Civilians?

[artjunky]

Are Civilians being modeled?

I made this request years ago and I was wondering if it's being implemented, in any way, in BOB. The game always felt some somewhat devoid of life. Except for soldiers running for cover (nice touch), there were really just buildings and machines.

I always thought it would be interesting to position civilians in the game. For example I thought it would be interesting to position people at railroads, markets...cars. I also thought it would be good to code the buildings as civilian vs military targets. For example: trains stations are legitimate targets whereas houses are not so much.

So, as a pilot trying not to kill civilians, as a general rule, your skills at doing this and still hitting the "target" could be evaluated at the end of the mission. If you failed and destroyed a marketplace and, say, 50 people, your score would not be as good as some pilot who hit the target and only killed one person.

For the sim, I think it would be a good way to increase ranking and skill if there is a consequence to failing to precisely bomb your targets. It would also be a disincentive to the "violence" associated with having civilians in a war game.

Also, perhaps people could be used as "cameras." So, wherever there are people or groups of people, their positions can be used as camera positions.

On the same note, I also think animals could be included for the same reasons. Animals on farms, animals in cities, animals pulling carts (cats, dogs, horses, cows, chickens).

In previous versions, the decision was made to keep civilians out of the game because they didn't want it given a violence ranking in Europe. I'd be interested to see if this idea has moved ahead since the game originally came out.

[Borsch]

You have my 100% support for the request!

Civvie traffic makes long flying more interesting, and brings the world alive.

[philip.ed]

Flying over a school and watching the children running, waving, and laughing would just be awesome. No, i am not a paedophille :D (or how ever it is selt :P )

[leggit]

Flying over a school and watching the children running, waving, and laughing would just be awesome.

omg you created the school bomb run!;)

btw yes great idea...it will eat into frame rates tho:(

[Skoshi Tiger]

The problem is that if you include objects like that there will be a certain percentage of people that will target them out of preference. It would also lead to vartiey of tasteless video's and movie sequences.

I wonder if colateral damage statistics could be included in the mission debreifings? In civilian areas a population density could be included in the mission map and an estimated casualties could be calculated without the resource hungry 3d models. If a mission requires a pin-point attack on a target we could use it to fail the mission if colateral damage exceeds a set amount.

Cheers.

[leggit]

The problem is that if you include objects like that there will be a certain percentage of people that will target them out of preference. It would also lead to vartiey of tasteless video's and movie sequences.

I wonder if colateral damage statistics could be included in the mission debreifings? In civilian areas a population density could be included in the mission map and an estimated casualties could be calculated without the resource hungry 3d models. If a mission requires a pin-point attack on a target we could use it to fail the mission if colateral damage exceeds a set amount.

Cheers.

easy tiger its just a game.;)

[secretone]

I guess that's what happens when you take the most destructive war in history and then try to turn it into a form of entertainment.

The fact is that WWII was a total war and that civilians were targeted mercillessly by both sides. During the Battle of Britain many of the civilian deaths were not simply collateral damage - it was done on purpose.

I understand political correctness and economic expedience all too well but let's not sacrifice historical accuracy. This game has the potential of being a good educational tool for people if the developers decide to present the whole story of the campaign in a balanced way. This will take some courage.

[Daniël]

I don't know if firefighters are already being modelled. It would be nice to see how firefighters put out fires.

[Borsch]

Even simply civilian truck/cars/buses would be good - empty roads are immersion killer. Running for cover pedestrians would be icing on the cake...

[zapatista]

Even simply civilian truck/cars/buses would be good -..

this is being modeled already. there are london double decker buses following a programmed bus route, and are even able to stop at buss stops iirc. civilian cars driving around can even park themselves. i havnt seen oleg mention it, but i presume this will also include some civilian trucks

i suspect initially this will be introduced in a limited form (low on cpu/gpu drain), but it is designed to increase in volume/complexity later

one element i hope he is including, and i believe he is ( might not be 100% visually modeled from the start, but all signs are it is incorporated in the engine), is that we will actually see supply trains and supply truck convoys carry logistical supplies for airfields and combat units at the front. if you interrupt or destroy those supplies sufficiently you will be able to affect the performance ability of the troops/airfields (in the same way that destroying fuel dumps at an airfield makes that airfield low on fuel supplies till new deliveries arrive). destroying bridges/roads will similarly affect new deliveries (with some predetermined "repair rates" added).

mig alley already had that idea implemented in some limited form 10 yrs ago, getting a more modern version of the same idea in BoB would be great !

