Non Friday 2010-04-15 Development Update :)

[Oleg Maddox]

Hi,

probably tomorrow I'll need to be absent, so small update would be beter to post today.

Remind you, this is WIP, shown in tools.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpX5kCnrL-8

Some or the animation various. Unfinished, non polished.

[SlipBall]

That looks great, just fantastic clarity, thanks
Oleg, the pilot has no control of the chute, correct?

[Zoom2136]

Very nice work.

[philip.ed]

What a surprise! Love the animation, looks very realistic.

it begs the question though, can we land in trees and get attacked by the home guard? Or go to the pub for a pint :D

[Feuerfalke]

That looks very promising!

[zakkandrachoff]

so detailed. looks nice.
In LOMAc cf2.0 the pilot back to the base walking. If the british guy land with the parachute in english field, will back to their base walking or in a bicke?

if tomorrow you gonna upload a video , i hope that make this in HD 720 :grin:

[philip.ed]

Is the parachute affected by weather? Can it be shot at, and can the pilot get hit (but not the parachute) and start to bleed?
Also, if we played as Douglas Bader, would the bail-out sequence be a lot longer ? :P

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Looks great, for the first time on a ww2 sim we will have a pilot that land more realistic with its chute.
Looks like a very good detail to improve immersion.

[Oleg Maddox]

Is the parachute affected by weather? Can it be shot at, and can the pilot get hit (but not the parachute) and start to bleed?
Also, if we played as Douglas Bader, would the bail-out sequence be a lot longer ? :P

In tools - no. In a sim - probably will be affected.
We plan to open chute with separate button (as option probably).

[Oleg Maddox]

so detailed. looks nice.
In LOMAc cf2.0 the pilot back to the base walking. If the british guy land with the parachute in english field, will back to their base walking or in a bicke?

if tomorrow you gonna upload a video , i hope that make this in HD 720 :grin:

We don't plan to make such sequence. However I don't knopw yet how to finish the scene :) To allow pilot to walk home..... probably not the best choice for future additions of the sim. And to swim in the direction of home beach and then walk home also probably not the best solution :)

[Alien]

We plan to open chute with separate button (as option probably).
:grin::grin::grin:HOORAY!!!:grin::grin::grin:

[ECV56_Lancelot]

We don't plan to make such sequence. However I don't knopw yet how to finish the scene :) To allow pilot to walk home..... probably not the best choice for future additions of the sim. And to swim in the direction of home beach and then walk home also probably not the best solution :)

Just let the pilot walk/run controlled by the player i think would be nice, and helpfull for movie making.

My wish would be that in multiplayer to allow the player to climb on another plane that is landed by other player having this way the the oportunity to get back home. Of course this would mean that you must have some place that can allow you to land the plane, like a road ro very shallow field, if there is any, well if you land most likely you will brake the aircraft. Them the downed pilot walk to the plane and climb on it.

What happen´s with landed aircraft when the downed player is on the cockpit?. Well, several results:

1) Increase on aircraft weight.
2) Downed pilot can see like seatd on the cockpit but don´t have any control over the aircraft
3) Pilot of the aircraft have´s limited control of the plane (decreased stick movement), as a penalty for having another "person" inside the cockpit. Also limited point of view movement.

I wouldn´t make that you will see a pilot side seated on the cockpit because it wouldn´t be very pleasent, and would be too gay :D.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Nice. So it seems the parachuting has been modelled in more fidelity, taking in account landing etc. Nice.

[Stranzki]

Thanks for the update Oleg. A nice, unexpected surprise!

[philip.ed]

We don't plan to make such sequence. However I don't knopw yet how to finish the scene :) To allow pilot to walk home..... probably not the best choice for future additions of the sim. And to swim in the direction of home beach and then walk home also probably not the best solution :)

It would be nice to have some function over the pilot; e.g if landing in the sea to speed up time and see if any ships came near to rescue the poor chap.

Oleg, will the parachute be able to get tangled? e.g on the plane as you exit if it is a messy bail-out? Also, if the plane is on fire, could the parachute get affected and so you'd become a 'roman candle' whereby the chute sets alite (not a nice business).

[constant]

We don't plan to make such sequence. However I don't knopw yet how to finish the scene :) To allow pilot to walk home..... probably not the best choice for future additions of the sim. And to swim in the direction of home beach and then walk home also probably not the best solution :)

May I propose an optional dialogue message on a chute landing that states MIA / KIA / CAPTURED / RTB with the option to continue mission or exit?

Then in the case of continuing the mission, the pilot then heads home (if alive) .. ? Of course this would be purely for the users pleasure to see their man walking home, interaction would be nil.

(Of course I have no idea if you have a GUI interface tied in with the flying part of the game that can do this)

[Romanator21]

In CFS3 the pilot simply walked out of the frame. It seems that people would really like the guy to go all the way home however. Before he starts, he might just light up a cigarette. He's been through quite an ordeal. ;)

[BadAim]

Very nice, I get more stoked every time I see an update. There are so many little things that will enhance the "feel" of SOW, I have little doubt that it will be fantastic.

[BadAim]

In CFS3 the pilot simply walked out of the frame. It seems that people would really like the guy to go all the way home however. Before he starts, he might just light up a cigarette. He's been through quite an ordeal. ;)

LOL, I suspect I'd start smoking again too.

[JG27CaptStubing]

That looks great, just fantastic clarity, thanks
Oleg, the pilot has no control of the chute, correct?

Are you actually suggesting the guy pull on his risers to Slip is chute like in real life?

[kendo65]

I think people should put the 'walking home' idea to bed now.

It's just not realistic to have a pilot walk back to his home base through miles of deserted countryside and it's not possible to program in the kind of real-life interactions that would make it seem real.

All the accounts I've read show that a parachuting pilot acts like a beacon for anyone in the vicinity - so you get civilians, the local constabulary and Home Guard making up a 'reception committee'.

For an RAF pilot road transport would then likely be arranged back to his base, or if injured a spell in the local hospital. For a Luftwaffe pilot almost 100% certainly it would be a POW camp.

In the absence of any means of simulating all this the best option is to end the sequence after the pilot has touched down just as is done in il2.

Thanks for the update Oleg.

--------
Edit: All comments above refer to England, Summer 1940

[nearmiss]

Maybe if the out of plane people stuff is important---you should leave a way open in code for 3rd party to include all the out of aircraft people stuff. How can you ever think what everyone might want?

Climb in tanks, climb in planes, climb in boats, climb out of planes, climb out of tanks, run from crashed airplane, walk to home base, etc.

I think most of us are pretty happy with what we had in IL2. I know you have already fixed some of those things.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

...It seems that people would really like the guy to go all the way home however...

That is not exactly my case, but considering that i play multiplayer the most, if i get shots down i would very much like to be able to walk or run in first person perspective and continue on the mission and see the show of the combat.
Also considering other scenarios beside BoB, it would be cool to run and see the ground combat, if there is any.

Walk to your homebase would be practical only when you crash on take off or crashland near your airfield.

[johnnypfft]

OT here's a video slideshow including screenshots from 4/15 :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f3wAWaPMSc

[virre89]

Fantastic work as always Oleg, looking forward to the next update / video :D

[sport02]

one question :

for ejection , in Bob how will be the camera view ?

as il2 ( a camera view of the pilot's body in the air ) or another possibilty : the camera view will be the pilot view ( the same as when you are in the cockpit ) .

thank you

[SlipBall]

Are you actually suggesting the guy pull on his risers to Slip is chute like in real life?


No, I did not suggest that. Just curious if there was a surprise to be told about control, certainly not needed

[janpitor]

I personally think that the best idea is to let the pilot smoke his cigarett just to have some ending of the parachute sequence.

[kendo65]

I believe Oleg has stated that the British parachutes in-game had the possibility to be steerable (as in reality) while the German ones didn't.

Though I think he was unsure as to whether this feature would actually be in the release.

(Sorry, can't provide a link to the quote)

[rakinroll]

Oh man thank you. And again, that pilot looking better than you Oleg. :-P

[Qpassa]

Incredible 6*/5

[Novotny]

Looks marvellous, thanks. Love the lighting.

Must say, I've been following the recent interest in changing this flight simulator into an actual universe simulator with some interest.

When the pilot meets terra firma, will the grass bend and/or break realistically? My real concern is the speed of this interaction corresponding with the compactness and, indeed, moisture content of the soil.

Will this be modeled correctly? Can I lose a flying boot in a freshly ploughed field? If there are cows in the field, will they react? Is there a bull? What if the bull was depressed? What if the bull was depressed, but thought I was a german?

If I lose a flying boot, how will this be modeled as I make my way through the 1940's fields? Will a depressed bull taking a grudging interest in the chase? You're probably motion-capturing men doing this right now in some kentish field. I can make an allowance for the bull, stock footage will probably suffice. Can't expect everything I suppose.

How are the socks modeled? Can you cite references?

[Qpassa]

Sorry if this have been asked before:
Will be fixed the main issue of the IL2?
The form which uses IL2 to decrease the size of the planes when they are far and the became erased before with AA on?
Also this happen with resolution, someone with 800x600 will see before the contacts than someone with a resolution of: 1920x1080-1920x1200
Thanks

[stalkervision]

If we are german do we get to try to hide and evade are way back to the channel and our base in France?

[klem]

If the british guy land with the parachute in english field, will back to their base walking or in a bicke?

