I think the bar was raised first with the Spitfire video, then last week's interview gave a lot of new info about the game. Going back to basic screenshots of objects from the game has come to seem almost humdrum. Maybe we've become 'spoiled'. :(

(on the positive side though, I do like the battle-damaged Heinkel, and the armoured car 'antennae wobble' is cool.)

2. But, a few weeks ago, when the Russian TV team were visiting the 1C offices it was mentioned that the you were in process of replacing the 'placeholder' textures on the BOB map with 'final' textures. Ever since I've been hoping to see an inflight screenshot showing the results. (understand that tweaking, etc may be ongoing and that given reaction to previous WIP work you may want to wait until a more 'polished' result is achieved.)

3. But the question that I'm still desperate to get answered is: is the plan still to have the game out for the 70th anniversary of the battle?

1. Yes, something like this.

2. Today was also russian TV channel "Russia" and I'm very tired. First they was making the part about the real pilot that begun his carrer as a virtual Il-2 pilot. They did part of scene in real air with this pilot, then in my office in virtual sky.

Final textures will be 100% polished in the final version. Yes, we replaced many of the place holders, but not all. There are still absent the beaches of rivers, not so good looking like shold looks the surf, etc... And these parts look so that I dislike to show anyway the complete picture. You know when we have shown excellent lighting effects, etc.... most people were discussing other things - textures that looks not like....

3. Still the same if nothing bad happens. We are working really hard.


From now I will show screen shots and some time video as it is ready and ready to show something that will tell new info in details. In this video we really have show very intersting details, that show potential of the coming features with the SoW....
We can't do each week "Spitfire video" cutting unfinished features or each week interview. I spend almost all last week answering a lot of questions that I'm sure will be in a sim. Or was listening to some requests.

Would like to say other important thing: to create the first one from zero is one thing... to continue to upgrade already done - it is other thing. Hope you all understand the analogy with the first Il-2 and then with the new titles in a series... the same. I was speaking with people on the forums about Il-2 and its development almost two years before its release....

[daidalos.team]

HFC, with IL-2 and SOW developments you had and continue to have a rare opportunity in game industry world to take a peek behind the scenes and see how a flight sim is being born from basic 3D meshes to final animated models placed in the virtual environment.

Other developers show you some fancy but useless Holywood style trailer videos (that are just pure commercial trash) couple months prior to release. Such information as Oleg Maddox is presenting is very interesting to many of us and less interesting to some. But none of us has a right to "have concerns or objections with WIP developments". We are not WIP product customers.

You may judge the final product because you have paid for it. But you have no real reason to judge how the developer works, speculate what is or isn't completed and what he should show to us before he is finished and sells the game to you.

I believe it's clear to see where SoW is heading with such great details on ground vehicles and what opportunities the new game engine brings.

[Oleg Maddox]

dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.


:grin:


Exactly!

[Oleg Maddox]

HFC, with IL-2 and SOW developments you had and continue to have a rare opportunity in game industry world to take a peek behind the scenes and see how a flight sim is being born from basic 3D meshes to final animated models.

Other developers show you some fancy but useless Holywood style trailer videos (that are just pure commercial trash) couple months prior to release. Such information as Oleg Maddox is presenting is very interesting to many of us and less interesting to some. But none of us has a right to "have concerns or objections with WIP developments". We are not WIP product customers.

You may judge the final product because you have paid for it. But you have no real reason to judge how the developer works, speculate what is or isn't completed and what he shows to us before he is finished and sells the game to you.

I believe it's clear to see where SoW is heading with such great details on ground vehicles and what opportunities the new game engine brings.

Perfectly right.
I'm and my team completely agree with you. We may go like others... and show just prefinal and final scenes... and never then talk to people. Like do really other...

However we are not making the one season game. And our Il-2 shows it in the full range, isn't it?

[ChrisDNT]

In my opinion, two equally bad attitudes should be avoided as much as possible :

- blind fan-boyism.
- non-constructive criticism.

[335th_GRSwaty]

Thank you for the update Oleg.

Around the base I can see some black dots when I zoom in.

[nearmiss]

This thread was hijacked by a MALCONTENT and TROUBLEMAKER. That is not in the spirit of our community.

I have banned that member for 2 weeks and gone through and edited this thread, even one of Oleg's postings.

All of us appreciate the updates, and look forward to them.

Oleg, We all appreciate your cooperation by sharing updates, and allowing TD and others to work with IL2 series allowing further improvements.

I am sorry for the inconvenience. I didn't see the thread soon enough

[Il2Pongo]

Really amazing responses.
All I would like to see, when the team can, is progress and info.
My life doesn't depend on it, My sanity doesn't depend on it. Its just a curiosity for me and I appreciate the glimpses.
I dont think the team owes us anything. But I appreciate the pace of updates so far this year.
Keep up the good work,
Does the gun on that armoured car elevevate?

[Flanker35M]

S!

Nice effects. Thanks for the update!

[drafting]

Thanks for the update, Oleg. I like seeing the increased vehicle functionality... :)

[kendo65]

Excellent post, KOM.Nausicaa! I'd also like to add that for every impatient "expert" who thinks he can speak for the rest of us, there are many of us who silently gaze on the Friday updates with great satisfaction.

I've been waiting more than 5 years for this puppy, and of course the initial excitement has worn off. But it's not about the novelty, it's about the detail (which we see every week), the immersion of the sim, and that history that we learn! These are the things that kept IL-2 alive for so long. :grin:


Don't want to distract the discussion further from the important topic: ie SOW and the details in this week's update, but as I may be one of the 'impatient "expert(s)" ' to whom you refer (and that other people have commented on) I'd like to comment a little on my reaction to the update.

The video of the armoured car was found by someone on youtube and linked to from 1C forum 30 minutes before Oleg had got the official update link in place.

[see
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=13668
]

The battle-damaged He-111 was revealed in one of the pics in last week's interview.

Given that, my honest initial reaction to this week's update could be described as less than excited. However I believe my comments were balanced and not unduly critical of Oleg or the update itself. I certainly don't consider myself an 'expert' and I was not attempting to speak for anyone other than myself.

I'm aware that Oleg is treading a line with these updates between playing it safe, and revealing features before they are fine-tuned and ready. I'm grateful that he takes the time.

[daidalos.team]

One question regarding the lighthouse screenshot...

Is it me or do I see a wind effect on the water surface? Looking on the left side of the lighthouse, I see some stronger waves than on the right side where the sea seems calm and flat.

Martin

[Oleg Maddox]

Does the gun on that armoured car elevevate?

The gun is fully working :) With the recoil of barrel.


We make such things that are not neccessary in BoB just because:

1. We are thinking about creative community that will make own scenarious and online battles. From the beginning of development looking for experience with Il-2 in years.
2. We put so much in engine, that it will be really long life new horse for the flowing titles.
4. If only will be able to create one more team in feature - then this team may use this engine for a very special games with the physics close to real... Say only online games.

[Flyby]

Oleg,
Nice video of the AFV, and nice screens too. How about a brief video showing some dynamic weather (either from the air POV, or from the ground POV). I prefer air air scene. You know how I am. If I don't ask, you can't tell me "no"! :D
Flyby out

[Oleg Maddox]

One question regarding the lighthouse screenshot...

Is it me or do I see a wind effect on the water surface? Looking on the left side of the lighthouse, I see some stronger waves than on the right side where the sea seems calm and flat.

Martin

We were working over it, but I think we will drop some of features for the future.

About unit I can say that the light works exactly as it should. and may be used for navigation.

Say in mission we may put the simple code for different units like this Lighthouse or other radio objects.
So you read or hear signals.... depending of unit. Say you may use Morse code :) and use it in a game play. Jus such little feature... that need coding and implementation in a gameplay with easy of use... I can't tell you all how much we put, wan't or did already... really it is so much comparing to any sim to date....

[nearmiss]

Will the artillery and armoured vehicles have the ability to elevate the guns and shoot over hills and other objects as for real.

Will artillery have long range ability as for real? I realize some guns can shoot for miles, and probably off the map. So, will they have a trajectory that will allow place artillery away from front lines as real artillery.

In IL2 we have to see target and only straight shot.

[kendo65]

1. Yes, something like this.

2. Today was also russian TV channel "Russia" and I'm very tired. First they was making the part about the real pilot that begun his carrer as a virtual Il-2 pilot. They did part of scene in real air with this pilot, then in my office in virtual sky.

Final textures will be 100% polished in the final version. Yes, we replaced many of the place holders, but not all. There are still absent the beaches of rivers, not so good looking like shold looks the surf, etc... And these parts look so that I dislike to show anyway the complete picture. You know when we have shown excellent lighting effects, etc.... most people were discussing other things - textures that looks not like....

3. Still the same if nothing bad happens. We are working really hard.


From now I will show screen shots and some time video as it is ready and ready to show something that will tell new info in details. In this video we really have show very intersting details, that show potential of the coming features with the SoW....
We can't do each week "Spitfire video" cutting unfinished features or each week interview. I spend almost all last week answering a lot of questions that I'm sure will be in a sim. Or was listening to some requests.

Would like to say other important thing: to create the first one from zero is one thing... to continue to upgrade already done - it is other thing. Hope you all understand the analogy with the first Il-2 and then with the new titles in a series... the same. I was speaking with people on the forums about Il-2 and its development almost two years before its release....

Oleg, thanks for the information.

I'm very pleased to learn that the game is still on track for a release later this year, and appreciate the amount of work being done.

Understand the situation completely regarding video, and the progress on the map.

Difficult job managing people's expectations - too much or too little?

Thanks

[Avimimus]

I've always suspect that this is part of a plan for an Operation Sealion expansion with a flyable beach-head defense Lysander...

[KOM.Nausicaa]

^Steven Spielberg!? :lol:

No - he speaks better english, hehe.

[Oleg Maddox]

Oleg,
Nice video of the AFV, and nice screens too. How about a brief video showing some dynamic weather (either from the air POV, or from the ground POV). I prefer air air scene. You know how I am. If I don't ask, you can't tell me "no"! :D
Flyby out

We have now several works in parallel of several programmer's PC if to k about your request:

1. Clouds and it behaviour programing and trasfer from old code created in the past to the new (the new-old was done on Il-2 modified engine, now we have brand new engine and need to reasfer a lot of things from once coding language to others...).
2. Textures and its location on the map (there are more than textures... there is also special coding...)
3. Water and its connection the the beach - programming. We want fast and looking very good water and its interaction with the rocks, beaches, etc...

Wen we will have finally 1 and 2 - then we can show it. Already not so long time to wait
3 - we can do tioll end of the project :)


Hwever I expect following demnds then (not from you).... say like:
1. where my buildings? They show me nothing excep textures...
2. Then weput the buildings with final look snd show it... next cry where is my tank columns or cars on the roads... when my buses and why you don't show how they are stopping and parkling....
3. then ... Why you don't show how the plane is going to parking place.... whenyou don't show how they simultaniously take off, landing in a group ... or other things...


Sounding like plan to show in this sequence, isn't it? and I already what to expect in some posts...

:)
Hope I did answer your question.

PS. Very tired... have nor force to crrect bugs in words... understandable... :)

[Red Dragon-DK]

Thanks for the update. It realy looks great. In FMB will it be posible to set there skill level?

[ECV56_Lancelot]

^Steven Spielberg!? :lol:

I thought on James Cameron! :mrgreen:

[Ikarus]

hi oleg and all BoB team!continue your grate job and dont heard anyone about release date...
Virtual pilots like me that we fly at the first days of il2 sturmovik as today im sure can whait a bit more for something very spesial ;) tnk you!

[erco]

Thank you again, Oleg and Team- your hard work is much appreciated!

I look forward to Friday morning more and more. Each update is a hint, look closely- there is a detail that tells you something very interesting about SOW's capabilities. Last week we saw that airplane engines in SOW aren't just a block with a DM, but that the game code has some understanding of how an engine works. This week we get a hint as to the physics coding of the game. From the waving of those aerials I can imagine that it's possible in SOW to dynamically model the loads imposed upon any structure. Those aerials have inertia!

If I were the developer, I too wouldn't say or show too much until I was nearly ready for release. If I were the developer, I would want my competition to see this work on it's release and know, just know, that what they were working on is yesterday's news.

Your dedication is strong, your vision true, keep it up Oleg and Team!

[Oleg Maddox]

I love the matt and weathered paint work on that 111. I don't think any other sim has managed to get the colors so real and life like. Just think of the movies you could create with an engine like this. I can just see that bomber sitting in a corn field with smoking engines - fantastic.

Wake up people. Who else is going to give us stuff like this? Remember, good things come too those who wait........


We would like to put in final look of the sim so much.... We dislike the old film looking pictures (Stylish that covering real unprecise). We like the real looking picture with real colors, real (better to say realistic model) lighting everywhere, close to real physics everywhere that to recreater the feel.