Flipping heck - can we just have the game without more daft workload added on?

Seperate button for chute opening is nice though.

[katdogfizzow]

awwweesssssommmme

[AdMan]

you should be able to control the pilot after he bails out. That is to say just control him running around. If you can make it back to base an RTB message would suffice, doesn't need to be detailed, just something to goof around with, It'd be great fun to see if you can survive the strafing that would ensue - and to be the strafer

[erco]

I like the idea of ending the sequence with the pilot sitting down and lighting up a smoke- unless, of course, an enemy plane flys by, in which case he should shake his fist at them.

Great update!

[Skoshi Tiger]

I like the idea of ending the sequence with the pilot sitting down and lighting up a smoke- unless, of course, an enemy plane flys by, in which case he should shake his fist at them.

Great update!

This should only be at players command. It could be dangerous if the pilot has been doused in petrol from a leakyfuel tank! Also in many cases a pipe would be more appropriate.

Cheers!

[Ctrl E]

looks excellent. can we flirt with french women and join the resistance on landing?

[zapatista]

Hi,

probably tomorrow I'll need to be absent, so small update would be beter to post today.

Remind you, this is WIP, shown in tools.
Maybe tomorrow here will be some video as well.

Some or the animation various. Unfinished, non polished.

oleg,

thanks for the update, the pilot landing sequence looks very good and realistic (he even keeps his feet together during the landing as instructed in training :) )


We don't plan to make such sequence. However I don't knopw yet how to finish the scene :) To allow pilot to walk home..... probably not the best choice for future additions of the sim. And to swim in the direction of home beach and then walk home also probably not the best solution :)

oleg, please consider these suggestions on how to finish the pilot landing scene:

1) once pilot has landed in friendly territory the game player can hit "refly", but..
a) same ejected pilot name/character should not be available on "new fly" roster board at friendly airfields for several hrs/days (depending on approximate distance he landed from home base, this can be 3 choices like close, far, very far)
b) if no "refly" key hit by player, then downed pilot might get 10 or 20 min to "walk around" and be able to be "rescued" by other friendly player landing close to him (in field or on road). parachuted pilot should be able to walk/run to friendly plane that landed to help him
c) if no friendly planes comes to rescue (only really for landing in enemy territory) then pilot should be able to walk to nearest road (and from then pilot's can only walk in open fields, and on roads and railway lines maybe ?, to keep game coding more simple)
d) any friendly AI vehicle on a road (can be factor programmed with random delay) that passes the location of the pilot will trigger scenario "pilot picked up by friendly civilian in vehicle" (or friendly military convoy etc). this triggers cut scene animation sequence of pilot climbing in vehicle, fade scene, and final scene with pilot arriving back at home base (with game clock moved forward 1 hr or 1 day etc), pilot name can then be seen on flight board register at home base again and used by player.

2) above sequence should take minimal coding time to add and has advantages off:
- parachuted pilot can for now only walk/run in open fields and on roads and railway lines (which are already programmed to allow movement of AI vehicles etc, and have no "obstacles" for movement). this means you dont need to allow pilot walking in a complete "ground world". if even this is to difficult because to much time is need, allow "pilot walking" only as hidden easter egg future, so people dont "expect" it to be perfect.
- in real life BoB downed allied pilots could sit/stand and watch the air battle continuing for a little while, adds realism
- allowing parachuted pilot to walk to nearby road (or towards friendly plane landing in same field) and wait for AI friendly vehicle adds continuity in scenario and increases game world immersion for players
- if player crashes his plane on landing or takeoff (and survives it), the pilot is so close to home base he should be able to walk back to the control tower or briefing are, or walk to a fresh plane available. the immediate ground area near the home base airfield can then also be used as a "test zone" to work on pilot interaction with "ground world" (open/close doors, climb over fence, get in/out of vehicles or AA guns etc)

3) current AI ground activity (buses, cars, truck convoys moving on roads) is already coded in the game in significant detail (going by your previous posts on this topic), it should be fairly easy to add some simple categories for landed pilot to trigger "encounter" with AI road traffic for ex,
- landed in relatively empty area wait civilian AI traffic scene 1 hrs,
- landed in more busy area is 10 min,
- landed in very busy or built up area = 3 min

we dont need a pilot walking home for 2 hrs like in lockon2 right now, but some control over the pilot and some interaction with ground AI activity like vehicles/objects would be great. we also need the right time delays added to the campaign engine for the shot down pilot who bailed out, so he doesnt instantly can relocate t a friendly airbase 100's of km away and instantly have a fresh new plane, it must have a time delay added before he gets back to base, and adding in some video cut scenes can be used there

later when ground vehicle control is more developed, the control and interaction with the pilot behavior and movement can be improved/increased

edit: for german pilots landing in england, and pilots landing in sea

4) german pilots landing in england (note: german pilots landing in enemy territory probably should not initially have freedom to walk around, because more complex to create interaction with "local" AI activity ?)
- landed in relatively empty area, after a delay add video clip of off pilot capture/surrender to home guard, or farmer with pitch fork etc..
- landed in more busy area: is 10 min,
- landed in very busy or built up area = 3 min

5) for all pilots landing in the sea
- if very close to friendly coast line, 90% chance of "rescue by local fishermen" , add short video clip
- if in sea farther from land/coast, and friendly enemy ship nearby (1 km ?), ship changes course or launches small rescue craft, add cut scene pilot recue'd/captured after 30 min. when later on we get control over some small ships (as you before have mentioned wanting to add at some point, some players will enjoy doing pilot risque missions at sea when controlling sea craft)
- if no ships nearby, allow for some possibility for rescue by rescue planes for next 6/12/24 hrs (while pilot sits in small inflatable dingy, maybe even give later pilots a flare gun ?), and pilot can be restored to flying roster after several days
- add random % chance of pilot killed (lost at sea) or MIA and never appears on pilot roster again

[zapatista]

I like the idea of ending the sequence with the pilot sitting down and lighting up a smoke- unless, of course, an enemy plane flys by, in which case he should shake his fist at them.

Great update!

i suspect scenes with smoking cigarettes wont be added, in the same way that blood and gore is limited.

showing smoking in action games like this could be interpreted as encouraging young people to smoke

[mungee]

Amazing attention to detail - wow!

My "two pennies worth":

I think that it would be great to have the initial egress from the cockpit in the "first person" view (remember it in EAW? ... where your view rotated around the sky/horizon a bit, as you descended) - a button to open the 'chute will be brilliant!! - and a mandatory switch to "exterior view" on landing - get out of the parachute harness and as one is doing so, the scene zooms out - end of mission ... with some appropriate music!
I think that the "first person" view on the bail-out is very immersive - one can have a loud (wind) whistling noise as one opens the cockpit canopy, a "small library of different "grunts" added for the moment the parachute opens and a hard "thud and grunt" on landing!
Hehe! I guess Oleg and his team have already settled on this sequence anyway!

Keep up the brilliant work Oleg!

[zauii]

oleg,

thanks for the update, the pilot landing sequence looks very good and realistic (he even keeps his feet together during the landing as instructed in training :) )




oleg, please consider these suggestions on how to finish the pilot landing scene:

1) once pilot has landed in friendly territory the game player can hit "refly", but..
a) same ejected pilot name/character should not be available on "new fly" roster board at friendly airfields for several hrs/days (depending on approximate distance he landed from home base, this can be 3 choices like close, far, very far)
b) if no "refly" key hit by player, then downed pilot might get 10 or 20 min to "walk around" and be able to be "rescued" by other friendly player landing close to him (in field or on road). parachuted pilot should be able to walk/run to friendly plane that landed to help him
c) if no friendly planes comes to rescue (only really for landing in enemy territory) then pilot should be able to walk to nearest road (and from then pilot's can only walk in open fields, and on roads and railway lines maybe ?, to keep game coding more simple)
d) any friendly AI vehicle on a road (can be factor programmed with random delay) that passes the location of the pilot will trigger scenario "pilot picked up by friendly civilian in vehicle" (or friendly military convoy etc). this triggers cut scene animation sequence of pilot climbing in vehicle, fade scene, and final scene with pilot arriving back at home base (with game clock moved forward 1 hr or 1 day etc), pilot name can then be seen on flight board register at home base again and used by player.

2) above sequence should take minimal coding time to add and has advantages off:
- parachuted pilot can for now only walk/run in open fields and on roads and railway lines (which are already programmed to allow movement of AI vehicles etc, and have no "obstacles" for movement). this means you dont need to allow pilot walking in a complete "ground world". if even this is to difficult because to much time is need, allow "pilot walking" only as hidden easter egg future, so people dont "expect" it to be perfect.
- in real life BoB downed allied pilots could sit/stand and watch the air battle continuing for a little while, adds realism
- allowing parachuted pilot to walk to nearby road (or towards friendly plane landing in same field) and wait for AI friendly vehicle adds continuity in scenario and increases game world immersion for players
- if player crashes his plane on landing or takeoff (and survives it), the pilot is so close to home base he should be able to walk back to the control tower or briefing are, or walk to a fresh plane available. the immediate ground area near the home base airfield can then also be used as a "test zone" to work on pilot interaction with "ground world" (open/close doors, climb over fence, get in/out of vehicles or AA guns etc)

3) current AI ground activity (buses, cars, truck convoys moving on roads) is already coded in the game in significant detail (going by your previous posts on this topic), it should be fairly easy to add some simple categories for landed pilot to trigger "encounter" with AI road traffic for ex,
- landed in relatively empty area wait civilian AI traffic scene 1 hrs,
- landed in more busy area is 10 min,
- landed in very busy or built up area = 3 min

we dont need a pilot walking home for 2 hrs like in lockon2 right now, but some control over the pilot and some interaction with ground AI activity like vehicles/objects would be great. we also need the time delays added in for the shot down pilot who bailed out, so he doesnt instantly can relocate t a friendly airbase 100's of km away and instantly have a fresh new plane, it must have a time delay added before he gets back to base, and adding in some video cut scenes can be used there

later when ground vehicle control is more developed, the control and interaction with the pilot behavior and movement can be improved/increased

edit: for german pilots landing in england, and pilots landing in sea

4) german pilots landing in england (note: german pilots landing in enemy territory probably should not initially have freedom to walk around, because more complex to create interaction with "local" AI activity ?)
- landed in relatively empty area, after a delay add video clip of off pilot capture/surrender to home guard,
- landed in more busy area: is 10 min,
- landed in very busy or built up area = 3 min

5) for all pilots landing in the sea
- if very close to friendly coast line, 90% chance of "rescue by local fishermen" , add short video clip
- if in sea farther from land/coast, and friendly enemy ship nearby (1 km ?), ship changes course or launches small rescue craft, add cut scene pilot recue'd/captured after 30 min. when later on we get control over some small ships (as you before have mentioned wanting to add at some point, some players will enjoy doing pilot risque missions at sea when controlling sea craft)
- if no ships nearby, allow for some possibility for rescue by rescue planes for next 6/12/24 hrs (while pilot sits in small inflatable dingy, maybe even give later pilots a flare gun ?), and pilot can be restored to flying roster after several days
- add random % chance of pilot killed (lost at sea) or MIA and never appears on pilot roster again

This is a joke right, this dude can't be serious?
Oh boy you're gonna get disappointed at launch.

[johnnypfft]

After landing your parachute

1. If you land in friendly zone, you have the options to choose "Return to base" but enemy planes can still shoot you if they spotts you.

2. If you land in enemy zone, you have the options to choose "Surrender" or just wait to be captured or killed by enemy units if you're not able to walk into friendly zone? :) just some suggestions

[LukeFF]

I'd never thought I'd see such a verbose discussion about how to code the pilot's movements after he parachutes and lands safely. :rolleyes: At most, show the pilot land, unbuckle the parachute from his harness, and be done with it. Anything more IMO is a waste of time and development resources.

[fireflyerz]

Ha,ha, thats the best PLF ive ever seen anyone do , I know this is still WIP but the canopy and rigging lines look very rigid ,will they have more flex and flutter in final versions? , one of the stills also hints at the pilot being draged is that also on the animated cards ?

[zapatista]

I know this is still WIP but the canopy and rigging lines look very rigid ,will they have more flex and flutter in final versions?

in the road vehicles that move iirc (? and aircraft ?) the tires will flex/compress and the suspension moves, so maybe they can even eventually add rope like behavior to the parachute strings instead of having them behave like sticks

[AdMan]

I resubmit my vote for letting us run the pilot around until some ungodly bastard comes along and fills us with lead

or until we hit refly

/done

[kendo65]

Must say, I've been following the recent interest in changing this flight simulator into an actual universe simulator with some interest.


I think this is a good idea - if we don't model the entire universe then navigation in nighttime bomber missions will be farcical and silly.

Oleg should model all the stars and constellations out to 40 million light years, and adjust the pilot's viewpoint based on latitude / longitude.

Anything else is a total cop-out.

;)

[genbrien]

Me think that when you're doing detail like that, the rest of the game should/must be well advance. Have faith people!!!!!! :)

[brando]

Back in the real world - strafing aircrew who had parachuted into your territory from a crippled aircraft would have been a court-martial offence in the RAF, and probably still is.

B

[Feuerfalke]

Me think that when you're doing detail like that, the rest of the game should/must be well advance. Have faith people!!!!!! :)

Exactly my thoughts ;)

It was mentioned that we won't see everything until it's finished, but if so much attention is put into such details, imagine what the rest of the simulation will be like. :cool:

[philip.ed]

Thanks for the video Oleg. You've captured the motion really well ;)

[_RAAF_Stupot]

I think that's the best 3-second YouTube video I've ever watched. Thanks! ;)

[johnnypfft]

I made a 10sec version :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWohMyI9Hbc

[Qpassa]

cool video

[choctaw111]

Thank you for the video and the photos.
These look really great!
Will there be a first person view while falling to earth in the parachute or just a 3rd person view like we have in Il2 right now?

[335th_GRSwaty]

Thank you Oleg and team!

[lbuchele]

The good news is:Oleg is working in the details of the game,a sure signal that the main part is already done.
I believe that if you really want a new and revolutionary game, the answer will be in the details.

[AdMan]

Back in the real world - strafing aircrew who had parachuted into your territory from a crippled aircraft would have been a court-martial offence in the RAF, and probably still is.

B

of course, but you can already shoot pilots in IL-2, the only difference I'm suggesting is that you would have direct control over the pilot and be able to RTB or wherever else you may want to roam. You could even run for cover if you see a plane about to crash/bomb/strafe your location.

[Caveman]

GREAT WORK!!! Looks lovely Oleg. Really anticipating this title... It would be wonderful to have:

1) 1st person POV during eject/freefall... Lots of tumbling/noise/etc... Perhaps a defective chute .01% of the time by 3rd party mod...

2) Run around after reaching ground... Imagine being chased by a few 109s and then dumping out over a small village, and watching the remaining battle while taking cover behind a barn or tree...

I don't know why but watching the video made me think of the following idea:

HOW ABOUT AN OPTION TO MAKE CAMERAS VISIBLE FROM THE COCKPIT?

This would be great for moviemaking... Maybe just a bright red arrow showign location/direction so that the "perfect Hollywood flight" could be done by "seeing" the cameras and flying through them...

[jameson]

Had a good laugh at the thought any bailed out pilot/aircrew would be "roaming around" in Southern England in 1940. For people who don't live here, we are talking of only 27 miles to England from France at the narrowest point, add another 70 miles and you're more or less in the centre of London. Same distance wide, no, say 100 miles square, and that's where nearly all of the BOB took place. Only 2/3 of that was land. The British had 9 divisions (900,000 troops!) in Southern England, add to that The Home Guard, local police, farm workers and finally the local population, and any wandering would have been minimal at best. Often the locals, if they got there before the army, administered first aid and tea, to aircrew, or something stronger. Bomber crews who crash landed were often in bad shape, broken limbs and bullet wounds, etc., and were probably just glad to get out of the plane before it blew up, and grateful for any assistance offered. Even if they made it to the coast, they'd have had to be good swimmers! Given the British sense of humour they have let them swim out ten miles before collecting them.

Really looking forward to SOW, Oleg and Co. doing a great job, keep it up!

[Insuber]

Often the locals, if they got there before the army, administered first aid and tea, to aircrew, or something stronger.

Again British humour ... the "something stronger" was a good beat I suppose.

[DJB]

We plan to open chute with separate button (as option probably).

Maybe with only 1 button?
I mean you can press, for example, "a" key... well, if you press "a" when the pilot is in plane, then jump out, and if you press the same key later, when the pilot is in air, then open chute. Two actions with only 1 key, better to use with hotas/joystick ;).

Thank you for updates, keep good working (and forgive me for my bad english...).

[Insuber]

Back in the real world - strafing aircrew who had parachuted into your territory from a crippled aircraft would have been a court-martial offence in the RAF, and probably still is.

B

Maybe, but I highly doubt that that pilot would be sentenced ... the uncle of a friend of mine was hit by AAA and forced to bail out above Malta while strafing an airfield on his Cr.42 in 1941; the AAA gunners killed him while hanging from the parachute ... These gunners were released on the basis of some sort of temporary mental inability due to psychological stress or whatever... which is after all understandable. Theory and practice are often very different matters.

Insuber

[zakkandrachoff]

look! the today oleg video promise!
Storm Of War : Korea

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhYVG_ZviL8&feature=related

in the last wwords said "thanks Oleg
:cool:

[Novotny]

That's IL-2. Why you're trying to deceive people, I do not know.

[fireflyerz]

Um , thats one of my vids and it is made with IL2 and I always thank Oleg at the end do you have a point or are ya just larkin around...

[philip.ed]

Um , thats one of my vids and it is made with IL2 and I always thank Oleg at the end do you have a point or are ya just larkin around...

The latter m8 ;)

[Sutts]

Thanks Oleg, great attention to detail as always.:grin:

[fireflyerz]

The latter m8 ;)

Ha,ha...now ... who's watchin who:mrgreen:

[philip.ed]

Ha,ha...now ... who's watchin who:mrgreen:

:mrgreen:

[Freycinet]

I'm one more who really likes this vid, despite the somewhat rigid look of the chute.

Would be fabulous if we stay with the 1st person perspective during bail-out. Never really liked the Il-2 3rd person view of a body flying through the fuselage (but of course that was made due to the then computing power limitations).