All small details makes the whole product nice. The moving antennas - this is just one detail that will be visible even in the cocpit of aircraft when you start or stop your mission on the ground...an see something like this.... this adds the life in the whole picture... sad that some people didn't understand such things...

Even not used yet openable doors... just imagine how will change the picture just static objects... and then ust imagine when (hope) in future we will see third parties conrolabvle vehicles and its drivers.... maybe first person? Ok... its possible future

But we should put such possibility from beginnnig.


When we did Il-2 all were impressed with so much details that were put on the ground modelling... and were making even ground battles, becaesu AI was able to do it... From the air it was looking very good. In time we all begin to think its a standard and then to think that it is old...

In SoW we put 10 time more... in AI, in details (even more) in any possible aspect of the sim that may be visible in different situation.
Simply we should remember it...

Il-2 set the bar in the past for all flight sims in one or other area of modeling. And not onluy for flight sims. For car sims, tank sims, etc... It was so long time ago...

almost 10 years after release Il-2 is still looking well...
Say just to add
- self shading
- a bit more detailed in amount of polygons objects (especiall ground objects)
- abit more textures in cockpits...
- to set more close to each other builduings (we had optimization by the distance between the buildings in Il-2 for that time of 2001 and 2005...)
- to make more better resolution textures for some areas (airfields)

and then it will looks probably better than some of modern sims...

What I try to say? I try to say that SoW isn't modification like this way above... it is simply new in every detail. But using the greatest experience with Il-2 development.

Still someone can't understand how we did ground textures in Il-2 without any borders between each others... there were som many such completely new solutions... thart was copied by others in different games in time...
Still someone learning how was done one or other thing in Il-2 looking in code....
Not all solutions there was perfect... but it was working all together really perfect... without any real crashes and bugs of engine itself... more bugs in drivers was always... its why we were so bored to correct bug of not our own basis, say in drivers and spent so much time... Its why we are not OpenGl anymore...

Ok. I should run at home.

[Mango]

Don't want to distract the discussion further from the important topic: ie SOW and the details in this week's update, but as I may be one of the 'impatient "expert(s)" ' to whom you refer (and that other people have commented on) I'd like to comment a little on my reaction to the update.


Actually, Kendo, I was not referring to you, only to those who speculate that my opinion will be the same as theirs for no apparent reason.

[Avimimus]

- blind fan-boyism.


I suppose this is possible. But isn't open eyed fan-boyism the more likely (and honourable) situation?

Oleg is modelling to much higher standards than is necessary to sell the product, he's doing extensive research to get ideas for features, criticism and feedback, as well as amassing enormous amounts of research. He is clearly trying very hard to push toward the perfect product and being very careful to consider a lot of complex decisions on what should be prioritised. On top of this he is good at PR and entertains us with updates.

If there is anything not to praise, it isn't very large or noticeable.

So, how can I possibly tell if I'm blind?? Aha! I stopped questioning Oleg's judgement and his every move some time ago in 2008.

I guess I'm guilty as charged.

[Avimimus]

PS. Very tired... have nor force to crrect bugs in words... understandable... :)

Now that is one for the quote books ;)

[airmalik]

The gun is fully working :) With the recoil of barrel.


Cool! I'm assuming the suspension will be functional too? I can imagine the armored car bouncing along a bumpy road with the antennas wobbling!

Looking at the damage effects on the Heinkel, the Germans should've built the entire plane out of the same material they built the leading edges of the wings and empennage with ;)

[ECV56_Lancelot]

When we did Il-2 all were impressed with so much details that were put on the ground modelling... and were making even ground battles, becaesu AI was able to do it... From the air it was looking very good. In time we all begin to think its a standard and then to think that it is old....

I remember this very well, because until IL-2 came out, none ww2 sim replicated the ground warfare so well. And making a crossfire of Katyushas, artillery and tanks advancing, was, and still is, a marvel to see on the sim. And fly and see al that was a complete joy!.
Still, make the mission to make it balanced enough that an aerial intervention is required for the succes or failure of the ground combat was very very dificult. One of the problems was the simplified damage modeling of tanks, specially the heavy tanks, that could withstand countless impacts of anti-tank artillery like 38 mm, and still move like nothing happens. Or also that the anti-tank artillery wouldn´t rotate, so once the tanks pass over their "aiming cone", they would not shoot it anymore, missing the chance to shoot the tank from the sides or the rear, where its weaker.
With so much details added to ground vehicles, i´m certain that this little problems will be a thing of the past.

Thanks for the update.

[Caveman]

1. Yes, something like this.

2. Today was also russian TV channel "Russia" and I'm very tired. First they was making the part about the real pilot that begun his carrer as a virtual Il-2 pilot. They did part of scene in real air with this pilot, then in my office in virtual sky.

Final textures will be 100% polished in the final version. Yes, we replaced many of the place holders, but not all. There are still absent the beaches of rivers, not so good looking like shold looks the surf, etc... And these parts look so that I dislike to show anyway the complete picture. You know when we have shown excellent lighting effects, etc.... most people were discussing other things - textures that looks not like....

3. Still the same if nothing bad happens. We are working really hard.


From now I will show screen shots and some time video as it is ready and ready to show something that will tell new info in details. In this video we really have show very intersting details, that show potential of the coming features with the SoW....
We can't do each week "Spitfire video" cutting unfinished features or each week interview. I spend almost all last week answering a lot of questions that I'm sure will be in a sim. Or was listening to some requests.

Would like to say other important thing: to create the first one from zero is one thing... to continue to upgrade already done - it is other thing. Hope you all understand the analogy with the first Il-2 and then with the new titles in a series... the same. I was speaking with people on the forums about Il-2 and its development almost two years before its release....

We have now several works in parallel of several programmer's PC if to k about your request:

1. Clouds and it behaviour programing and trasfer from old code created in the past to the new (the new-old was done on Il-2 modified engine, now we have brand new engine and need to reasfer a lot of things from once coding language to others...).
2. Textures and its location on the map (there are more than textures... there is also special coding...)
3. Water and its connection the the beach - programming. We want fast and looking very good water and its interaction with the rocks, beaches, etc...

Wen we will have finally 1 and 2 - then we can show it. Already not so long time to wait
3 - we can do tioll end of the project :)


Hwever I expect following demnds then (not from you).... say like:
1. where my buildings? They show me nothing excep textures...
2. Then weput the buildings with final look snd show it... next cry where is my tank columns or cars on the roads... when my buses and why you don't show how they are stopping and parkling....
3. then ... Why you don't show how the plane is going to parking place.... whenyou don't show how they simultaniously take off, landing in a group ... or other things...


Sounding like plan to show in this sequence, isn't it? and I already what to expect in some posts...

:)
Hope I did answer your question.

Great update! The rotational inertia of the vehicle translating to an antenna sway is really inpressive. Just out of curiosity (this is an insignificant detail, but) if the antennas were further from the axis of rotation, would they show more deflection? In other words, is the physics model generalized to the extent that objects tagged as intertially dependent "automatically update" to show more/less deflection depending where they are with respect to the axis of rotation? Or... Is a certain amount of defelection hard-coded into the movement?

General graphical comment/question:

When IL-2 came out, it was graphically "great to excellent" for it's day. It was able to keep up in most aspects graphically with updates, etc... such that it now looks "good" compared to other sims of the past 3 years (even though it's ~10 years old:). SOW appears to take it to the next level already as evidenced by the pics of the 109 sitting near the buildings with some trees and grass. This was WIP, but the benefits of lighting effects were clear and exciting to see.

I'm probably different from most folks who play IL-2 because... while I like the dogfighting aspect, I also greatly enjoy just taking the 109 for trips around the circuit practicing endless "touch n go" in the winter, at dawn. I still lose myself and am sufficiently immersed to the point that my mind believes it's in the cockpit of a 109.

So... realistic FM is most important to me, followed by in-cockpit graphics, and then graphical representation of terrain & buildings, then interaction of in-game models with their environment. I wasn't sure from your post if you'll be showing much graphically until August... It would be great to see continued glimpses of the new textures, even if in-engine. The lighthouse/water shot was great.

You've made some subtle, subjective comments on the graphics engine's capabilities with respect to differnet types of cameras. Can you quantify a bit more objectively by using the following scale...? Assume "zero" is not very real and 10 represents photo-real representation of terrain in realtime, it seems logical to say that IL-2 was a 5 when released, and is a 7 now. From the glimpses into the future, it seems like SOW will be a 8.5 when released with the potential to be a 9.5, 5-10 years from now. Is this anywhere near how you might compare/quantify your expectations for graphics?

Keep up the great work. Your team has revolutionized the industry... Thanks again for your contributions to a great hobby.

[Oleg Maddox]

Cool! I'm assuming the suspension will be functional too? I can imagine the armored car bouncing along a bumpy road with the antennas wobbling!

Looking at the damage effects on the Heinkel, the Germans should've built the entire plane out of the same material they built the leading edges of the wings and empennage with ;)

Last post today

Yes, suspension is working.
And how it moves, not like by the rails in the past, is visible even from flying aircraft.
From some distant view it is also adds the feel of real things.

[Caveman]

Last post today

Yes, suspension is working.
And how it moves, not like by the rails in the past, is visible even from flying aircraft.
From some distant view it is also adds the feel of real things.

COOL! Great for immersion.

Looks like you answered much of my previous post on this page with YOUR comments on graphics at the end of page 6 when I was posting...

Still, can you try to graphically quantify IL-2 at release vs now vs SOW when released vs SOW after 5 years on a 1-10 scale? "1" being MSFS 1979-80, and "perfect 10" being photoreal rendering in realtime for each of the following components which are my guesses... What would your rating be?

In cockpit graphics for IL-2: 5.0, 7.0
In cockpit graphics for SOW: 9.0, 9.5

Vehicle Exterior graphics for IL-2: 5.0, 6.0
Vehicle Exterior graphics for SOW: 9.0, 9.5

Terrain graphics IL-2: 5.0, 8.0
Terrain graphics SOW: 8.0, 9.0

[Chivas]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox
1. Yes, something like this.

2. Today was also russian TV channel "Russia" and I'm very tired. First they was making the part about the real pilot that begun his carrer as a virtual Il-2 pilot. They did part of scene in real air with this pilot, then in my office in virtual sky.

Final textures will be 100% polished in the final version. Yes, we replaced many of the place holders, but not all. There are still absent the beaches of rivers, not so good looking like shold looks the surf, etc... And these parts look so that I dislike to show anyway the complete picture. You know when we have shown excellent lighting effects, etc.... most people were discussing other things - textures that looks not like....

3. Still the same if nothing bad happens. We are working really hard.
__________________________________________________ _________________________

The information that the terrain is relatively close to completion and a release date still possible this year, made my day.

Thanks Oleg

~Salute~

[Matze81]

@ admins

It would be nice, if you could make a HiDef download available again!
(Nike-it was kind enough to do it for the first two videos)

Thanks already!

[SlipBall]

The whip in the antenna is really very good, you continue to surprise us:)...a question that I have is, will we see this physics in a flag or wind sock, or perhaps see it displayed in a street sign, or tree limb, being moved by the wind?...nice up-date!

[Richie]

What the doubters have to do is keep up to date on everything meaning interviews. Look at what Gregory said and what he was shone. I think Oleg likes to keep us all in a half crazed state like a bunch of junkies needing a fix of heroin...screenshots & videos.. every Friday. As for the release date I think I read it's still October posted in French at the checksix site.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

The whip in the antenna is really very good, you continue to surprise us:)...a question that I have is, will we see this physics in a flag or wind sock, or perhaps see it displayed in a street sign, or tree limb, being moved by the wind?...nice up-date!

Long time ago, i beleive it was on SimHQ, Oleg answered this question by YES, you will have a socket being blowed by the wind.

[Victorlz]

With this kind of detail, soon we will have a tank simulator :rolleyes:

[ChrisDNT]

Yes, again, armored vehicules look so good, that a tank sim MUST be on the works.

[Hecke]

hi

i got a question.

What will be the resolutions available in SOW BoB?

Will there be full hd 1920x1080 16:9?

[philip.ed]

hi

i got a question.

What will be the resolutions available in SOW BoB?

Will there be full hd 1920x1080 16:9?


He answered that question in the topic. ;) He said it would support most, if not all, resolutions.

[Necrobaron]

Looks like I missed a bit of a ruckus.

Unless some of you literally wait by your PC day in and day out for SoW to be released, I don't get the gnashing of teeth over having to wait. Why not go out and enjoy life in the meantime and whenever SoW does comes out, all the better? As far as I'm concerned, as long as the product delivers, Oleg can take as long as he likes. I loved the IL-2 series and Oleg's nearly 10 years of active support of it, so there's no reason to think SoW isn't in capable hands. If that is blind fanboyism, then so be it. In this case, I think it is justified until proven otherwise. My primary concern is whether or not my PC will be able to do SoW justice!