Pressing CTRL-E should start a sequence with: A deafening roar upon opening the hood, a scramble to exit the cockpit, a violent tumbling of the horizon. Then the parachute deploy command should result in the usual violent tug, maybe a short tunnel vision thing, and then hanging calmly under the canopy.... Would be lovely, especially if "failure modes" are put into the sequence. Stuck hood. Death upon hitting empennage. No parachute deploy. Randomly having a few of those would be good.

[philip.ed]

One thing about the animation; I am not sure the pilot would be getting up so quickly: he'd be trying to get his chute sorted out to so he could get it back to the AM :D

[kirq]

I woudn't mind if SoW: Korea would look like on this IL2 vid :) Great job!

[AdMan]

Had a good laugh at the thought any bailed out pilot/aircrew would be "roaming around" in Southern England in 1940. For people who don't live here, we are talking of only 27 miles to England from France at the narrowest point, add another 70 miles and you're more or less in the centre of London. Same distance wide, no, say 100 miles square, and that's where nearly all of the BOB took place. Only 2/3 of that was land. The British had 9 divisions (900,000 troops!) in Southern England, add to that The Home Guard, local police, farm workers and finally the local population, and any wandering would have been minimal at best. Often the locals, if they got there before the army, administered first aid and tea, to aircrew, or something stronger. Bomber crews who crash landed were often in bad shape, broken limbs and bullet wounds, etc., and were probably just glad to get out of the plane before it blew up, and grateful for any assistance offered. Even if they made it to the coast, they'd have had to be good swimmers! Given the British sense of humour they have let them swim out ten miles before collecting them.

Really looking forward to SOW, Oleg and Co. doing a great job, keep it up!

so?

then roam around in the center of London, I'd love to take the time to see the building/city modeling from close up from ground level

as someone mentioned before it would be handy for movie making too

stuffy in here

[Codex]

We don't plan to make such sequence. However I don't knopw yet how to finish the scene :) To allow pilot to walk home..... probably not the best choice for future additions of the sim. And to swim in the direction of home beach and then walk home also probably not the best solution :)

Could we have downed pilots picked up by Catalina's as a mission?

http://www.directart.co.uk/mall/images/b0031.jpg

[Skoshi Tiger]

Just a quick few questions. With the dynamic weather, will parachutes be effected by the wind? Will we bailout over a field only to get blown in the woods or out to sea? Will be get blown along the ground in a strong wind and have to release our harness to stop?

Cheers

[GADGET]

Sorry to add a discrepancy note, but I do not find the parachute behaviour realistic, once the pilot is on the ground.

I am really impressed by the pilot animation, a real textbook landing acording to 1940's doctrine.

Nevertheless, once the parachute is not suporting the pilot's weight, it should float on the air as a silk scarf would do (a parachute is nothing more than a huge silk scarf in the wind) and fall over the pilot. If wind is present, the parachute keeps its bell-like form and falls aside the pilot and, if the wind is suficiently strong the parachute drags the parachutist around. The procedure then is to pull the bottom parachute lines to desinflate the canopy and let it fall, or get up and run to either side of the lines so the wind incides the canopy sideways and it collapses.

Here in the animation, the parachute canopy appears to be a heavy object that falls to the ground like a rock, instead of floating once free of the weight of the pilot.
Mi respects for the developers, but as former paratrooper I strongly believe that this animation should be corrected in pro of realism, if that is the original objective.

Either way, I can't wait for SOW:BOB to come out.

[Chivas]

That all depends if there is a wind present. The parachute is never free from the pilot in this short video and won't billow down unless there is no wind.

[Insuber]

+1

Sorry to add a discrepancy note, but I do not find the parachute behaviour realistic, once the pilot is on the ground.

I am really impressed by the pilot animation, a real textbook landing acording to 1940's doctrine.

Nevertheless, once the parachute is not suporting the pilot's weight, it should float on the air as a silk scarf would do (a parachute is nothing more than a huge silk scarf in the wind) and fall over the pilot. If wind is present, the parachute keeps its bell-like form and falls aside the pilot and, if the wind is suficiently strong the parachute drags the parachutist around. The procedure then is to pull the bottom parachute lines to desinflate the canopy and let it fall, or get up and run to either side of the lines so the wind incides the canopy sideways and it collapses.

Here in the animation, the parachute canopy appears to be a heavy object that falls to the ground like a rock, instead of floating once free of the weight of the pilot.
Mi respects for the developers, but as former paratrooper I strongly believe that this animation should be corrected in pro of realism, if that is the original objective.

Either way, I can't wait for SOW:BOB to come out.

[I/ZG52_Gaga]

Looking great there !!!

Very nice tumble action and all ...

does the airspeed play any role on how fast the pilot puts away his parachute?

Are we going to see pilots or gunners being draged away by strong surface wind blowing?

Does the pilot cary a sidearm he can shoot with?

Are we almost done?

Can we have the game this year?

[furbs]

just what i was thinking Gaga...jeez...its a flight sim and i want to play it sometime before i pop my clogs :)

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by jameson

Had a good laugh at the thought any bailed out pilot/aircrew would be "roaming around" in Southern England in 1940. For people who don't live here, we are talking of only 27 miles to England from France at the narrowest point, add another 70 miles and you're more or less in the centre of London. Same distance wide, no, say 100 miles square, and that's where nearly all of the BOB took place. Only 2/3 of that was land.

The British had 9 divisions (900,000 troops!) in Southern England, add to that The Home Guard, local police, farm workers and finally the local population, and any wandering would have been minimal at best.

Often the locals, if they got there before the army, administered first aid and tea, to aircrew, or something stronger. Bomber crews who crash landed were often in bad shape, broken limbs and bullet wounds, etc., and were probably just glad to get out of the plane before it blew up, and grateful for any assistance offered. Even if they made it to the coast, they'd have had to be good swimmers! Given the British sense of humour they have let them swim out ten miles before collecting them.



so?

then roam around in the center of London, I'd love to take the time to see the building/city modeling from close up from ground level

as someone mentioned before it would be handy for movie making too

stuffy in here

So? Someone gives a barrel-full of great reasons why your preferred choice is unrealistic, and your response is "so?".

And what you describe as "stuffy" is the desire of some of us to have the game actually reflect the reality of the situation.

It might be fun to have a pilot stroll around the English countryside avoiding strafing planes, commandeering passing vehicles, swimming the channel back to France - it might be fun to have invisibility shields and F15s in 1940, but it isn't realistic.

People need to make up their minds whether they want a SIMULATOR or a first person shooter.

[He111]

looking great Oleg and team.

This debate about what a pilot does after they parachute to land is getting stupid, if it's friendly, they're ready for the next mission, if it's enemy, they're a POW. The real debate should be what happens when they land in water, remember many brave and skilled pilots were lost to Poseidon. The Germans put a lot of effort into rescuing downed pilots with sea planes and ships but Britain kept trying to destroy them.

I have an old book on the BOB, printed just after it happened, it shows the methods British coastal command used to rescue pilots. Here's a picture of a "rescue station" and patrol boat.

(I cannot load the picture, I don't have a Photobucket account, but I can email it if someone’s interested?)


And another thing, a good alternate mission might be to fly a lysander into france one moon lit night to supply arms to the resistance. Lets see who can land onto a small field at night?

He111.

[zapatista]

l
And another thing, a good alternate mission might be to fly a lysander into france one moon lit night to supply arms to the resistance. Lets see who can land onto a small field at night?
He111.

ahh and maybe so we can also pick up the 2 British airmen from allo allo ?

:) :)

[Baron]

Sorry to add a discrepancy note, but I do not find the parachute behaviour realistic, once the pilot is on the ground.

I am really impressed by the pilot animation, a real textbook landing acording to 1940's doctrine.

Nevertheless, once the parachute is not suporting the pilot's weight, it should float on the air as a silk scarf would do (a parachute is nothing more than a huge silk scarf in the wind) and fall over the pilot. If wind is present, the parachute keeps its bell-like form and falls aside the pilot and, if the wind is suficiently strong the parachute drags the parachutist around. The procedure then is to pull the bottom parachute lines to desinflate the canopy and let it fall, or get up and run to either side of the lines so the wind incides the canopy sideways and it collapses.

Here in the animation, the parachute canopy appears to be a heavy object that falls to the ground like a rock, instead of floating once free of the weight of the pilot.
Mi respects for the developers, but as former paratrooper I strongly believe that this animation should be corrected in pro of realism, if that is the original objective.

Either way, I can't wait for SOW:BOB to come out.



Finally some consructive critisism pertaining to the actuall update.

+1

Other than that it looked great.


I can however imagine it to be very difficoult and takes a lot of work getting it to look realistic (affected by wind and so on). Hope not.

[Novotny]

@Gadget: your criticism is polite, however I think you may not realise the complexities of what you're asking for.

Have a glance over this article discussing cloth simulation within a 3d title:

http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/simulating-cloth-for-3d-games/

Whilst it's certainly technically possible, it's very difficult, so we once more come round to the problem of finite resources. Making a game is all about balancing compromises. I'd be extremely surprised if SOW is not feature-complete at this stage. if Oleg is still deciding on implementing possible features at this stage then I couldn't possibly see the game coming out within the next year or two.

You've got to decide what sort of features are most important for a flight simulator. If this was a game about the linen industry, then accurate cloth physics would probably be high up the list of important effects. I want almost all of the development work to go into the feeling of flight, the representation of terrain and the believability of the AI. I wouldn't be prepared to sacrifice any development time from these areas for what I feel are less important factors.