With that said, nice update! As flight sims advance and evolve, it's only natural to start seeing tertiary aspects, such as ground objects, receiving more and more attention and detail. I don't think that's something to get upset about.
________
**** (http://www.fucktube.com/)

[MikkOwl]

I read every update, and I appreciate them and think they are interesting. But I mostly do not post anything. Imagine how many others are similar to me, who can understand and not judge so much from circumstance in the media that is posted.

The updates are nice, but please don't divert more than a tiny bit of resource from development to showing things. Anticipation for the game is large enough already. The game will speak for itself when released. That is where the work should go. Allowing yourself to get tired or annoyed by comments here also affects development a bit (you know, your mood and mind will be a bit distracted from the real task of directing the development team).

The physics of the armored car is really great looking, and knowing about that can be used on aircraft and in cockpits too. And the Heinkel... I imagine that with smoke, motion, background, crew, light effects.. amazing. I think the body can probably be cut into several pieces anywhere, not just the middle like in the screenshots. Very cool.

That makes me think - crew members, I wonder if they can also be seen when the aircraft disintegrates (come flying out, maybe dead or mutilated, or alive and moving the limbs around. Possibly with 'ragdoll physics'). Often people forget people are in the machines - we don't just fight machines.

This update made me so interested in the He-111 I think I want to learn how to fly it properly, read the instruments, etc. IL-2 1946 to the rescue.

[Pahvi]

We would like to put in final look of the sim so much.... We dislike the old film looking pictures (Stylish that covering real unprecise). We like the real looking picture with real colors, real (better to say realistic model) lighting everywhere, close to real physics everywhere that to recreater the feel.

All small details makes the whole product nice. The moving antennas - this is just one detail that will be visible even in the cocpit of aircraft when you start or stop your mission on the ground...an see something like this.... this adds the life in the whole picture... sad that some people didn't understand such things...

Even not used yet openable doors... just imagine how will change the picture just static objects... and then ust imagine when (hope) in future we will see third parties conrolabvle vehicles and its drivers.... maybe first person? Ok... its possible future

But we should put such possibility from beginnnig.


When we did Il-2 all were impressed with so much details that were put on the ground modelling... and were making even ground battles, becaesu AI was able to do it... From the air it was looking very good. In time we all begin to think its a standard and then to think that it is old...

In SoW we put 10 time more... in AI, in details (even more) in any possible aspect of the sim that may be visible in different situation.
Simply we should remember it...

Il-2 set the bar in the past for all flight sims in one or other area of modeling. And not onluy for flight sims. For car sims, tank sims, etc... It was so long time ago...

almost 10 years after release Il-2 is still looking well...
Say just to add
- self shading
- a bit more detailed in amount of polygons objects (especiall ground objects)
- abit more textures in cockpits...
- to set more close to each other builduings (we had optimization by the distance between the buildings in Il-2 for that time of 2001 and 2005...)
- to make more better resolution textures for some areas (airfields)

and then it will looks probably better than some of modern sims...

What I try to say? I try to say that SoW isn't modification like this way above... it is simply new in every detail. But using the greatest experience with Il-2 development.

Still someone can't understand how we did ground textures in Il-2 without any borders between each others... there were som many such completely new solutions... thart was copied by others in different games in time...
Still someone learning how was done one or other thing in Il-2 looking in code....
Not all solutions there was perfect... but it was working all together really perfect... without any real crashes and bugs of engine itself... more bugs in drivers was always... its why we were so bored to correct bug of not our own basis, say in drivers and spent so much time... Its why we are not OpenGl anymore...

Ok. I should run at home.
I give two thumbs up for this.

[Robert]

Perfectly right.
I'm and my team completely agree with you. We may go like others... and show just prefinal and final scenes... and never then talk to people. Like do really other...

However we are not making the one season game. And our Il-2 shows it in the full range, isn't it?


I hope this doesn't end up being the case Oleg. I don't contribute much to the forum, but I'm always glad to see something on a Friday with your name on the 'POSTED BY' tag. It's a sure sign that you are working, and more importantly it shows you respect your costomers who have a great affection for flight simming and your product.

[lbuchele]

I don´t really understand what a fanboy is (translation) but I suppose that is someone that like too much someone´s work?
Because if is it , I´m a fanboy.(shame on me)

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Now that wasn't really necessary, Dutchman.

The guy got a 2-week vacation ticket to cool down and appreciate the next 2 updates silenty so we can focus on the update only, and not in some random rant against the developers of our beloved simulators and the favour they're doing by posting these updates.

Fact is, his comment was totally unecessary in every possible way, and he also spoke as if that was the general opinion, which isn't true.

Done on this rather silly matter, back on-topic.

The level of detail we keep seeing by these updates surprises me every friday. Moving antennas. Now tell me, how cool is that?

One thing that catched my attention was the He-111 and how colours were depicted. They look so... natural, real! I guess it helps when there are photographers with a good eye around :-P

Can't find the words to express myself here, so I'll just congratulate all the team for this marvelous effort and ask you to please keep the updates coming, despiste some people try to put it down. Remember, what's 1 irritating fellow among thousands of fans who fully support your effort in developing this simulator?

(By the way, on the He-111 damage model, should the tail section actually stay with the plane in such structural conditions or in-game it would have detatched already?)

[fuzzychickens]

Back in the USSR.................:rolleyes:

In the good old USA, you can be tossed in jail for giving a organization on a terrorist blacklist advice on how to advance their cause non-violently - even if you didn't know they were on said blacklist.

It's called the Patriot Act. That's free speech trampling.

Associating moderation on a privately owned forum with USSR in a negative light is more of a stretch.

[kendo65]

What I try to say? I try to say that SoW isn't modification like this way above... it is simply new in every detail. But using the greatest experience with Il-2 development.


Thinking about this myself - about how much of benefit would have been learnt by Oleg and the developers in the act of putting il2 together - including knowledge of mistakes made, wrong turns, best ways to achieve things.

You could almost say that il2 has been the greatest and most long-running prototype in gaming history. :)

[SlipBall]

Long time ago, i beleive it was on SimHQ, Oleg answered this question by YES, you will have a socket being blowed by the wind.


I think that I do remember that...but what about the flag!!:-P

[virre89]

You're epic Oleg, never forget that. :D

[Qpassa]

Keep working at this level,thanks for the update ^.^

[ECV56_Lancelot]

I think that I do remember that...but what about the flag!!:-P

Nop, the flag you will have not. Too complex phisics and coding, it would suck lots of cpu resources! ;)

[Les]

These updates and comments from Oleg over the last few weeks have made me realize he and his crew are laying the groundwork for something truly monumental here. It's not just bullshit wishful thinking or tricky salesmanship. The potential is truly awesome. Unprecedented. I just hope there are enough third-parties willing and capable enough to get involved and provide the extra content required to help fulfil that potential.

I guess there's always going to be an element of 'what could have been', as there are obviously still limits to what can be done, but it really would be a shame if the opportunities Maddox Games are providing with this new sim aren't followed up on by other contributors.

We'll still have the core premier-air-combat-sim provided by Oleg and his immediate team, which itself is enough to be thankful for, but this thing could take off in ways none of us can fully imagine.

Here's to hoping this work gets the recognition it deserves, from the people with the talent and ability to make more of it than one man or team alone possibly could.

Les.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

Thanks for the update. Looks ok. Like the antenna waving and tire/turrent animations.

My only graphics concern is the one I have had for the last 8-9 years.
The 'scale' of the vehicle as relating to terrain and other objects. Eager to be able to compare this to IL2 and other sims.

[BadAim]

Hopeless fanboi here! Thanks Oleg for your tireless work at providing a very small community with the stuff of their dreams. I have no doubt that SOW will deliver the goods. I really love how you've captured the look of military vehicles and aircraft so well and so realistically in that they're flat finished yet still reflective, and the cracked plexiglass on the He 111 is just perfect. As I watch these updates and interviews and your answers to questions, I have a clear view of what I expect SOW to be when it's released, and I can honestly say that if it's half as good as I expect, I'll still be happy with it.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Was it just me or did anyone else get the erge to spray that armoured car with eight colt-Brownings when the hatches opened up?

Will the damage model allow small caliber weapons to disable a vehicle like this when it's in the open configuration? (Sorry if it's been asked before!) With detail like this I might spend my days hedge-hopping through the french countryside looking for a bit of trouble!


I guess it serves me right for going to sleep, So I missed the deleted posts. For the first couple of pages I couldn't understand all the comments about negativity. This place has had the most positive vibe that I can remember over the last few months. Even though theres been heated discussions It's 100% on what what it was like same time last year!

[choctaw111]

I love how realistic the physics are.

[AdMan]

Last weeks article squashed any remaining concerns I had about SOW, not necessarily because of the specifics revealed but because to me it showed how Oleg is really taking the feedback he receives to heart. I remember how several times he argued against clickable cockpits but one of the first things mentioned in the article was the presence of clickable cockpits, not that it was on my wish list, because it wasn't and I like to use keyboard mapping, but it showed willingness to adapt and make significant changes based on demand of gamers.

Also, this whole experience of talking to the lead game developer as the game is being developed on a regular and in-depth basis is a one of a kind experience.

Thanks Oleg

[Old_Canuck]

Thanks Oleg. I can only offer you and your team my encouragement because my knowledge of most details is limited so no criticism from this fanboy. The moving antennaes made me smile. It gives a small hint of the dynamics we can expect when it's released.

[Viking]

Thank you for uppdate!

One question, will the pilots seat in the He111 be able to elevate so that the pilot can stick his head out throgh the hatch?

Viking

[rakinroll]

Thank you Oleg, video is always better. ;-)

[Bobb4]

A few questions online gamers will be very interested in I am sure...

1) You have stated that bombers will have various manable positions etc. This begs the question, how different is the network protocol from IL2. Currently some modded (I know a taboo subject) have made it possible to have 128 players online at one time. Will SoW improve on this or is this the theoretical maximium.

2) Will SoW follow on in IL2's footsteps and make the majority of the game work clientside with the dedicated servers handling only interactions? (I know this is an over simplification but I hope you understand what I mean.)

3)With only seven months to go for a "best case scenario release" one is hoping a close beta is arround the corner. Being an avid SEOW player What I would like to know is would such a dynamic air sea and land co-op campaign be possible off the bat within the SoW engine UI/FMB or is this something that will be left to an approved third party provider?

[wannabetheace]

Thanks Oleg for awesome Friday update!
maybe I'm pushing it too far but where is the swastika on german plane ;)

[csThor]

According to rumors there's been a new law in russia making the use of swastikas problematic in computer games. I do not know the exact details but I guess it will affect SoW.

[MikkOwl]

It would be no different than what IL-2 was like since its release. HakenEnable to the rescue. And leaving a spot empty where the swastika belongs is necessary or else the swastikas would not be an extra texture, but rather they would need to hide it with an extra texture (not as pretty).

[robtek]

well, it's not in MY nature, afaik :-D
A website takes away resources from the important things!
We are addicted anyway, as you can see by the emotions here.
And to spoil the surprises we get when we can finaly buy BoB:SoW, what for?

[krz9000]

i wonder is olegs team is doing displacement like these guys. these precudural techniques rock :) http://www.outerra.com/wgallery.html

[Qpassa]

In my opinion the swastikas should be included :)

[Feuerfalke]

Actually he was saying what i was thinking for some time now...........it's not constructive,true,but nevertheless..............i mean,in a flightsim,how close do you ever come to ground objects,unless you have no other choice?:grin:

These physics are probably translated to the aircraft too,so why not show us some never seen before aircraft features?
After all it's a FLIGHTSIM,right?

The waiting is hard,but if i'm correct didn't they promise there should be a website up by now?
Or why not even a blog?
At least a place where all info/screens are gathered,people start complaining,it's in our nature.............;)

Honestly, I don't know what you guys expect to see.
A plane? You already saw several planes, even in flight, internals, skins, modeling of internals and systems, cockpit-views, you even saw a StuKa dive-bombing, pilot-models, pilots bailing out, exhaust-flames, .....
Damage model? You already saw dozens of screenshots of how damage looks and works.
So what would you want to see? Real ingame videos of dogfights? It's not gonna happen now, for various reasons and it was stated several times in the meanwhile.

I can understand that waiting is not really pleasant - I'd love to start flying tomorrow, but it won't happen, so what? Complaining won't change it and it won't make waiting any easier.

To the complains themselves: To the complains in general:
If you can't take it then don't dish it out.
Nobody here will deny your right on your own opinion, but if you criticize something or somebody in an official forum, why are you so surprised when you get criticized as well?


So far, I'm glad there is no website. Leaves more resources for the project.
Until then, there are a couple of nice websites gathering information and pictures.
Foobar's (http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/category/computerspiele/storm-of-war-computerspiele/screenshots/2009/)

[Feuerfalke]

In my opinion the swastikas should be included :)

No it shouldn't.

a) because of the legal problems in several countries
b) because you can make your own skins with swatiskas, if you want them.
c) because there will be a mod enabling swatiskas and then Oleg won't be the one to blaim.

[nearmiss]

Oleg is sharing with our community. That does not call for complaints, whines and bitter comments. He doesn't have to share anything with us.

Oleg does appreciate constructive thoughts and critique, that is why he hangs around and answers questions. No one wants to be blasted for being a nice guy and sharing.

All of us, who frequented the Oleg's Ready Room at UbiSoft knows that when Oleg gets enough... he is gone.

[KG26_Alpha]

Oleg is sharing with our community. That does not call for complaints, whines and bitter comments. He doesn't have to share anything with us.

Oleg does appreciate constructive thoughts and critique, that is why he hangs around and answers questions. No one wants to be blasted for being a nice guy and sharing.

All of us, who frequented the Oleg's Ready Room at UbiSoft knows that when Oleg gets enough... he is gone.

BINGO

:grin:

[Qpassa]

No it shouldn't.

a) because of the legal problems in several countries
b) because you can make your own skins with swatiskas, if you want them.
c) because there will be a mod enabling swatiskas and then Oleg won't be the one to blaim.

Well I just want the most real game, I know that it is forbid in Germany, but not in my country. Could be make an option in the install...
I hope some modder do it

[Lucas_From_Hell]

IMHO, it's simple.

Planes with swastikas are historically correct. Erasing them and pretending they never existed, as done in Germany and a few other countries, won't change a thing - it's history, it happened, deal with it. Having a plane without swastikas when it actually had is as wrong as having a pink Spitfire as default. "If you don't like it, just make a skin yourself."

It's useless to fight the law ("...and the law won"), we probably won't change it. I for myself think it's just complete bullshit to try to erase it, but so what? The folks making the laws think otherwise, and I'm not too sure, but they probably don't care about my opinion.

Having it as optional is fine. Oleg can't go in trouble because he gave an option to have them, anyway. Pretend Maddox Games is a weapon maker, Storm of War is the gun. Guns can kill, and killing is sort of illegal in most places. Can they go in trouble if the costumer bought his product and commited a crime with it?

I'm not aware of how the laws apply in Germany, Hungary, Austria and co., so it might actually be considered illegal, but it makes no sense whatsoever.

Something that could work would be having some sort of official patch for enabling swastikas. So those interested in having them could just download the files, install/copy them into Storm of War's root folder, and done. Those who don't want it, just don't download it.

(Is the text actually understandable? I can rewrite it if necessary, it might be a bit confusing)

[virre89]

No it shouldn't.

a) because of the legal problems in several countries
b) because you can make your own skins with swatiskas, if you want them.
c) because there will be a mod enabling swatiskas and then Oleg won't be the one to blaim.

Not being allowed to have swastikas in the game is as ridiculous as the gore censorship that exists in germany and australia. Politicians need to grow up.

[csThor]

I actually asked Oleg on his stance to something similar but not SoW related and he said that there was a new law in Russia which apparently makes it problematic to use the swastika in computer games. This is my reading of his reply, but that's beside the issue.

German law is quite clear: No swastika at all, except in art, education or documentation. Computer games are just that - games (or toys, as several courts have said). Even having it optional is prohibited here so I guess unless Oleg does a specific german release version (for which there is no indication so far - the same policy as with Il-2 seems to be in place) he won't ship the game with swastikas as default (or even option). So IMO the best option is to make provisions for historical markings but not ship the graphical files with the game. Leave open the marking gfx to the user and he can easily insert the relevant files when he feels like it. Same for the Finns and et voila ... everyone's happy.

EDIT: I think the german law is spot on given our unique history. I do not want to see the right-wing idiots marching through our streets with the Reichskriegsflagge so a few hoops to jump through for accurate markings is a price I'm prepared to pay.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Hey, judging from what I've seen in the updates and in Il-2, it's art, education and documentation on my book :mrgreen:

But just a question, the German law covers even pre-Nazi swastikas?

[Ernst]

Stalin murdered millions people in Siberia prisons and no one complains about the Red Star. There is the right-wing idiots and the left-wing idiots. Difference is that the last win the war.

If you wanna use pink spitfire i have no objection, we must respect sexual orientation diversity...

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Ernst, actually, in Hungary the Red Star (actually, all "totalitarian symbols", if I remember correctly) is forbidden as well ;)

[Foo'bar]

Here we go again... Hakenkreuze - the most useless discussion ever. Don't waste your energy on that.

[koivis]

I think the banning of the Finnish Air Force swastika in Germany is very stupid, since Finland had just as little in common with the German Nazi party between 1917 and 1941 as did any other European country.

However, the German law says:

(1) Whoever:

1. domestically distributes or publicly uses, in a meeting or in writings (§ 11 subsection (3)) disseminated by him, symbols of one of the parties or organizations indicated in § 86 subsection (1), nos. 1, 2 and 4; or

2. produces, stocks, imports or exports objects which depict or contain such symbols for distribution or use domestically or abroad, in the manner indicated in number 1,

shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.

(2) Symbols, within the meaning of subsection (1), shall be, in particular, flags, insignia, uniforms, slogans and forms of greeting. Symbols which are so similar as to be mistaken for those named in sentence 1 shall be deemed to be equivalent thereto.

I think the last sentence is what makes ANY swastika illegal there. End of discussion, please.

[Insuber]

Looking at the movie, as someone said above the Panhard antennas have inertia ... they move realistically according to elastic and inertial laws.

Inertia is clearly modeled also in Il2, but the elasticity could be a novelty in the simulations field, afaik. Not overly difficult imho, but still you must have the idea ...

Regards,
Insuber

[Antoninus]

In some instances even antifascists were charged for using the swastika in symbols like this:

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,60771,00.jpg

Fortunately the highest German court finally made an end to such a ridicous abuse of the law but I would try to avoid any lawsuit just to include a feature that adds almost nothing to the sim, even if there would be a chance for SOW to be considered as "art, education and documentation".

[PilotError]

I know that the swastika is illegal in several countries (didn't know that Russia had brought out a new law though), but I would like to see them in the SoW series if at all possible.
After all, it was Nazi Germany that Britain was at war with.

It seems strange that Oleg and his team are going to so much trouble to get the smallest of details correct, like RAF cap badges for example, and yet a huge emblem that was on all German planes is ommited.

There is probably a legal can of worms here, but would it not be possible to have no swastika as the default, but an option say at installation or in game to enable swastikas. If you tried to enable the swastika a legal disclaimer would appear stating that it is illegal to use this option in Germany, Austria, etc, which you would have to acknowledge to proceed ( a bit like the EULA contract when installing most games ).
Would this not move the possibilty of braking the law from the game maker or publisher onto the individual who has the game?

We would probably need a lawer to answer that one, but just an idea.

Having said that, I would rather have SoW without swastikas than no Sow at all.

Thanks for the update. I'm really looking forward to Fridays now.

[kimosabi]

The swastika marking on German planes is not a problem in IL-2, you could easily get that feature if you really wanted to, so why should there be in SoW?

[Chivas]

We don't need a dedicated website at this time. What would a dedicated website provide that we aren't already getting. Its too early to start advertising the game to the general public and a waste of time, money, and effort until it is.

Also the swastika can be easily added by modders, so its exclusion, is just an overreaction to a non-existent problem.

[csThor]

You couldn't get the swastika in the international version of Il-2 - only after some folks fiddled with external programs. In Il-2 itself there was no way to activate the swastika and the hakaristi and there still isn't a way to do this. Even the russian version had a switch in the conf.ini (the HakenAllowed=1 line) which wasn't there by default.

Again - historical accuracy in this case is irrelevant as long as Maddox Games makes just one international version, which in this case has to obey §86 of the german penal code and totally omit any swastika (and any optional activation of it).

[Richie]

What I hate is when they put black blocks or crosses on the tails of aircraft. They should just leave them blank.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

csThor, but let's take the example of Foobar's skins.

He's German, and makes historically accurate skins (so, with swastikas). To avoid any legal problem, he leaves a disclaimer at the installation. I've never heard of any issue involving his skins.

Couldn't this be done with Storm of War?

[Foo'bar]

Couldn't this be done with Storm of War?

Wrong question to wrong person. Oleg will do it right within legal matters. However, the last word will have the publisher - if not even 1C will. Relax and calm down. MG will do it right.

[AndyJWest]

If 1C:Maddox wish to put Swastikas on German aircraft, I'm sure they will seek legal advice, and if they are in any doubt, err on the side of caution. I'd have thought there are more important issues for them to be concerned with at present, and I'm also sure that third-party software will be able to add them for those who want it.

If you think the law in Germany or elsewhere is wrong on this issue (I've got mixed feelings myself) , you are free to advocate change, but I don't really think it is reasonable to expect a commercial company to fight your political battles for you.

[Richie]

We can just solve all of this by just using custom skins just like we always have so why are we really talking about this? People like me who want them on their German planes for movies can just search for custom skins after a few days. I'm sure all of the skinners will be in heaven over this sim. Unless I'm misunderstanding and SOW will be able to detect a swastika on a custom skin LOLOL.

[nearmiss]

I really don't understand all this discussion about swastika

There are several IL2 utilities that place swastika on aircraft now. I'm sure with SOW similar utilities will be created.

Oleg will not put swastika on aircraft, at least that is my understanding from Il2. He would have none of it.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Its sad how a nice friday update became a pointless discussion about what the developer should be showing and swastikas.

Please, if you want the game come with swastikas, or talk about if it should have them, or not, or the german and any other country law, why don't you guys start another threat about the subject and leave this for talking about the update.
Same about if you are not happy about what its being shown.

Please, let those that are interestend on the update, enjoy and ask about it.

S!

[Foo'bar]

Its sad how a nice friday update became a pointless discussion about what the developer should be showing and swastikas.

Please, if you want the game come with swastikas, or talk about it about if it should have them, or not, or the german and any other country law, why don't you guys start another threat about the subject and leave this for talking about the update.
Same about if you are not happy about what its being shown.

Please, let those that are interestend on the update, enjoy and ask about it.

S!

Amen!

[Skarphol]

Amen!

Amen +1!

Back on topic: To me it seems like the antennas are not only moving due to inertia (the wobling) but also bending due to windforces as the vehicle is turning with a constant speed! How much attention to detail is that? Finetuning windforces and bendingstrenght of antennas?
Oleg has (IIRC) stated that planes will be affected by the slipstream of other planes flying in front of it, I guess these effects comes from the same programming feature.
We are also getting working suspension for vehicles!
These are fantastic features, bringing much life and immersion to the game, but they must be enormously time consuming. I can not understand how MG is capable of putting so much stuff into this game before it is released.

Skarphol

[Freycinet]

Oleg, those aerials are ok, but you still didn't reach the level of excellence shown in the movie Airplane!...

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/5558/jelloclipel1.gif

;)

[Necrobaron]

As others have said, I think this swastika issue is a moot point. As long as it can be enabled post-release, I'll be satisfied. Don't get me wrong though. I'm all for historical accuracy and think banning the use of the swastika (especially in a historical context such as what SoW is depicting) is absurd, but I blame the politicians, not Oleg. I think his hands are tied. If in some weird alternate reality the roles had been reversed and Russia was an Axis member and Germany was Allied, we'd probably be seeing this debate with the "hammer and sickle". The USSR was just as criminal, if not more so, than Nazi Germany, but that doesn't seem to matter. The victors write the history, as they say. Anyway, it is a moot point regardless of how we feel about it.

Similarly, I would like to see SoW have realistic violence too, but because the politicians of some countries seem to feel the need to take it amongst themselves play nanny to their constituents, this is yet another realism factor that has to go by the wayside resulting in a whitewash of what was harsh reality for airmen back then...
________
LIABILITY INSURANCE FORUMS (http://www.insurance-forums.org/liability-insurance/)

[MikkOwl]

So that settles the Swastika on Heinkel-issue. They can't add it, so they leave it empty, so the community can add it - if they want. Mystery explained. :)

Here's a thought - imagine being in the Heinkel fuselage (gunner position etc) and looking OUT through the bullet holes.

And then imagine a hurricane crashing into the fuselage just behind where you were standing, cutting off the whole tail section with its wing. Such nice air conditioning. :)

[Necrobaron]

Imagine tumbling out of the opening! That would be pretty dramatic, though I somehow doubt that would be depicted.

And then imagine a hurricane crashing into the fuselage just behind where you were standing, cutting off the whole tail section with its wing. Such nice air conditioning. :)
________
How To Insert Starcraft 2 Replays (http://screplays.com/replays)

[AndyJWest]

Imagine tumbling out of the opening! That would be pretty dramatic, though I somehow doubt that would be depicted.


Originally Posted by MikkOwl
And then imagine a hurricane crashing into the fuselage just behind where you were standing, cutting off the whole tail section with its wing. Such nice air conditioning.