[SlipBall]

. However I don't knopw yet how to finish the scene :)



That's easy...the pilot kisses the ground:-P

[zauii]

I agree that the ongoing debate about these nitpicking details are redicilous.
The pilot becomes a POW if landing i enemy territory, if not his rescued what do i know, and frankly i don't care why simulate any more?

Bottom line here guys SoW will still be much more realistic than IL2.

[philip.ed]

Just because you can; if you have the option to have it, then why not? ;) It would be quite call, but maybe as an add-on.

[fireflyerz]

In my mind the bail out sequence in its entirety is one of the core elements of the game , one of the the most complained about sequences of il2 was the very same for its unrealism , lets get it right this time so that it still looks beleivable in 10 years , im not realy interested in him once he has landed ,thats not what this game is about , how he bails , how he pulls and how his canopy behaves in flight and on landing is what is important and if its done right it will add 10 fold to the imersion of the sim.

Ps.Oleg , I know you will, im just thinking out loud.

[Novotny]

I agree that there's nothing wrong with hoping for things, but it's not as if a lot of the requests that people make are 'options'. I really do think people generally misunderstand how tricky programming sims/games is. What may seem like a simple thing to implement may realistically be very difficult.

Someone else - forgive me, I'm paraphrasing others - spoke of the harmonisation of experience. Probably TD. As a game maker, you do not want one part of the experience to have a better fidelity than another - it breaks immersion. One part becomes ok, the other part not good enough. In other words: you can't stick in bits that don't gel with the overall experience.

Another point I have made before is this: people really do tend to think that their personal ideas are new and never-before considered. If it's a good idea, don't you think that someone, in an entire team of people - professionals, I might add, not hobbyists - who are actually working at this flight-sim full-time, for years on end: don't you ever think that they might have considered this too? By all means bring it up, ask about it, but not in a manner that suggests you're bringing enlightenment to the ignorant. It's very rude.

Someone else again (!) also advised that if Oleg & Co are asking for feedback, it's not about how good you think x/y/z is. It's about whether there's been any errors with historical accuracy; acquiring more accurate data; getting old and difficult to find pictures.

I just wish people would be less vociferous in their demands and more appreciative of what we're getting. If I were Oleg, I'd think this community a bunch of know-it-all-do-nothing smart-arses.

Fortunately, he seems to be a better man than me :D

edit:: I should add - I'm not getting at anyone particularly in the thread. The comments I'm making are aimed at a generally large part of the community.

[Codex]

Cloth simulations are difficult if you don't know what your doing. However cloth simulations are not that difficult to implent, the difficulty is whether Oleg has the resourses or will to put it in a parachute.

Cloth simultaions have been around for years and are readily availabe in many common Physics / GPU API's:

nVidia + CUDA
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/demo_cloth_simulation.html

ATI + Havoc
http://www.havok.com/index.php?page=havok-cloth


Here is a realtime cloth demo using Flash 7 ;)
http://www.custom-logic.com/exp/cloth/cloth.html

[Novotny]

Well yes: what I wanted to highlight was the difficulty in implementing these things & the associated cost in development time. To my mind, this workload could probably be better allocated to other areas of the sim - but it's just my opinion. I wouldn't refuse any of it. If it comes, excellent. It's just, I think, highly unlikely for the initial release.

[Flyby]

recalling how much a single core cpu bogged down with many parachutes in the air, and believing that there might be more than a few animated crew descending softly by chute in SoW gives me pause. I hope this feature can be turned off. Good for a few giggles and grins, and maybe a few wows, sure. But if Oleg is going to release a sim that, at full tilt (as some suspect) will bring even a modern gaming rig to it's knees, then wanting a downed crewman to wander about while the battle above still rages above just seems to scream single-digit frames. Maybe the unfortunate sot could steal an enemy plane and escape? How will this be implemented in single player or multiplayer for that matter and still render acceptable frames per second. Maybe better to just have the pilot run, duck and cover just like before in IL2. After all, everyone else will be too busy flying about to watch what happens to those who have already left the aerial arena. Why waste the cores, threads or cpu cycles getting animated figures to do this or that? Hey! Maybe if I were to get shot down that would be how my online and offline flight ended, if enabled? I mean I hit the silk online and I no longer can see what's going on with the rest of the mission. All I can see is what my avatar-pilot is doing. No outside views of other craft/players. Just me gathering my chute and trying to outrun Socialist-indoctrinated Rottweilers and there square-headed handlers. A whole new facet of the sim whereby the whole power of my gaming system is redirected to my pilot (as in an FP-Shooter) trying to get back to base. Of course I could just end the mission, and respawn for another go at the brutes. ;)
Flyby out

[Flanker35M]

S!

Flyby. Exactly my thoughts. You bail = game over. You might get rescued if over channel, POW if over England, slight possibility of escaping if over France depending on side you fly of course. Tons of parachutes will bring the system down.

Even those multiplayer flight sims like Aces High 2 get a dip in FPS if there is a lot of them. Some even used it as a way of making defence harder, dropped hundreds of paratroopers bringing the lag and FPS down to single digits. And this game can handle hundreds of players normally, but look at graphics. It all comes with a cost ;)

[zauii]

I agree that there's nothing wrong with hoping for things, but it's not as if a lot of the requests that people make are 'options'. I really do think people generally misunderstand how tricky programming sims/games is. What may seem like a simple thing to implement may realistically be very difficult.

Someone else - forgive me, I'm paraphrasing others - spoke of the harmonisation of experience. Probably TD. As a game maker, you do not want one part of the experience to have a better fidelity than another - it breaks immersion. One part becomes ok, the other part not good enough. In other words: you can't stick in bits that don't gel with the overall experience.

Another point I have made before is this: people really do tend to think that their personal ideas are new and never-before considered. If it's a good idea, don't you think that someone, in an entire team of people - professionals, I might add, not hobbyists - who are actually working at this flight-sim full-time, for years on end: don't you ever think that they might have considered this too? By all means bring it up, ask about it, but not in a manner that suggests you're bringing enlightenment to the ignorant. It's very rude.

Someone else again (!) also advised that if Oleg & Co are asking for feedback, it's not about how good you think x/y/z is. It's about whether there's been any errors with historical accuracy; acquiring more accurate data; getting old and difficult to find pictures.

I just wish people would be less vociferous in their demands and more appreciative of what we're getting. If I were Oleg, I'd think this community a bunch of know-it-all-do-nothing smart-arses.

Fortunately, he seems to be a better man than me :D

edit:: I should add - I'm not getting at anyone particularly in the thread. The comments I'm making are aimed at a generally large part of the community.

Quoted for truth, hands down best post in the thread.

[philip.ed]

But tons of parachutes, with the added possibility of a failure, has already been modelled in BoB2 without fps loss, so I don't really understand your worries? Yes this sequence is more complicated, but technology has moved on: look at WoP.

[Flyby]

S!

Flyby. Exactly my thoughts. You bail = game over. You might get rescued if over channel, POW if over England, slight possibility of escaping if over France depending on side you fly of course. Tons of parachutes will bring the system down.

Even those multiplayer flight sims like Aces High 2 get a dip in FPS if there is a lot of them. Some even used it as a way of making defence harder, dropped hundreds of paratroopers bringing the lag and FPS down to single digits. And this game can handle hundreds of players normally, but look at graphics. It all comes with a cost ;)
Flanker35M I never played Aces High 2, but it's nice to know (nice?) this FPS problem was not limited to IL2. I don't know that SoW will have a solution for that which won't result in lag and single-digit FPS. It may, but as you say there is a cost (not just in lag and low FPS but in $$$$ in trying to build a system that won't choke on it). What's an Oleg to do? Can't put the genie back in the bottle. Here's to luck.
Flyby out
PS I did like the video, but it made me think of a mission I crafted where the troop transports were to be shot down in time. That didn't happen, and they disgorged their passengers, and brought that online COOP to it's knees. Not pretty, and a little embarrassing since I created it.

[SturmKreator]

wow, looks great, but i didnt see AA, this new game support AA?

[philip.ed]

Guys, as I said before, BoB2 supports hundreds of A/C and with this, of course, there will be tons of parachutes in the sky in a big dogfight. The sim handles this well, and with the right PC there is little in way of fps loss (at least to make a difference to the human eye).

[whatnot]

We plan to open chute with separate button (as option probably).

This is a flight sim, not a parachute sim so that should be definately left out of the agenda and put that time on FM and DM.

[fireflyerz]

Yes sir , three bags full sir , ill get right on it sir , will there be anything else sir...:rolleyes:

[Flyby]

Guys, as I said before, BoB2 supports hundreds of A/C and with this, of course, there will be tons of parachutes in the sky in a big dogfight. The sim handles this well, and with the right PC there is little in way of fps loss (at least to make a difference to the human eye).
no offense, but you've seen "tons" of parachutes in BoB2? I've seen somewhat less than that in IL2 and it was a slide show. I'm only going by that as a concern when the parachutists are so articulated as in Oleg's video. I used to own Rowan's Bob, and can vouch for seeing tons of aircraft, though, and without a frame hit on a single core processor. I hope we see that many in SoW without a frame hit. ;) I can live with a simplified rendering of many 'chutes in the air, but if I ain't one of them I hope to be too busy to count them! :D
Flyby out

[AdMan]

This is a flight sim, not a parachute sim so that should be definately left out of the agenda and put that time on FM and DM.

are you being serious?