I think I'd rather imagine being back home in Dusseldorf with an accommodating fraulein. ;)

[Necrobaron]

Haha! Me too! Of course perhaps I would be lucky enough to tumble out, land on a nice, soft pile of hay, and meet up with an accomodating British farm lass. Or get jabbed with a pitch fork; one or the other. :-P
________
M41 (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/BMW_M41)

[MikkOwl]

The view should remain with the crewman, as even in IL-2 one is only teleported to outside view if trying to bail out or the aircraft is completely destroyed (which is defined as everything exploding into tiny pieces, either in-flight or by striking the ground hard). This means we shouuuld be able to see such awesome events.

A lot of cool stuff could be possible some time after the game has been out. Third party improvements of crew behaviour. What I rank highest is that the pilot and crew were rendered and stopped being ghosts. It feels quite messed up (even after many years of 'mostly' seeing the phenomena) looking around in the cockpit or wherever and having no legs, arms, torso - nothing. And the controls move by themselves..

I'm willing to bet that the crew/pilot body rendering will come, and be done at first more statically, but then better and better. Because like with almost everything in any game so far, realism sneaks in. For the longest people were used to 50km/h movement/strafing speeds and high jumps due to Quake being so dominating in FPS. The reaction of some friends when introduced to rainbow six was very hostile. Then the idea of aiming through iron sights. Many thought that was ridiculous, impractical - who would want to do that? Can't see properly, what the hell. Years later, a standard in most cases. The only explanation for this resistance to simulation (the type that should appeal to them to begin with) is that previous experiences set a norm and expectations to how a certain type of game is supposed to be like. Just like in India, a movie can only be truly successful if it contains at least 7 dance and song numbers (or something like it).

I get side-tracked. I wanted to say that, I think some cunning third party maker will release some ultra-immersive B-17 & crew simulator, where the crew can move around in the aircraft, get sucked out, medic attending to wounds, messing with the ball turret getting jammed, reloads, full body rendering etc etc.

EDIT: Remaining in first person and seeing arms unbuckle, pull the canopy release and then try to get out, and remaining in there and in control of the view all the way to the ground. That is immersion. We already heard parachutes were steerable, and there may be a slight chance we can thus be in first person view at some point when leaving in the aircraft.

[AdMan]

I already have arms and legs and can see them just fine, thank you

[MikkOwl]

And I already have a joystick, pedals and throttle and I can see it just fine. What were you just trying to suggest again?

[AdMan]

this may have been addressed before but I'm wondering if there will be offline multiplayer support. If I have a dual monitor or LAN setup can a friend jump on and be a tail gunner/co-pilot/AA? and then could we play like that online too?

[AdMan]

And I already have a joystick, pedals and throttle and I can see it just fine. What were you just trying to suggest again?

precisely

[MikkOwl]

If you are trying to argue for what I think you are (I can't assume 100% since you only hinted at it), you think that since you can (if you move your head and eyes far enough) see your arms and legs, so it is superflous to have it rendered in the cockpit.

Using that same reasoning, since I have those items I mentioned, they don't need to be rendered either. Yank out the 3d models of the control column, throttles, prop pitch levers, rudder pedals.

The reason for body rendering is the same for rendering the control column etc. They are in a virtual world on a view screen we are looking at. If we had access to a full size sim-pit cockpit to sit in with a huge projector to encase us, then we could switch off the cockpit rendering because we would have no use for it - real physical objects would replace them. But very few people posess such a setup.

[AdMan]

If you are trying to argue for what I think you are (I can't assume 100% since you only hinted at it), you think that since you can (if you move your head and eyes far enough) see your arms and legs, so it is superflous to have it rendered in the cockpit.

Using that same reasoning, since I have those items I mentioned, they don't need to be rendered either. Yank out the 3d models of the control column, throttles, prop pitch levers, rudder pedals.

The reason for body rendering is the same for rendering the control column etc. They are in a virtual world on a view screen we are looking at. If we had access to a full size sim-pit cockpit to sit in with a huge projector to encase us, then we could switch off the cockpit rendering because we would have no use for it - real physical objects would replace them. But very few people posess such a setup.
the reason cockpits are modeled is because we don't have real historically accurate ww2 cockpit replicas to sit in at our computer monitors, but we do have real ww2 replica body parts :)

by all means feel free to but yourself a pair of authenric flight gloves, jacket, etc to help your "immersion" if you feel it necessary

[AdMan]

whatever the case, they will eventually be modeled, I just hope I can turn it off

[MikkOwl]

the reason cockpits are modeled is because we don't have real historically accurate ww2 cockpit replicas to sit in at our computer monitors, but we do have real ww2 replica body parts :)

by all means feel free to but yourself a pair of authenric flight gloves, jacket, etc to help your "immersion" if you feel it necessary
The body parts, and the controllers we have, are not in the correct position. I have to significantly look away from my view screen in order to see myself interacting with the controllers (and even then it is hard to see due to the vast illumination difference). But my monitor is rather large (if I sit close to it); and with headtracking, it's a bit like wearing a VR display - except when I look down to my legs I am a ghost, and controls are moving on their own.

In the past when I have done sim-racing, I have been able to put the steering wheel on the desk in front of the monitor in such a way that it merges with the virtual cockpit. I would then, obviously, disable the rendering of the in-game wheel as it serves no purpose at all and I would just be seeing double.

I find wearing far-too-hot gloves (and purchasing them to begin with) and the other things you suggested to be a lot of hassle as well as doing nothing to correct the missing pieces in the cockpit.

I understand what you are saying if you see the aircraft as something to look at, as if admiring a plastic scale model kit. I see it as that, sometimes, but when flying, I would expect that a pilot would not find that they looked transparent, and neither do I want to experience that. Part of the cockpit is missing.

EDIT: I am sure they will allow people to turn it off. It has almost always been the case in the past. Operation Flashpoint, Armed Assault, and Armed Assault 2 did not allow making anything transparent, but I have yet to hear of a flight sim that did not allow it. BlackShark allows it, for example.

[AdMan]

The body parts, and the controllers we have, are not in the correct position. I have to significantly look away from my view screen in order to see myself interacting with the controllers (and even then it is hard to see due to the vast illumination difference). But my monitor is rather large (if I sit close to it); and with headtracking, it's a bit like wearing a VR display - except when I look down to my legs I am a ghost, and controls are moving on their own.

In the past when I have done sim-racing, I have been able to put the steering wheel on the desk in front of the monitor in such a way that it merges with the virtual cockpit. I would then, obviously, disable the rendering of the in-game wheel as it serves no purpose at all and I would just be seeing double.

I find wearing far-too-hot gloves (and purchasing them to begin with) and the other things you suggested to be a lot of hassle as well as doing nothing to correct the missing pieces in the cockpit.

I understand what you are saying if you see the aircraft as something to look at, as if admiring a plastic scale model kit. I see it as that, sometimes, but when flying, I would expect that a pilot would not find that they looked transparent, and neither do I want to experience that. Part of the cockpit is missing.

EDIT: I am sure they will allow people to turn it off. It has almost always been the case in the past. Operation Flashpoint, Armed Assault, and Armed Assault 2 did not allow making anything transparent, but I have yet to hear of a flight sim that did not allow it. BlackShark allows it, for example.

I do see it as a model (although not plastic) but beyond that I like to see the mechanisms of all cockpit parts as well as use the markings as you actually would to make sure they are set in the correct position. Also to make sure my gaming components are working, centered, etc. If I give a little rudder I want to be able to look down at the cockpit pedals to make sure they are corresponding, same with throttle, supercharger, etc. Cockpits are so cramped even when operating these components in real life you sometimes have to move your arm or eyeball around your own bodyparts or peak back to double check you are where you want to be, in a scale modeled cockpit with pilot your not going to see much more than heavily clothed knees, hands and elbows, even the stick is mostly burried in your crotch [no homo]. If you use the cockpit like it's a real cockpit it can severely hamper gameplay to have your vision be at the mercy of virtual pilot animations

[MikkOwl]

[...] If you use the cockpit like it's a real cockpit it can severely hamper gameplay to have your vision be at the mercy of virtual pilot animations
I understand completely and with all your reasons and preferences, and consider them valid concerns. In your rudder pedal example, I do not think it would be any difference if you had the body rendered as well - assuming it moved to push the rudder pedals. The knees would move up and down as they bend or straighten out when pushing pedals, and the feet themselves would often also be clearly visible in the frame of the pedals. The control column position would be easier to judge because we get additional reference points (its position compared to the legs of the pilot).

Not many things can be placed in such a way as to make them completely obscured by the pilot, because the pilot had almost no room to move anything in reality either. Strapped tight in a bucket seat, feet attached to pedals, not much room.

The G940 has a hand sensor.. I wish that could be used with animation. I.e. take my hand off the stick and it is fully visible in the cockpit :)

Oleg does not consider it important (even if I do) and will not bother with it because of the work it would take from the team to do it 'well'. I read this on the forums before. But it is possible, and if it is possible, it must come in a simulator as significant as this sooner or later. Big opportunity for third party devs.

[MikkOwl]

EDIT (Damnit, I can't stay away from the edit button lately).

I am sure there are a bit of all kinds of motivations working together. For everyone's benefit :). Here's a guess-list:



Promotion & Hype (inexpensive way of doing it, except time - people read it and repost on news sites and forums. And we like this better than some unreal trailer close to release)
Taking the pulse of the community (seeing what they talk about)
Constructive feedback on WIP presented (for improvement/correct inaccuracies if present - tough crowd here)
Collecting wishes and good ideas for delivering a better Storm of War (everyone wins)
Genuine gratitude to community and desire to treat them well (including not promising stuff that won't be there)
Explaining why things are, or cannot be, a certain way (that is something you almost never see from others - great public relations)
Maintaining contact can help in recruiting general help from the community


There's so many benefits to this. In fact, I am surprised that developers don't do this as much elsewhere. Maybe the norm is to be bound by contract to silence and let some PR department supply those orchestrated trailers..

If I was Oleg, I think.. the worst thing about this is the language barrier. Imagine for any of you here that you had to communicate in something almost completely foreign to you at first (maybe Chinese? French/German? For those who are neither). Something we did maybe not even read in school. I had it since I was 10 to 18, and the standard was quite high.

Спасибо, Олег.

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Not being allowed to have swastikas in the game is as ridiculous as the gore censorship that exists in germany and australia. Politicians need to grow up.

No intent to continue the debate, but I would like to comment shortly in order to straighten something up. The law that forbids the swastika in Germany (and symbols of other "hate inciting organisations") was invented by the allied british american occupation powers, not the German government. Americans who criticize a so called "lack of freedom of expression" in this matters should be reminded of this. ;-)

[Necrobaron]

Understandably so given the political environment in Germany in the mid/late 40s but German politicians couldn't have changed this sometime in the last 50-60 years? To go further, to me there is a difference between allowing it in public rallies and allowing it in a game.
________
Uggs (http://uggstoreshop.com/)

[David603]

Changing the law to allow Swastikas again would probably have been regarded as a sign of Nazis gaining power back in Germany, so it would make sense for the German goverment to retain this law.

Still, its an old law now and could do with some rethinking.

[philip.ed]

Back on topic...

[Flyby]

Back on topic...
Hey Oleg I just had a thought. Within the sim, will engaged dogfight opponents be seen to be looking at one another (as the angles allow)? It might be cool.
Flyby out

[major_setback]

Questions to Oleg:

1. You have told us already that skins will be complex - including a weathered texture that changes over time. Will we be able to edit the weathered textures (to make our own weatherd textures)? Or will all planes of one type weather the same?

2. We have seen photos from your studio showing people involved in the making of towns. I want to know what percentage of towns will be hand made, and how much/many will be automatically generated (Dgen)? I can imagine that a lot of the buildings in London need to be individually placed, but will that also happen for Dover (for example)?



...and guys: please stop the sawatika questions, this isn't the place. Do you really think Oleg has the time to read things that have been discussed a million times before? One question on markings is OK, and we can all wait for an answer. There's no reason to hijack the thread. It is wasting Oleg's time, and will not encourage him to spend more time here.

[David603]

Hey Oleg I just had a thought. Within the sim, will engaged dogfight opponents be seen to be looking at one another (as the angles allow)? It might be cool.
Flyby out
Interesting idea, a lot of modern games have a feature like this where the heads of characters and NPCs will turn to look at the nearest feature of interest (as defined by a simple algorithim and limited to reasonable angles relative to the character/NPCs body).

It would certainly look very cool. For example seeing pilots "looking" at obstacles and other planes as they taxied before taking off, or looking across at you wingman as you flew and seeing him look back, or coolest of all, seeing an enemy pilot tracking you as your plane flashed past theirs.

The intergration of something like this would be simple, and would definitely give an impression that the pilots were living, thinking, moving people, rather than manequins sat in the cockpit of a plane that is being flown by an AI computer or a person sat at a remote computer terminal.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Seems cool! Also would be nice to have hand signals amd insults, so when you are looking the pilot face of the enemy fighter, you can show him the finger. Don't know if the finger was used on the time! :D.

Just joking, still it's a nice idea.

[Zorin]

Hey Oleg I just had a thought. Within the sim, will engaged dogfight opponents be seen to be looking at one another (as the angles allow)? It might be cool.
Flyby out

We have that in IL-2 already.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

From Wiki:

It is identified as the digitus impudicus (impudent finger) in Ancient Roman writings and reference is made to using the finger in ancient Greek comedy to insult another person. The widespread usage of the finger in many cultures is likely due to the geographical influence of the Roman Empire and Greco-Roman civilization.So yeah, the finger was around at the time :mrgreen:

However, I don't think we'd see a British and a German guy exchanging fingers just like that in mid-1940.

But maybe some respectful gestures (such as a salute) could come in handy.

I think it's not something hard to implement, anyway. For instance, we have this sort of stuff in Rise of Flight already, so why not? :-P

(It seems that other games are becoming an excuse for us to ask for minor stuff that add for immersion. Well, we'd actually ask for it sooner or later, anyway :mrgreen:)

[rookie_and_noggie]

I think you guys in OMG will find that interesting. A new BBC series
featuring b&w and color shootings made by home movie makers.

BBC: Shooting the War
Rls Date: 21 January 2010 Air Date:20 January 2010
How WW2 was documented by home movie makers.
Some screenshots (sorry for a big post):

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/4555/shot0002cl.jpg

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/1201/shot0003n.jpg

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/1789/shot0005j.jpg

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/4842/shot0007e.jpg

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/8132/shot0008q.jpg

PS: google Shooting.The.War.S01E01

[Flyby]

We have that in IL-2 already.
I've been away from IL2 for too long. I need to rectify that one day.
Meanwhile, hey Oleg how about a visual demo of (say)trees rendered first under DX9c, then DX10, then DX11? I'm hoping this is a request that's simple to grant. Of course I'm assuming it's already in the code for SoW_Bob.
Flyby out

[Blakduk]

Love the update- the physics of the aerials looks astonishing- well done.
Will details like this be able to be turned off for lower spec systems?
Are they tightly integrated into the physics of game and have an effect on the function of the object? (An example might be a bomb crater causes a wheel strut to snap making the vehicle get stuck)
Are all such details coded to run through the CPU or are they offloaded to the GPU, using physix (or similar for other non-invidia cards)?

I was gobsmacked when i first saw the layers of detail in Il2- i am getting a sense from the development updates you've posted so far that the layers in this may be similar to taking the red pill in the Matrix!!!!

[Skoshi Tiger]

+1 for the trees!

I would also like to see the armoured car or one of the AAA guns fire off a round! Maybe too early for that?

[zakkandrachoff]

Stalin murdered millions people in Siberia prisons and no one complains about the Red Star. There is the right-wing idiots and the left-wing idiots. Difference is that the last win the war.

If you wanna use pink spitfire i have no objection, we must respect sexual orientation diversity...

correct! and eeuu kill so many black people.
but you must remain silent about red star. Oleg is from russia.;)


whatever, in other flight sims are not too the nazi esvastic.
MCFS3
http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/combatflightsim3_093002_001_640w.jpg
IL2
http://recursos.fotocajon.com/fotos/unregistered/5fe/524/user_size_248674.jpg
wings of prey? yes have?
http://pic.leech.it/i/7e6b9/e3bb5d0e4cd3.jpg




Maybe in the final release will be. Or some fanatic will do a mod

[Zoom2136]

The gun is fully working :) With the recoil of barrel.


We make such things that are not neccessary in BoB just because:

1. We are thinking about creative community that will make own scenarious and online battles. From the beginning of development looking for experience with Il-2 in years.
2. We put so much in engine, that it will be really long life new horse for the flowing titles.
4. If only will be able to create one more team in feature - then this team may use this engine for a very special games with the physics close to real... Say only online games.

Will 3rd party be able to create "cockpits" for vehicules/trains/etc... So that they could eventually be controlled by players.

After reading more of these post I see that you plan on just that.... GREAT !!!!

[Alien]

Oleg, a question I think never quested:
Will in SOW be drastic disadvantage of Messerschmitt Bf 109 in right-turns modelled in FM?

[philip.ed]

Oleg, you say the AI will be more human; but will they be right or left handed? I say this, because it is a tendency for (IIRC) right-handed people to tend to look over the left shoulder, and the opposite for left-handed people. Consequently, seeing as though the majority of people are right-handed, some pilots chose to come in close to some enemy planes slightly to the right side, so that if the enemy pilot looked behind him , he wouldn't see the attacking A/C. It worked quite successfully in some cases, depending on the attacking planes position. I'd love to see this modelled in SoW :P

[airmalik]

Hey Oleg I just had a thought. Within the sim, will engaged dogfight opponents be seen to be looking at one another (as the angles allow)? It might be cool.
Flyby out

I'd like my pilot's head position and orientation in external views to be linked to where I'm looking at in the cockpit. So if I'm using a 6DOF head tracking system, someone looking at me from an external view, eg. my wingman, would see all my movements. Ability to make hand signals would be great too.

[Foo'bar]

Will 3rd party be able to create "cockpits" for vehicules/trains/etc... So that they could eventually be controlled by players.

After reading more of these post I see that you plan on just that.... GREAT !!!!

You have to learn how to drive a locomotive then ;) don't expect it would be easy.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Oleg, a question I think never quested:
Will in SOW be drastic disadvantage of Messerschmitt Bf 109 in right-turns modelled in FM?

Anyone has some solid data on this? It seems to be a constant that most allied fighter pilots considered it a boast, but just in case turned right when possible.

Post-war flight tests confirmed or denied the myth?

[AndyJWest]

I suspect that most single-prop planes will turn better one way than the other, but can't see any particular reason why it should be more 'drastic' in a Bf-109 than in any other type. If the general torque, gyroscopic and p-effects are modelled correctly, there should be no reason to treat the 109 as a special case without strong evidence.

[Richie]

I try never to turn right but it all has to do wit torque. Don't all single engine aircraft have propellers? Why is it such a big deal with a 109. I would think a small plane like a Yak 3 would also be effected.

[Flyby]

I'd like my pilot's head position and orientation in external views to be linked to where I'm looking at in the cockpit. So if I'm using a 6DOF head tracking system, someone looking at me from an external view, eg. my wingman, would see all my movements. Ability to make hand signals would be great too.
I was thinking along those exact lines! Too bad I watered it down. But you said precisely what I was originally thinking. (sometimes my mind-melding technique has a delayed reaction :D ***Send me all your money!!!***)

[Richie]

But turning left I find I can out turn a P-40 in an F4 if I'm careful

[RAF74_Winger]

Anyone has some solid data on this?

I wouldn't call it solid data, but the following may be of interest, from here: http://www.pilotfriend.com/flight_reports/reports/33.htm

Directional Trim
Absence of rudder trimmer is a bad feature, although at low speeds the practical consequences are not so alarming as the curves might suggest, since the rudder is fairly light on the climb. At high speeds, however, the pilot is seriously inconvenienced, as above 300 mph about 2 1/2 degrees of port (left) rudder are needed for flight with no sideslip and a very heavy foot load is needed to keep this on. In consequence the pilot's left foot becomes tired, and this affects his ability to put on left rudder in order to assist a turn to port (left). Hence at high speeds the Bf.109E turns far more readily to the right than to the left.

W.

[AndyJWest]

Interesting link, Winger.

Note that this refers to high-speed turns, rather than to a general characteristic of the Bf-109. I'd say we need to see how the sim models aircraft behaviour in general before we start asking for any specific 'fixes'. As I suggested earlier, a good physics/flight model should be able to reproduce this based on the known attributes of the aircraft, rather than needing 'tuning' to match test reports. If it doesn't, then maybe adjustment might be necessary.

I notice your link also refers to the heaviness of the 109 elevator at speed, and the consequences of adjusting trim. It looks like Oleg got this about right in IL-2....

[RAF74_Winger]

I'm most interested in the aileron snatching with asymmetric slat deployment - in fact, with IL2, I've never been able to get the slats on the 109 to deploy asymmetrically, don't know whether it's a flight model shortcoming or if the slats are there for show only.

I know that I've never experienced uncommanded roll in the 109, except beyond critical AoA.

W.

[RAF74_Winger]

a good physics/flight model should be able to reproduce this based on the known attributes of the aircraft

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that IL2 had a numerical flight model rather than one which was calculated (like X-plane). I'd be interested to know how the flight model actually works and if this will change in SoW.

W.

[waspfarmer]

That wee car would certainly cut time off my commute...
Very shoddy maintenance on the Heinkel...
You'd better put a lighthouse in to warn ships about the lighthouse.
As far as a release date goes, I absolutely refuse to wait any longer, and am henceforth withholding stool.

[Oleg Maddox]

Dear Oleg,

as you maybe remember I told you on your photo forum that I work in the movie industry. My identity is not important for the public on the forum, and really doesn't make any difference here. Anyway, I had several times the occasion to read internet critics about WIP stuff or finished stuff I worked on, and several times I was astonished of the "interpretations" of "facts" some people seem to have with 100% conviction -- just that they were plain wrong -- because I actually knew the real facts. On some occasions it can hurt, and sometimes I posted back. The "public" is a strange animal - to be handled with extreme caution. Love and hate are close together. Some people just think you "owe" them something personally. Not unlikely a guy who thinks he already paid you for a job and you better get it done, or...! Of course they live in a fantasy world with an idea of a personal relationship that only exists in their head. Read it, take a walk, come back, laugh about it, and continue to do exactly what you want. Best strategy.

The update you posted is really nice. I am extremely impressed by the physics that affect even vehicles that way. I can only imagine what this means for the rest of the game world in SOW -- and that is for me, the real good news.

Keep it coming!

You are right. Anyway most people here understand that we are doing _something_ again. And it is really hard work to get the world class sim again, speaking about small niche of customers were we are...

PS. On my site I posted review of recommended camera for you. It is really good camera in its class. I would say that it is best currently in its class and cost.
PS2 And I would enjoy of you pictures, if you will send them me sometime :) The pictures, that you posted there unfinished is really cool. My wife like it very much as well.

[Oleg Maddox]

hi

i got a question.

What will be the resolutions available in SOW BoB?

Will there be full hd 1920x1080 16:9?

I think any that allow you monitor and video card.

[Oleg Maddox]

Questions to Oleg:

1. You have told us already that skins will be complex - including a weathered texture that changes over time. Will we be able to edit the weathered textures (to make our own weatherd textures)? Or will all planes of one type weather the same?

2. We have seen photos from your studio showing people involved in the making of towns. I want to know what percentage of towns will be hand made, and how much/many will be automatically generated (Dgen)? I can imagine that a lot of the buildings in London need to be individually placed, but will that also happen for Dover (for example)?



...and guys: please stop the sawatika questions, this isn't the place. Do you really think Oleg has the time to read things that have been discussed a million times before? One question on markings is OK, and we can all wait for an answer. There's no reason to hijack the thread. It is wasting Oleg's time, and will not encourage him to spend more time here.


1. I think user will have complete access to the skins... Because if user will make new skin and have no access to the weathering part of skins then the finakl will looks incorrect. Simple logic. :)

2. Most is auto (defined by code and texture). Some places are manual, say like time square, or Queen's(king's) palace square, etc.... Also anyway we need some time to change some places that to make it looking better and more different after automatic placement. And, anyway such technology allow us to save a lot of time working over map.... if to put everything manually then we will need some small separate team for this purpose...

[Oleg Maddox]

Oleg, a question I think never quested:
Will in SOW be drastic disadvantage of Messerschmitt Bf 109 in right-turns modelled in FM?

There is difference in Il-2 as well.
But it isn't drastic... Really any plane that has one direction of prop rotation would have different behaviour in right or left turns. In real aircraft you will notice it more by the feel.... that isn't present flying computer sim, even this is modelled. By other words this is less noticibale in sim than your feelin real aircraft.

[Oleg Maddox]

I'm impressed about the Panchard's lighting and it's specular reflection. Is this what I can expect ingame? The painted surface of the vehicle is looking very realistic imho.

Oleg please check private email.

It is in tools/viewer for the tunings. Real picture in final will be even better.

[Oleg Maddox]

I've been away from IL2 for too long. I need to rectify that one day.
Meanwhile, hey Oleg how about a visual demo of (say)trees rendered first under DX9c, then DX10, then DX11? I'm hoping this is a request that's simple to grant. Of course I'm assuming it's already in the code for SoW_Bob.
Flyby out

We using the code of trees that we bought from third party. Currently there is just couple of trees type. They are in development. That speed up he development we decided to use not our own code in some of the parts. It seems that some parts is cheaper to buy and use than to develope ourselves like in the past... in the past we were developng everything ourselves.

in DX10 and 11 they will looks similar. DX11 will give advantage in other items. Can't them name all at the moment.