[philip.ed]

no offense, but you've seen "tons" of parachutes in BoB2? I've seen somewhat less than that in IL2 and it was a slide show. I'm only going by that as a concern when the parachutists are so articulated as in Oleg's video. I used to own Rowan's Bob, and can vouch for seeing tons of aircraft, though, and without a frame hit on a single core processor. I hope we see that many in SoW without a frame hit. ;) I can live with a simplified rendering of many 'chutes in the air, but if I ain't one of them I hope to be too busy to count them! :D
Flyby out

Bearing in mind the plane is in a state the chaps can get out, then yes! ;) It's all dependent on the amount of planes.
Of course you have a slight fps hit, which increases on lower systems, but compared to Il-2 the amount of planes you can have is in another world. If BoB is your thing, then it knocks Il-2 for six, even a modded Il-2 :D

[philip.ed]

This is a flight sim, not a parachute sim so that should be definately left out of the agenda and put that time on FM and DM.

You could do it in Combat flight-sim 2 so :rolleyes:

[AdMan]

So? Someone gives a barrel-full of great reasons why your preferred choice is unrealistic, and your response is "so?".

And what you describe as "stuffy" is the desire of some of us to have the game actually reflect the reality of the situation.

It might be fun to have a pilot stroll around the English countryside avoiding strafing planes, commandeering passing vehicles, swimming the channel back to France - it might be fun to have invisibility shields and F15s in 1940, but it isn't realistic.

People need to make up their minds whether they want a SIMULATOR or a first person shooter.

who said anything about first person or commandeering passing vehicles or swimming the channel? - I certainly didn't, you're confusing my posts with other posters.

I'm talking about adding simple 4-way controls to what may already be an existing run animation for the pilots - that's it. Your imagination is getting the best of you, lmfao @ equating being able to walk after a successful bailout to having "invisibility shields".

[Acid]

May I propose an optional dialogue message on a chute landing that states MIA / KIA / CAPTURED / RTB with the option to continue mission or exit?

Then in the case of continuing the mission, the pilot then heads home (if alive) .. ? Of course this would be purely for the users pleasure to see their man walking home, interaction would be nil.

(Of course I have no idea if you have a GUI interface tied in with the flying part of the game that can do this)

This sounds like the best option, seen other flight sims do this.
kind of like a roll the dice whether you land safely, make it back to base, get KIA, MIA or captured, instead of having to go through a long walk back to base (unless they want to do that).

[Zorin]

This sounds like the best option, seen other flight sims do this.
kind of like a roll the dice whether you land safely, make it back to base, get KIA, MIA or captured, instead of having to go through a long walk back to base (unless they want to do that).

That is already included in Il-2. Makes me wonder if you lot actually ever really played the game with 100% attention...

[whatnot]

are you being serious?

:grin:

[Flyby]

Oleg, aside from parachute concerns, did you say SoW was coded for 64bit? I've been searching, but apparently not using the correct search words. can you please clarify?
thanks,
Flyby out

[klem]

Of course you have a slight fps hit, which increases on lower systems, but compared to Il-2 the amount of planes you can have is in another world. If BoB is your thing, then it knocks Il-2 for six, even a modded Il-2

So philip.ed, how much did that 16 core 6.6GHz, 5Gb Cache rig with the 64Gb memory and nVidia 97000GTX (dual) cost you?

Big risk is that with so many options enabled, including billowing-silk simulation and the mutli-horde cross country escape chase there'll only be about 5 people able to afford the rig to run it. SoW servers could be pretty empty while they all pile back into Warclouds :-0

Seriously, when are we going to get the flipping game and why delay it with this peripheral nonsense?

[nearmiss]

Oleg

I recall reading where British Pilots during the BOB would YAW their aircraft during combat to throw off attackers.

When player is flying at YAW to left or right it would be a help, if AI were deceived.
Now the AI follows the programs mathematical trajectory of the enemy aircraft, regardless of YAW. YAW means nothing against AI attackers. Yawing can work Online, where real people are shooting at each other.

This way, if enemy was attacking them the pilots wanted the enemy to plan on targeting ahead of the aircraft by viewing the way the aircraft was positioned more than the actual path the aircraft was flying.

If the attacker wasn’t paying close attention, they would not get good shots on the aircraft they were attacking.

If player turns YAW position then application would cause Ai Attackers to plan attack on the player at the place expected from the direction of the YAW the player is facing, not the mathmatical trajectory the program describes.

I don’t think this would be necessary, except in the case of the player or player flight.

This way evasive maneuvers would be enhanced for the player, similar to real world situations.

[philip.ed]

Of course you have a slight fps hit, which increases on lower systems, but compared to Il-2 the amount of planes you can have is in another world. If BoB is your thing, then it knocks Il-2 for six, even a modded Il-2

So philip.ed, how much did that 16 core 6.6GHz, 5Gb Cache rig with the 64Gb memory and nVidia 97000GTX (dual) cost you?

Big risk is that with so many options enabled, including billowing-silk simulation and the mutli-horde cross country escape chase there'll only be about 5 people able to afford the rig to run it. SoW servers could be pretty empty while they all pile back into Warclouds :-0

Seriously, when are we going to get the flipping game and why delay it with this peripheral nonsense?

My rig is a dual core 2.0ghz with a 512mb 4650 ati card! :D so not the best rig you can get! Maybe even below average.
However, the BoB2 engine can take this. I mean, if I have 100's of A/C on screen at the same time then my fps will frop to a low number, and maybe the game will become a slideshow, but it is playable because I find these circumstances quite rare. ;)

[constant]

That is already included in Il-2. Makes me wonder if you lot actually ever really played the game with 100% attention...
You need to read my original post, which describes a situation that IL2 does not provide.
BTW I have over 1,000 flights in IL2 averaging 45minutes each.

[JG52Krupi]

You need to read my original post, which describes a situation that IL2 does not provide.
BTW I have over 1,000 flights in IL2 averaging 45minutes each.

LOL, does that mean that soon you will be able to fly for a civilian airline :P

[Insuber]

You need to read my original post, which describes a situation that IL2 does not provide.
BTW I have over 1,000 flights in IL2 averaging 45minutes each.

Gee I admire people keeping a flight record... or it's just an estimate?

[Abbeville-Boy]

you guys should take the arguments to PM or go to the zoo to duke it out :)

[Novotny]

This is the new zoo, unfortunately.

[Blackdog_kt]

First of all, terrific set of animations in this update. Thanks Oleg and team.


I think this is a good idea - if we don't model the entire universe then navigation in nighttime bomber missions will be farcical and silly.

Oleg should model all the stars and constellations out to 40 million light years, and adjust the pilot's viewpoint based on latitude / longitude.

Anything else is a total cop-out.

;)

It's not that far fetched, since stars are so far away they deviate from their paths only by a few fractions of a degree per year. It's been already done in Silent Hunter 3 back in the day and the night sky changes as the time passes.

It's not entirely essential, but it's a nice backup in case your compass gets damaged on a night raid, you would be able to navigate back to friendly airspace by using the stars. In real life there were sextants used to take accurate measurements and some hardcore SH3 fans used to navigate by stars, but the combination of radio navigation aids and smaller maps in a flight sim might make this redundant.

In any case, you don't need the entire universe because it's not visible from our night sky. The simplest way to have an accurate rendition would be to have a moving set of the major constellations, maybe add the most visible nebulas too, and superimpose them on a static backdrop/wallpaper of night sky. This way, the amount of objects is reduced sufficiently while still allowing for recognition of constellations and navigation by stars. Movement is also very simple, it all rotates around the north (or south, depending on your hemisphere) opposite to the earth's rotation as the hours pass, it's nothing fancy really.

This is a flight sim, not a parachute sim so that should be definately left out of the agenda and put that time on FM and DM.

Well, if it was something big and totally unnecessary i might agree, but it's just an extra keymap with a trigger. Not much time to save for FM and DM, since coding the "parachute open" command is about as much work as coding the "landing gear down" command.

It's just a separate keypress and it will enable people online to fall below the action before pulling the chord, with all the added benefits it brings: less chance of getting shot while hanging from your chute, less chance of having to fly through others' chutes or get lagged by them as well.




The good news is:Oleg is working in the details of the game,a sure signal that the main part is already done.
I believe that if you really want a new and revolutionary game, the answer will be in the details.

I think i'm going to go ahead and agree with this ;)

[Novotny]

Cool post - though for God's sake! Stop trying to increase the bloody workload!

I think the navigation thoughts are really sweet, though it seems pretty 'mod' or 'add-on' to me.

Also, press to bail (ctrl&e) but then a further key to deploy parachute - excellent idea.

Isn't it nice to hear realistic suggestions?

[BadAim]

Considering that Oleg had one guy working on just air currents and such inside clouds for two years, I'd find it hard to believe that the stars would not be accurate enough to navigate by already.

It's amazing to what extremes opinion on various aspects of the game go to. It makes me appreciate Oleg's level headed approach to development all the more.

[Novotny]

I could be wrong BadAim, however I think it's likely that if he had a programmer working on air currents and clouds for two years, it wasn't exclusively. If that made sense, then he'd have many individuals similarly employed in all others aspects of similar import: in short, there'd be dozens and dozens of specialists working on many aspects - all being well paid!