[engarde]

Oleg, I have no doubt you and your team will provide an amazing sim that defines the genre.

Please take the time to create something that we can instantly recognise as worthy of the Maddox name.

:)

[Bobb4]

A few questions online gamers will be very interested in I am sure...

1) You have stated that bombers will have various manable positions etc. This begs the question, how different is the network protocol from IL2. Currently some modded (I know a taboo subject) have made it possible to have 128 players online at one time. Will SoW improve on this or is this the theoretical maximium.

2) Will SoW follow on in IL2's footsteps and make the majority of the game work clientside with the dedicated servers handling only interactions? (I know this is an over simplification but I hope you understand what I mean.)

3)With only seven months to go for a "best case scenario release" one is hoping a close beta is arround the corner. Being an avid SEOW player What I would like to know is would such a dynamic air sea and land co-op campaign be possible off the bat within the SoW engine UI/FMB or is this something that will be left to an approved third party provider?

My questions got lost behind the swastica debate so i have bumped it.

[Oleg Maddox]

1) You have stated that bombers will have various manable positions etc. This begs the question, how different is the network protocol from IL2. Currently some modded (I know a taboo subject) have made it possible to have 128 players online at one time. Will SoW improve on this or is this the theoretical maximium.

2) Will SoW follow on in IL2's footsteps and make the majority of the game work clientside with the dedicated servers handling only interactions? (I know this is an over simplification but I hope you understand what I mean.)

3)With only seven months to go for a "best case scenario release" one is hoping a close beta is arround the corner. Being an avid SEOW player What I would like to know is would such a dynamic air sea and land co-op campaign be possible off the bat within the SoW engine UI/FMB or is this something that will be left to an approved third party provider?.


1. Online protocol is different to Il-2 code. Dedicaded server is also different. There are new solutions tha I would tell now for all. The limit of players amount is defined only by traffic. We will see how many will be ossible to open (limit) later. But probably 128 will be in intial release (with some limit of trafer data such as skins, that are large, etc).

2. See item 1.

3. Somthing will be possible from the beginning. More - later by third party. We have completely new concept for online gameplay ion the flight sim market.

[Oleg Maddox]

Oleg, I have no doubt you and your team will provide an amazing sim that defines the genre.

Please take the time to create something that we can instantly recognise as worthy of the Maddox name.

:)

Thank you for the trust.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

1. Online protocol is different to Il-2 code. Dedicaded server is also different. There are new solutions tha I would tell now for all. The limit of players amount is defined only by traffic. We will see how many will be ossible to open (limit) later. But probably 128 will be in intial release (with some limit of trafer data such as skins, that are large, etc).

Uhmmm, interesting. This would bring for me an small request/wish.

It would be ver usefull if you add a pdf document stablishing recomendations for number of players, bandwidth and transfer limitation such skins, missions, pilot faces, and so on. I think it would be useful for virtual squadron for setting multiplayer options according to the number of people and connections presents, and know if they can use download skins, or not, the same with the mission itself and so on.
Anyway, its something very low on the priority.

Thanks for listening to all of us, and sharing all this update and development stages.

[philip.ed]

Oleg, did you see my question? :

Oleg, you say the AI will be more human; but will they be right or left handed? I say this, because it is a tendency for (IIRC) right-handed people to tend to look over the left shoulder, and the opposite for left-handed people. Consequently, seeing as though the majority of people are right-handed, some pilots chose to come in close to some enemy planes slightly to the right side, so that if the enemy pilot looked behind him , he wouldn't see the attacking A/C. It worked quite successfully in some cases, depending on the attacking planes position. I'd love to see this modelled in SoW :P

[Bobb4]

Oleg, did you see my question? :

Oleg, you say the AI will be more human; but will they be right or left handed? I say this, because it is a tendency for (IIRC) right-handed people to tend to look over the left shoulder, and the opposite for left-handed people. Consequently, seeing as though the majority of people are right-handed, some pilots chose to come in close to some enemy planes slightly to the right side, so that if the enemy pilot looked behind him , he wouldn't see the attacking A/C. It worked quite successfully in some cases, depending on the attacking planes position. I'd love to see this modelled in SoW :P

Is this actually based on a real life study?
I only ask as I am ambidextrous.;)

[philip.ed]

Is this actually based on a real life study?
I only ask as I am ambidextrous.;)

I wish I knew. I have read it before though; and when I did, realised it was true! as I am right handed.

Basically, in Derek Robinsons Piece of Cake, there is a point in the novel when the squadron assembles for a photo-shoot. As the camera is aobut to go off, a policeman fires a gun behind them and they all turn to look. The photograhper, purposely, captures the shot at this time. When viewing the photo, the pilots see that most of them (bar a few) looked over their left shoulder, and those that didn't were left-handed. ;) I'd be interested though if this was true, but I have no doubt that such knowledge existed at the time, and so was put to good use ;)

[wannabetheace]

Since 3D TVs are released from Samsung and Panasonic, is it possible to play SOW in 3D with these TVs? Is it supported any idea?

[Necrobaron]

We using the code of trees that we bought from third party.

Would this be SpeedTree? Some pretty impressive stuff can be done with this from what I've seen!
________
LovelyWendie (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[Oleg Maddox]

Would this be SpeedTree? Some pretty impressive stuff can be done with this from what I've seen!

Yes, their basic code and our modifications. We need to make more large distance of view with the high quality using this code.

[Oleg Maddox]

Since 3D TVs are released from Samsung and Panasonic, is it possible to play SOW in 3D with these TVs? Is it supported any idea?

It will be depending of graphics card - we don't need to do anything special for this purpose really... Any 3D game could be viewed with 3D glasses if the video card split process of 3D render for both eyes separatelly.

[Oleg Maddox]

Oleg, did you see my question? :

Oleg, you say the AI will be more human; but will they be right or left handed? I say this, because it is a tendency for (IIRC) right-handed people to tend to look over the left shoulder, and the opposite for left-handed people. Consequently, seeing as though the majority of people are right-handed, some pilots chose to come in close to some enemy planes slightly to the right side, so that if the enemy pilot looked behind him , he wouldn't see the attacking A/C. It worked quite successfully in some cases, depending on the attacking planes position. I'd love to see this modelled in SoW :P

No. equal. more effect in "behaviour" would have torgue really, comparing with this... :)
And this would be in counterpart with the some of tacticks in attacks of bombers really... :)
maybe it is in mind of some people, but in real life - this would play real role probably for foil fencer or epee fencer :)

As for me - right or left - doesn't mater... I was born with left... then in kindergarden - oriented on the right hand (so stupid situation was).... and now I can use both almost similar and completely similar say for shooting...

[Feuerfalke]

Thank you, for taking the time to answer all our questions!

I love all the little details you implemented coming together to something even better than most of us are expecting.


I'd just like to see the big smile on your face in these "Of course I know, but I won't tell you now"-moments ;)

[Bobb4]

Gunsights, especially the off set ones in the 109 and 190 are currently a pain unless you are using trackir or the F1 key in Il2.
However this scews your field of view up.
What I would like to see is a key bind that moves your head in line with the sight with out any zooming so that you can fly and shoot as you would in any other plane with a clear view of the sight.
This should be enabled in all planes that have sight view difficulties.
While the F1 key solved the problem it artificially limited the field of view as an undesired consequence.
A key press that allows you to look through the sight as if you had just moved the position of your head for a brief second and once you release it returns to normal would be a great idea.

Please tell me some soulution like this is being considered.
Nothing is worse than flying in a 109 and seeing half a gunsight even when you zoom in unless you press F1 and reduce your overall field of view. ;)

[Feuerfalke]

Gunsights, especially the off set ones in the 109 and 190 are currently a pain unless you are using trackir or the F1 key in Il2.
However this scews your field of view up.
What I would like to see is a key bind that moves your head in line with the sight with out any zooming so that you can fly and shoot as you would in any other plane with a clear view of the sight.
This should be enabled in all planes that have sight view difficulties.
While the F1 key solved the problem it artificially limited the field of view as an undesired consequence.
A key press that allows you to look through the sight as if you had just moved the position of your head for a brief second and once you release it returns to normal would be a great idea.

Please tell me some soulution like this is being considered.
Nothing is worse than flying in a 109 and seeing half a gunsight even when you zoom in unless you press F1 and reduce your overall field of view. ;)

It would make it easier for non-TrackIR users. For TIRs, as with Rise of Flights "totally off" sights, the most simple way is to center your TrackIR off the middle. That way you keep full flexibility and field of view, yet makes it a lot easier to aim.
Other than that, it helps a lot to increase move-axis over rotating axis.

[Oleg Maddox]

Gunsights, especially the off set ones in the 109 and 190 are currently a pain unless you are using trackir or the F1 key in Il2.
However this scews your field of view up.
What I would like to see is a key bind that moves your head in line with the sight with out any zooming so that you can fly and shoot as you would in any other plane with a clear view of the sight.
This should be enabled in all planes that have sight view difficulties.
While the F1 key solved the problem it artificially limited the field of view as an undesired consequence.
A key press that allows you to look through the sight as if you had just moved the position of your head for a brief second and once you release it returns to normal would be a great idea.

Please tell me some soulution like this is being considered.
Nothing is worse than flying in a 109 and seeing half a gunsight even when you zoom in unless you press F1 and reduce your overall field of view. ;)

I was thinking about it. However if to make something other than in Il-2 by using CTRL+F1, that sould be something replace it.

I think that simply two buttons control should be replaced by one for more easy use.
And I don't think that this button should be holded by finger untill you finish shooting... gunsight view is neccessay all the time when you continue aiming

[AdMan]

no offline/lan multiplayer I guess :(

guess developers are never going to acknowledge that PC gamers might have real-life friends friends who want to play too :lol:

[Bobb4]

I was thinking about it. However if to make something other than in Il-2 by using CTRL+F1, that sould be something replace it.

I think that simply two buttons control should be replaced by one for more easy use.
And I don't think that this button should be holded by finger untill you finish shooting... gunsight view is neccessay all the time when you continue aiming

I have no issue with the CTL+F1 to centre gun sight as a universal fix but it reduces your field of view FOV dramatically.
While a simple head movement would allow the same thing to be done without the enforced FOV reduction.
Being forced to fly a 109 with an off-centre sight and only have CTRL+F1 as a solution is not ideal. A key you can toggle on an off, press once for on, press again to turn off that will shift your virtual head in line with your sight as you engage the target should be workable.
Even if it is very far down the list of things to do I would greatly appreciate it as an option as I am sure many virtual pilots would. Even if it does not make the initial release.

[MikkOwl]

Gunsights, especially the off set ones in the 109 and 190 are currently a pain unless you are using trackir or the F1 key in Il2.
However this scews your field of view up.
What I would like to see is a key bind that moves your head in line with the sight with out any zooming so that you can fly and shoot as you would in any other plane with a clear view of the sight.
This should be enabled in all planes that have sight view difficulties.
While the F1 key solved the problem it artificially limited the field of view as an undesired consequence.
A key press that allows you to look through the sight as if you had just moved the position of your head for a brief second and once you release it returns to normal would be a great idea.


Nothing is worse than flying in a 109 and seeing half a gunsight even when you zoom in unless you press F1 and reduce your overall field of view. ;)
The field of view is the same in both modes. But the gunsight mode is almost always view moved forward in the cockpit (instrument panel is thus closer to the face and so on). I presume this is what you do not like.

I was thinking about it. However if to make something other than in Il-2 by using CTRL+F1, that sould be something replace it.

I think that simply two buttons control should be replaced by one for more easy use.
And I don't think that this button should be holded by finger untill you finish shooting... gunsight view is neccessay all the time when you continue aiming
USING HEAD TRACKING (OPTIONAL)

IF:


Z axis (moving forward/backward) a little bit forward
Yaw (look left/right) near center forward.
Pitch (look up/down) near center forward.


THEN: View (X and Y movement) moves to the right, centering gunsight and remains locked. Speed of transition determined by how close to center & zoomed in & lean forward. Z, Yaw, Roll and Pitch not locked, but if Z is too far back, gunsight mode stops.

NOTES:


Transition speed being adjustable is important - we want it to be able to be smooth and slow so it is not a sudden transition, especially if by accident. But still be very fast when we have to aim quickly in dogfight.
Moving back (Z axis) resumes normal view.
Z axis because in reality anyone gunning through the sights would lean forward a little to see the target in the gunsight. Also stops unecessary 'gunsight centering' when we are just looking around.
Centering zone and Z axis requirement customizable by users.


NON HEAD TRACKING

Gunsight mode not moved forward (Z axis) automatically, so can fly around like that if one wants.


1 BUTTON FOV CONTROL FOR ALL MODES

User defines 3 desired fov levels. GUNSIGHT, NORMAL, WIDE.

If pressing button: toggle WIDE FOV and NORMAL FOV.

Holding button 0.3 seconds = GUNSIGHT FOV (does not need to hold button more. Mode stays). Pressing button in any way then returns to WIDE FOV.

_____

I fly in IL-2 with the 1 button fov method. Convenient, quick, reliable, simple to use and instant to learn. Three FOV levels can cover all situations. For 2-3 months I kept improving a method for FOV control. Used three buttons, then two, then one.

[Feuerfalke]

Why not simply add an ability to save head positions?

[Skoshi Tiger]

no offline/lan multiplayer I guess :(

guess developers are never going to acknowledge that PC gamers might have real-life friends friends who want to play too :lol:

As long as you can connect via a IP address, you could play on your lan.

Do you mean will BoB require online validation before we can play or will we be able to host our own server.

Unfortunately my real life friend friends have more interest in FPS's So I will never have the pleasure of vulching them with 8 Colt-Browning .303's :(

Cheers!

[Bobb4]

When you are in your cockpit with wide field of view or normal field of view and you press SHFT+F1 (the keys used to centre the 109 or 190 sight artificially)your view is zoomed in a bit as the sight is centred.
This has not much to do with gunsight view. The moment you un-centre the gunsight the FOW is returned to normal.
Do some tests and you will see that using SHIFT+F1 significantly reduces your FOV and thus your overall SA.
What I am hoping to achieve with a simple head movement is to be able to strafe ground targets or air targets without losing some SA by default because the FOV has been decreased.
I do not use trackir, I use my left hand on the mouse so other solutions will not work for me. It's basically an immersion thing for me. when you press SHFT+F1 you feel constrained, and are reminded you are flying a sim, a simple slight head movement to the right without any zoom will help keep the immersion alive.
As I have said no biggy, just a suggestion. I hope everyone now understands what i am refering to.:)
My appologies, the key I was refering to is shift + F1 and not Ctrl + F1

[MikkOwl]

When you are in your cockpit with wide field of view or normal field of view and you press CTRL+F1 (the keys used to centre the 109 or 190 sight artificially)your view is zoomed in a bit as the sight is centred.
This has not much to do with gunsight view. The moment you un-centre the gunsight the FOW is returned to normal.
Do some tests and you will see that using CTRL+F1 significantly reduces your FOV and thus your overall SA.
Just to make sure I was not crazy, I did go and check, and I used the devicelink interface to make IL-2 display the exact FOV being used. I tried both modes, any fov, etc. The results are:

They are the exact same in both modes. The current FOV setting is carried over between the modes. So switching at 'normal' fov between them, it will still be normal, until one changes to another FOV at some point.

The only thing that happens is that the view is recentered, and the Z axis (the head's position, forward/backward wise) is set more forward in gunsight mode. This must be what you believe is the FOV switching. It does not zoom in, just moves closer, so to speak. An optical illusion. It can cause view limitations of course, if the canopy pillar bars obscure the view.

[Flanker35M]

S!

How about 6DOF + if using snap views you can save head positions. This is used in Aces High online WW2 combat sim. Simple and works.

[Skoshi Tiger]

In Il2 I have my gun sight and normal views mapped to one of the hats on my Joystick. When I'm in a situation where I need to use the gun sight i'm fairly well concentrating on the target any way so I not really paying attention to much else so the situational awareness isn't much of an issue for me.

If there's tracers wizzing passed my cockpit then it's my team mates shoulder shooting or an extremely bad shot! ;) Either way it's time to go back to normal view and assess the situation!

[Feuerfalke]

In Il2 I have my gun sight and normal views mapped to one of the hats on my Joystick. When I'm in a situation where I need to use the gun sight i'm fairly well concentrating on the target any way so I not really paying attention to much else so the swituational awareness isn't much of an issue for me.

Same here. Simplest solution, IMHO, as it takes only a millisecond to switch between steady aiming and checking six.

[Bobb4]

This must be what you believe is the FOV switching. It does not zoom in, just moves closer, so to speak. An optical illusion. It can cause view limitations of course, if the canopy pillar bars obscure the view.

I will not argue whether it is an optical illusion or not but when I lose a good 10% or more of my viewing area I will say I have lost a great deal of SA.
If your theory holds true then looking backwards I should have an increased FOV. Test that out and you will then discover be it a head movement forward as you claim or an optical illusion your FOV is restricted in any direction you choose to look from normal view...
Put your self in a bomber pilot seat and you will inderstand.
Use Shift + F1 and you will suddenly find your view restricted no matter which direction you look.

[Feuerfalke]

I will not argue whether it is an optical illusion or not but when I lose a good 10% or more of my viewing area I will say I have lost a great deal of SA.
If your theory holds true then looking backwards I should have an increased FOV. Test that out and you will then discover be it a head movement forward as you claim or an optical illusion your FOV is restricted in any direction you choose to look from normal view...
Put your self in a bomber pilot seat and you will inderstand.
Use Shift + F1 and you will suddenly find your view restricted no matter which direction you look.

Sure, but that's how it is in reality as well, If you're looking down the sights of a gun your view IS limited compared to just loosely look in the direction your gun is roughly pointing.

[MikkOwl]

I will not argue whether it is an optical illusion or not but when I lose a good 10% or more of my viewing area I will say I have lost a great deal of SA.
If your theory holds true then looking backwards I should have an increased FOV. Test that out and you will then discover be it a head movement forward as you claim or an optical illusion your FOV is restricted in any direction you choose to look from normal view...
Put your self in a bomber pilot seat and you will inderstand.
Use Shift + F1 and you will suddenly find your view restricted no matter which direction you look.
I loaded up IL-2 again and carefully went through the following aircraft:

B-24
B-17
H-111
Fw-190A8
Bf-109E4
Ju-88A4
AC-20

The heavy and medium bombers (except Ju-88 and AC-20) did not have any kind of gunsight and in most of them, Shift-F1 moved the view between pilot and co-pilot seats.

Looking forwards as well as backwards, it is as expected: it moves the head into a new position (usually forward the most in every plane. Movement to the side occured in some of them (in He-111, it moved forward-left even). In the Fw-190, the view also moved upwards a bit.

Looking backwards in all the aircraft while switching views - both over left shoulder, and right shoulder, one can see better and more in gunsight mode as the seat/armor plate is further away. In the 190 one can see the elevators on the right side even which are otherwise hidden. In the Ju-88 one can see much more everywhere, mainly because curtains are present behind the pilot up to about as far as his seat support so any movement forward gives better views.

There are a few planes where the non gunsight mode is extremely much higher (in a cheaty, unrealistic amount). The Me-262 is maybe the most extreme. The Me-210 and 410 (if you have them) are other examples. Using gunsight in those planes very much gimps the view in any direction, but on the other hand, that is still the most realistic view for those planes (one does not stand in a cockpit in reality.. :-P ).

In the aircraft where the gunsight is offset to the right, looking back over left shoulder did not give much (if any) different view because the head was offset to the right, cancelling out the forward movement.

You can try this for yourself. Try also to look straight down, or straight sideways while pressing Shift-F1 to see how far forward and back the move is.

Never the less, the move forward does bring the canopy pillars closer, and makes them larger, and this gimps the view to an area to the front in some planes (Fw 190 a very big offender. Same thing happens in spitfires if one leans forward). I know I never liked flying in gunsight view because of the pillars etc being closer, for pretty much the same reasons you have now. After switching to head tracking it was no longer an issue but I still remember...

[Oleg Maddox]

S!

How about 6DOF + if using snap views you can save head positions. This is used in Aces High online WW2 combat sim. Simple and works.

maybe.

[MikkOwl]

Agree that being able to choose the 'center' for the head would be a good feature. In any plane without center gunsights, I keep having problems with the centering. It can be ok to be offset, but often is too high or low when I try to lean into gunsight.

[maclean525]

Yes, their basic code and our modifications. We need to make more large distance of view with the high quality using this code.

This is great news, SpeedTree do a wonderful job.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

Which version οφ σπεεδτρεε Σιρ ?

[ECV56_Lancelot]

I think a good way would be this:

1) You got realistic limited 6dof view with track ir.

2) You got realistic limited 6dof view using the keyboard.
- Num keyboard snap view like IL-2
- SHIFT Num keyboard 2-4-6-8: slide the view left, right, foward, backwar.
- Alt Num keyboard 2-4-6-8 rotate view down, left, right and up (POV Hat of hotas as mouse does the same)
- SHIFT Num keyboard 3 and 9, slide view upwards and downward.

3) A key combination, just like SHIFT-F1, that fast and smoothly slide the view to have the gunsight centered. On allied aircraf it either does nothing or does the same but you´ll see the gunsight slide to your left.
This last view with a menu checkbox option where you can make it sticky or not. That way you can have to keep it pressed to have the gunsight centered, or you have to press one to have gunsight centered, and again to return to cockpit centered view.

All this three alternatives are available, and you choose according to your hardware and preferences.

Just my thoughts and suggestions! :)

[Bobb4]

I loaded up IL-2 again and carefully went through the following aircraft:

B-24
B-17
H-111
Fw-190A8
Bf-109E4
Ju-88A4
AC-20

The heavy and medium bombers (except Ju-88 and AC-20) did not have any kind of gunsight and in most of them, Shift-F1 moved the view between pilot and co-pilot seats.

Looking forwards as well as backwards, it is as expected: it moves the head into a new position (usually forward the most in every plane. Movement to the side occured in some of them (in He-111, it moved forward-left even). In the Fw-190, the view also moved upwards a bit.

Looking backwards in all the aircraft while switching views - both over left shoulder, and right shoulder, one can see better and more in gunsight mode as the seat/armor plate is further away. In the 190 one can see the elevators on the right side even which are otherwise hidden. In the Ju-88 one can see much more everywhere, mainly because curtains are present behind the pilot up to about as far as his seat support so any movement forward gives better views.

There are a few planes where the non gunsight mode is extremely much higher (in a cheaty, unrealistic amount). The Me-262 is maybe the most extreme. The Me-210 and 410 (if you have them) are other examples. Using gunsight in those planes very much gimps the view in any direction, but on the other hand, that is still the most realistic view for those planes (one does not stand in a cockpit in reality.. :-P ).

In the aircraft where the gunsight is offset to the right, looking back over left shoulder did not give much (if any) different view because the head was offset to the right, cancelling out the forward movement.

You can try this for yourself. Try also to look straight down, or straight sideways while pressing Shift-F1 to see how far forward and back the move is.

Never the less, the move forward does bring the canopy pillars closer, and makes them larger, and this gimps the view to an area to the front in some planes (Fw 190 a very big offender. Same thing happens in spitfires if one leans forward). I know I never liked flying in gunsight view because of the pillars etc being closer, for pretty much the same reasons you have now. After switching to head tracking it was no longer an issue but I still remember...
Sorry I was posting from work. When i checked in game just now, you are right the head has moved forward, lol
This still is not what i hope the SOW solution will be. I trust in the SOW team to find the best solution.

[philip.ed]

No. equal. more effect in "behaviour" would have torgue really, comparing with this... :)
And this would be in counterpart with the some of tacticks in attacks of bombers really... :)
maybe it is in mind of some people, but in real life - this would play real role probably for foil fencer or epee fencer :)

As for me - right or left - doesn't mater... I was born with left... then in kindergarden - oriented on the right hand (so stupid situation was).... and now I can use both almost similar and completely similar say for shooting...


Thanks for the answer ;) so will the AI have blind-spots? :D

[Alien]

Oleg, will the AI do mistakes like humans do? I.e. when is very scared, some would dive in desperation, but forgot they're on too low altitude and crash before leveling.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Thanks for the answer ;) so will the AI have blind-spots? :D

Absolutely, confirmed long time ago by Oleg. :)

[philip.ed]

Absolutely, confirmed long time ago by Oleg. :)

Me likey likey :P

[Necrobaron]

Yes, their basic code and our modifications. We need to make more large distance of view with the high quality using this code.

Excellent! Great to hear and thanks for the reply!:grin:
________
MONTANA DISPENSARY (http://montana.dispensaries.org/)

[airmalik]

Yes, their basic code and our modifications. We need to make more large distance of view with the high quality using this code.

Hi Oleg, it's good to hear that you're open to using third party tech to avoid reinventing the wheel. Would you consider licensing Euphoria Euphoria (http://naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm) technology for dynamic character animation?

[AdMan]

As long as you can connect via a IP address, you could play on your lan.

Do you mean will BoB require online validation before we can play or will we be able to host our own server.

Unfortunately my real life friend friends have more interest in FPS's So I will never have the pleasure of vulching them with 8 Colt-Browning .303's :(

Cheers!

well, really what I want is just basic console-style 2 player, so if I'm flying they can pull up a chair and be my gunner, I remember us trying to "trick" IL-2 into doing this on a few occasions. I have multiple monitors and plenty of input devices - just need the game to support it.

I guess a lan party is the only real solution to this as computers/windows in general isn't built for multiple simultaneous users but there are certain pc games that allow classic multiplayer so it could be done.