As ever: resources, resources resources.

I'm sure the area was looked at for the time mentioned - Oleg wouldn't fib. I just doubt that he meant that dedicated programmer(s) were on it for 24 months full-time, to the exclusion of all else.

[AndyJWest]

I could be wrong BadAim, however I think it's likely that if he had a programmer working on air currents and clouds for two years, it wasn't exclusively. If that made sense, then he'd have many individuals similarly employed in all others aspects of similar import: in short, there'd be dozens and dozens of specialists working on many aspects - all being well paid!

As ever: resources, resources resources.

I'm sure the area was looked at for the time mentioned - Oleg wouldn't fib. I just doubt that he meant that dedicated programmer(s) were on it for 24 months full-time, to the exclusion of all else.
You mean he hasn't had someone dedicated to researching London bus timetables for 1940, to ensure an authentic model? Cheapskate...

[genbrien]

did you say SoW was coded for 64bit? Flyby out

I hope so.
I still dont understand why they make 32bit programs:confused::-x

[BadAim]

I could be wrong BadAim, however I think it's likely that if he had a programmer working on air currents and clouds for two years, it wasn't exclusively. If that made sense, then he'd have many individuals similarly employed in all others aspects of similar import: in short, there'd be dozens and dozens of specialists working on many aspects - all being well paid!

As ever: resources, resources resources.

I'm sure the area was looked at for the time mentioned - Oleg wouldn't fib. I just doubt that he meant that dedicated programmer(s) were on it for 24 months full-time, to the exclusion of all else.

I'm just recalling what Oleg said, I believe it was in Mystic Puma's interview (I'm usually pretty good with that stuff). The fact of the matter (accuracy of my statement aside) is that the lions share of resources are going to make SOW the baddest flight sim in the land, bar none. I for one have no doubt that any side roads the project might take will have little or no effect on that goal.

The rest is all details.

That was my point. :)

Edit: actually, that was my second point, my first point was that Oleg is putting maximum resources into the sim environment, and that should include both the day and night sky. It's relative effort I'm speculating about, not specifics.

I need more coffee.

[Feuerfalke]

I hope so.
I still dont understand why they make 32bit programs:confused::-x

Because not everybody has a 64bit OS? :confused:

[genbrien]

Because not everybody has a 64bit OS? :confused:
Yes I know.....
that's that that I dont understand. Why people are still picking 32bit OSes if the 64bit give more thing for the same price ????? :confused:
And because there is still 32bit OSes, 64bit is not developping as fast as it should :(

[philip.ed]

Yes I know.....
that's that that I dont understand. Why people are still picking 32bit OSes if the 64bit give more thing for the same price ????? :confused:
And because there is still 32bit OSes, 64bit is not developping as fast as it should :(

Because is we have the OS at home, why would we want to spend extra money on a new one? When I bought my laptop, the 64 bit version was a fair-amount more expensive.

[genbrien]

Because is we have the OS at home, why would we want to spend extra money on a new one? When I bought my laptop, the 64 bit version was a fair-amount more expensive.
I just checked 5mins ago, and 64bit is 3$ more than 32bit......:rolleyes:
I'm not saying that you must upgrade to get 64bit, but if you upgrade.... why still chose 32bit.... non sense to me:confused:

[Novotny]

It's a fair point though - why buy Windows 7 32bit? I don't know.

[zauii]

Big deal? 64 vs 32 bit performance wise isn't anything to cheer about anyway.

[TheGrunch]

big deal? 64 vs 32 bit performance wise isn't anything to cheer about anyway.
ram?

[zauii]

ram?

Sure , yet no game(s) really benefits from 3+ gig ram in any significant way.

[Stranzki]

Sure , yet no game(s) really benefits from 3+ gig ram in any significant way.

Although a little bit extreme, Metro 2033 recommends 8gig ram. Normally you keep your O/S some time, so you must think of the requirements games will have in 1-2 years.

[ZaltysZ]

Sure , yet no game(s) really benefits from 3+ gig ram in any significant way.

DCS: BS, FC2 can use up to 4GB on x64 OS, because they are "Large address aware". Also, if I recall correctly, FSX SP2 is in the same group too.

[genbrien]

Sure , yet no game(s) really benefits from 3+ gig ram in any significant way.

you know that the graphical memory in your graphic card is share with your RAM......

so if you have 3gb of ram and and a graphic card with 1gb with a 32bit OS, you wont have acces to all your memory.

[zauii]

Yes we're talking extreme cases once again, but sure Crysis and Metro are rare but very beautiful and demanding games developed with the future in mind.

Most games are developed for the 360,Ps3 as a lead platform hence the slow development of requirements within PC gaming. 4870x2 with 2GB runs both Crysis and Metro smooth on highest on a 32 bit system without any problem.(tried yes)
Whilst you will obviously benefit if the game supports more, once again as i said to no significant extent yet, maybe with Olegs sim or future games but truth to be told 90% of the games rarely require or demand more than 2gb.
Add a very good processor and a good GPU on top of those two gb of ram and it will run just fine on highest settings with a little longer loading times.

[philip.ed]

:oI just checked 5mins ago, and 64bit is 3$ more than 32bit......:rolleyes:
I'm not saying that you must upgrade to get 64bit, but if you upgrade.... why still chose 32bit.... non sense to me:confused:

Yes, that is completely true. I wish that had been the same when I got my laptop! :P

[TheGrunch]

Yes we're talking extreme cases once again, but sure Crysis and Metro are rare but very beautiful and demanding games developed with the future in mind.
Crysis has wide jungle areas that are likely to require a lot of different high-resolution textures to look convincing - don't you see the parallel with a flight-sim there?
There's also a lot more going on in a flight sim than in those games where you rarely see more than a few people on screen at once and where their AI routines rarely have to do anything more complicated than establish a place where they are out of your line of fire when they aren't firing at you.

[zauii]

Crysis has wide jungle areas that are likely to require a lot of different high-resolution textures to look convincing - don't you see the parallel with a flight-sim there?
There's also a lot more going on in a flight sim than in those games where you rarely see more than a few people on screen at once and where their AI routines rarely have to do anything more complicated than establish a place where they are out of your line of fire when they aren't firing at you.

Agree, flight sims has a lot more going on, wither that be advanced ai, damage models, etc but it totally depends on the architecture of the engine and how much it stress the clients.

[TheGrunch]

Agree, flight sims has a lot more going on, wither that be advanced ai, damage models, etc but it totally depends on the architecture of the engine and how much it stress the clients.
Aye, although I suspect that SoW might be one of those that does so at higher settings. Judging from Il-2's engine it will be quite scaleable, though. PS: You need to update your upcoming hit titles in your signature cause two of them are already out. :p

[Novotny]

Nooo! forgive me, don't have time to politely argue with either of you, but nooo! you're quite wrong.

Rethink what you're saying :)

[zauii]

Aye, although I suspect that SoW might be one of those that does so at higher settings. Judging from Il-2's engine it will be quite scaleable, though. PS: You need to update your upcoming hit titles in your signature cause two of them are already out. :p

It's on my to-do-list of 2010.
Cheers :-) m8.

[AdMan]

people are still weary of driver issues and of course, software availability

[constant]

LOL, does that mean that soon you will be able to fly for a civilian airline :P

Hopefully, once ww2 is over I plan to do some commercial flying for one of those newer companies I heard about. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Gee I admire people keeping a flight record... or it's just an estimate?

That is actually an estimate, but I do save the records created by IL2 (DCG) for my completed campaigns where each missions time is kept. It's nice to revisit old missions from a logbook.

---

Thanks for joking over my point guys. It's coo..

---

Flight sims don't do "more" over "other" games. AI is AI, Terrain is terrain, objects are objects, etc.

Consider Oblivion, or Fallout 3. Games with weather systems. (And stars of some sort..)

It's really not a question of can it be done, it's simply will it be done. For the most part I believe companies try to avoid fine-tuning and feature adding because of the Duke Nukem Forever (r.i.p.) scenario. True perfection is a bad thing.

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

Big deal? 64 vs 32 bit performance wise isn't anything to cheer about anyway.

Correct, when it comes to current 32bit applications running on them. When 32bit is done away with and programs and games start coming out in native 64bit there will be a difference. It's the needless hanging on to 32bit OS that is slowing down the 64bit software advancement. I think windows 7 should have been 64bit only. Hopefully the next version of windows will finally kill 32bit.

[AKA_Tenn]

no i think its good to be able to run legacy code, and i hope 50 years from now, we'll still be able to run 8 bit code on whatever (quantum processor) type dealy we're using (assuming i haven't kicked the can by then)... the only thing holding us back (since windows XP 64 and the pentium 4 640) is people actually developing 64-bit appz (in most cases, 32bit is plenty enough, so why make a 64bit version?)

if you can still buy 32-bit processors, not outta some old warehouse, and not second hand, then your wasting your money, nowadays ALL pre-built machines are 64bit capable, and all motherboards/processors are 64 bit capable as well, again assuming their not a half a decade old...

[TheGrunch]

Flight sims don't do "more" over "other" games. AI is AI, Terrain is terrain, objects are objects, etc.

Consider Oblivion, or Fallout 3. Games with weather systems. (And stars of some sort..)
I think that's rather the point - all of those games have benefited heavily from having an excess of RAM compared to more shallow games, which was what we were discussing. In any case, how do you think the physics systems of FPS games compare with contemporary flight-sims, generally? How much do you think the AI of such a game needs to consider compared to that of a flight-sim? The AI in Oblivion and Fallout 3 is an absolute joke, and the promise of Radiant AI never came about, the AI in Oblivion and Fallout from the player's point of view is exactly the same as that of Morrowind - essentially "start combat if you steal my stuff, hit me or I hate you enough and have a high enough aggression number, run for help if you hurt me too much" - with the exception that people are to be found in different locations at different times of day and that they can pick up weapons from the floor if they feel like it.
I don't really see what weather systems have to do with it, either. The weather system in Oblivion and Fallout is simple (I don't know how much modding you've done of those two games), all that happens is that each exterior cell in the overall game grid is assigned to a region, and that region has a particular percentage chance of each weather type assigned happening when the weather changes every few hours after what amounts to a dice roll that chooses the weather. It's not really a weather system as such.
As for stars, it's simply a series of domes with different textures applied with varying transparency that rotate depending upon the season/time of day/etc. No atmospheric modelling as we see in the screenshots Oleg showed of the Stuka at various times of day.
The point is, both these games needed huge amounts of RAM and powerful CPUs to run well at high settings at release, even with such simple AI and weather systems and so on. Comparing flight-sims to FPSes, even in Il-2 we require some fairly complicated modeling of aerodynamics and ballistics occurring essentially non-stop (although realism in ballistics is usually attempted in FPSes nowadays, it doesn't have to take such account of factors as relative wind), we need to have an AI that can effectively fly an aircraft without a) exceeding critical angles of attack constantly b) flying past the physical limits of the pilot (the AI are limited to 4G maneuvers, I think) and c) that understands how to effectively maneuver to a good firing solution given the capabilities of the aircraft it's flying and the position and capabilities of the opponent. Compare this to the average 2010 FPS AI and we're already talking about a more demanding AI in the 2005 4.01 incarnation of Il-2, never mind SoW. And crucially, given the focus of the next game on the Battle of Britain, Oleg and team are almost certainly aiming to have the game running reasonably on medium settings with a lot of aircraft on screen at once, after all the Battle of Britain was primarily about small groups of fighters intercepting large groups of bombers and fighters. How many FPSes do you see with more than a handful of people on-screen at once nowadays? The only FPS games that approach flight-sims in terms of difficulty of implementation would be tactical shooters (lots of fairly complicated decision-making AI and a basic physics engine), and how many of those often have lots of people on the screen? Only one that I can think of, ARMA 2, and that devours PCs even on medium settings.
So yeah, no wonder there are only a few flight-sim developers left, and thank God they have the dedication to work within such a difficult genre. :)

[constant]

Eheh, you make alot of really good points, if I was gonna quote you it would be the whole post :) You're not wrong especially when it comes to first person shooters eating computers alive these days!

However the level of difficulty for creation of the game types is still the same.

Physics is physics no matter how you roll the dice, its the implemented design that brings you flaws and limitations, not the type of game. I've used physics libraries that are powerful and fast and can be used for any game type. Aerodynamics is something else on its own, but with programming its not any different than say the basic ai: "if this occurs, do this".

Speaking of AI. FPS games do have really sad AI. Any AI is difficult. But the truth is in il2 the AI is the same as in FPS games. When I had the chance to peak at the AI code for IL2, I was amazed at how simplistic it was. I also saw code that seemed to give AI an unlimited and unreleastic "afterburner" (I believe that is exactly what they called it in the code, too)

Simplistic is not wrong, especially when it comes to programming, its always the best solution if its simple. :) But the AI you talk about and that actually exists are far from each other, flight sim or first person shooter.

The truth: The AI basically have pre-programmed flight manuevers and "characteristics" that are "executed" whenever a given situation exists, it is not "greater" than any fps AI, it's the same thing actually.

This is why the AI can go all wonky or do nothing at all independant of skill level, because they get caught in a situation not pre-programmed.

I was also surprised (but not completely..) to see in the code that the AI always were given the player's exact speed, location and altitude and maybe some other stuff as well, for all levels of ai skill (rookie, average, veteran, ace).

And if you watch the AI land, you can clearly see they are not actually "flying" like you and I would be flying.

FPS AI does the same thing. They get pre-programmed things to do in certain situations, but of course, and more common these days, they don't receive enough programming and therefore lack the neccessary reactions for many situations they run into.

FPS games these days are sad, focusing only on fancy shader/graphic technology, slamming the gpu with wasted effort just to put out a mediocre (or less) game that looks "pretty".

AI has not evolved much in games, no matter what type it is.

Don't get me wrong, AI is not easy, but again, the AI you talk about and the AI that actually exists are not the same.

I should wrap this up, so again, my point is the same. What it really comes down to is the game company and how well they pay their programmers.

I'm an atheist but Thank god 1c maddox is on il2 and sow :)

Also for an example of a non-pc killer fps game, check out Darkest Of Days was a history channel game, it uses a good physics engine, and for the most part has lots n lots of enemy on screen (and friendlies sometimes too) Of course the game isn't that great, but fighting off 100 or so enemies with a musket and a six shooter is ALWAYS fun. I run that baby on a CELERON (worst of them all!) 2.4ghz oc'd 2.9, 1.5 gig mem, geforce 850 or something like that, i forgot its model name, anyway, the same system i run il2 on and il2 still has comparable trouble with more than 8 planes. (not to mention ground units) and I've tweaked il2 as far as I can. Anyway.. time to switch class!

[TheGrunch]

Oh yes, of course, much of what the AI do is just reaction-based "if this happens, do this", but like I say, the complexity involved is quite different. In an FPS you have "point gun at player and shoot" then "oh no you're out of ammo, walk behind a wall" (if you're very lucky!), where in combat flightsims there's quite a lot more involved in producing an AI that even vaguely challenges the player.
What I think would be an interesting experiment would be to run a neural networking AI through playing a game, and then take snapshots of this AI at various stages in its development and use these snapshots to produce a rule-set for the actual game's AI implementation with each snapshot being a different difficulty level or "personality" of AI. Although I have no idea how feasible that idea would be.

[constant]

Interesting.. Don't forget even Quake3's bots had the programming to "collect armor if low on armor", "get ammo", "run away if hurt and find healing, avoid player", and I believe the bots even stuck with teammates if their teamwork level was high enough. Also capture the flag has a completely different set of rules that older games ran all the time! Stuff you don't see anymore.. The same bots could play capture the flag, team deathmatch or free-for-all. Anyway.

I have no clue as to what neural networking AI is.

I can't wait to see what they did for sow.

[TheGrunch]

It's sad isn't it, how generally AI has declined rather than improved - have a read about neural networking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network) if you're interested. Obviously it would be necessary to give the AI a much more complex starting point that the robots which learn not to crash into things or whatever. Looking forward to seeing SoW's AI as well, although I'm not holding out that much hope since the quality of the AI stayed pretty much static for all of the Il-2 series.

[constant]

I can understand that AI not improving over the il2 series, basically each new "game" was simply a mod, just added content. Generally you wouldn't expect too much engine-revision in mods like ai-programming. They did let the AI stay in the lower-end aspect of game improvement. However its good to know Daidalos has already done some AI improvements for 4.10 .. I wanna lose ai in clouds so bad it hurts :)

I read the wikipage, I get a basic understanding. I might read more cuz it kinda makes me want to give it a try. I've always tried to program ai systems, never really getting much out of it, 10 years ago. maybe I've learned something since then.. The hard part is recognition of adaptative (?) changes and adapting.

[He111]

Oleg should just state, SOW is 64 bit, end of story, you want da best then upgrade! i know I would, I actually plan to buy 64 bit computer soon. I suspect many here would upgrade too! Oleg could then get ahuge kick-back from DELL computers or Microsoft! (joking)


Another disturbing point on chutes, I just watched a doco on the Luthwaffe's desparate act of ramming enemy bombers late in the war ... apparently American fighters would gun down german pilots in their chutes, who were lucky enough to survive the collision!! .. made my blood run cold.

.

[BadAim]

To the best of my knowledge, "kill the pilot" was standing orders for US escorts for a time (I don't believe the method was specified), which kind of makes sense in the horrible math of war. It's a testament to the Moral fortitude of these guys that it wasn't a more common practice. (I think it's safe to say that the average warrior won't do to his enemy what he doesn't want done to him, if he's thinking that far ahead)

[Flyby]

Another disturbing point on chutes, I just watched a doco on the Luthwaffe's desparate act of ramming enemy bombers late in the war ... apparently American fighters would gun down german pilots in their chutes, who were lucky enough to survive the collision!! .. made my blood run cold.

.
I believe there were chute-shooters on both sides in that war. No one can say which side started that practice first. Enough blame to go around, I suspect. If you want to think about making your blood run cold, think about the airmen who parachuted safely to the ground from burning fighters or spinning bombers only to be captured and killed by hostile civilian mobs. War is Hell. It should make your blood run cold. A chance to kill an enemy was just that, and both sides took advantage of it. That's the reality of it.
Flyby out

[LukeFF]

s!

Have all the updates Stopped ?

Regards

RAF_Smiladon

The heck are you talking about? Have you looked at the stickies or searched for posts made by Oleg?