[Borsch]

Sounds awesome! Keeping fingers crossed it actually happens:)

[zapatista]

Sounds awesome! Keeping fingers crossed it actually happens:)

this is one snip of info oleg previously provided to related questions (there are many related bits he released over the last few years on this)

the question to him was (in this forum):

2) will there be civilian road and rail traffic in BoB ?
- right now in il2 when you see a truck or car on the road it is always military (even the bicycles), same with the trains they are always a military target. if we have some civilian road traffic (few buses and cars maybe doing a programmed "loop" journey) and trains in england (and they existed in ww2 period) then points could be deducted for destroying innocent civilian objects, and that means we need to correctly identify a target before engaging it, not just shoot at anything that moves !

oleg's answer

2. It is possible. Probably we will minimize it in release, becasue of hit to resources, but in general Buses already now can travel by their own trajectory in a city and make stops as well cars will try to find place for parking in a end "waypoint". It is working already. Just would repeat the amount of such action probably we will need to minimize due to resource eater feature. But for Editor we will offere to use it for enduser to modify scenery, etc...

[zapatista]

some more snips along a similar vein (the greater plan for BoB)

question: 99) Oleg I have seen that models of planes and vehicles have hinges that can be manipulated. Is this also a feature that the player will be allowed to use? Like opening hatches on a tankturret or opening the cockpit of a fighterplane?
And will this feature also be applied to human figures? So the player will be able to position the arms and such of the body?

oleg's answer From the beginning we are making all things openable... I dopn't know how many of these features will go in final reelase... but as with Il-2 this means we will modify the code that to use the BASE input at initial development. With the release we will have AA-guns controlbale by player... this is intersting for Online, but it will also works in a single missions, if you only like to create such.

And as I told... the code will be partially open in terms of modification with the use out of normal fixed parameters and code servers...

In time I think we may see even U-boat controlable The water is transparent in engine.

[SlipBall]

I had a favorite mission that I had made in IL2. It was a ground based mission that had 50 vehicles on the road. They were jeeps, buses, fuel trucks all on the roads as singles, through out the scope of the map. My machine seemed to handle it well, but I had a hell of time finding many of those moving possible target's. Its a big map, with lots of roads and eyestrain, looking and searching non stop. But when one was found, it sure was fun to make an ID with a low pass, and if one of ours I would tip my wings and move on. If Oleg could offer human figures in the objects list, I think it would add a lot to the map, while not causing too big of a PC hit. The vehicles could always be just added by the mission designer.

[artjunky]

I think it was about 4 or 5 years ago that I brought this up last time...it seems to have a better reaction this time.

To add to what others said, having no life in the game is a killer and with how beautifully this sim looks, it's too bad that it's not complete.

I've heard Oleg's remarks about the buses and I'm TOTALLY for keeping the number of "civilians" to a minimum. Of course it would be great if they were actually 3d with natural movement on paths like the buses but even if the are stationary, I think that would work pretty well.

I also think humans would help put things into better scale. When flying over cities, at times, the buildings seem somewhat out of scale and to have people near them, it might make it more natural.

I would really like having people out on farms.

It would also be interesting to be able to build columns of refugees leaving battle areas. Of course, in WWII Concentration camps put people on Death marches and it might be interesting to be forced, as a pilot, to pay attention to details and not just shoot everything on the roads.

Again, I keep coming back to the using civilians to make it a more interesting by creating an incentive NOT to kill civilians.

I've been reading "The Monuments Men." It's a historical book about the Soldiers who were put into action to guard the irreplaceable monuments and artwork of Europe. As The Allied Soldiers move in through Europe, the Germans were moving artwork out of France and then through Germany. There was actually a Burt Lancaster movie called "The Train," that followed part of this story. In this case, it was a train and the French underground (in the movie) painted the top of the cars with artwork, white so as to warn the Allied bombers.

Anyways, I think it would be VERY interesting to set up scenarios like this.

Oleg, please make this available.

[Novotny]

it's too bad that it's not complete.

It'll never be complete, old bean. When someone finally builds the absolute-universe emulator, you and I will both be dead and will not care for one.

Why do people find it so impossible to understand that at current technology levels, we cannot implement the world, or even a fraction of it.

What we do is reproduce enough in a player-experience to try to give that person the impression they are, for instance, flying a plane. Over England, say.

For the love of God, would people please stop asking for detail that is beyond this decade's processing power?

[AndyJWest]

It'll never be complete, old bean. When someone finally builds the absolute-universe emulator, you and I will both be dead and will not care for one.

Why do people find it so impossible to understand that at current technology levels, we cannot implement the world, or even a fraction of it.

What we do is reproduce enough in a player-experience to try to give that person the impression they are, for instance, flying a plane. Over England, say.

For the love of God, would people please stop asking for detail that is beyond this decade's processing power?
Well said.

And can people also note that just because a feature could be modelled in SoW:BoB, that doesn't mean it will. It isn't just a question of processing power, other resources are finite too.

[zauii]

Well said.

And can people also note that just because a feature could be modelled in SoW:BoB, that doesn't mean it will. It isn't just a question of processing power, other resources are finite too.

Exactly :)
People need to realize that because something is possible doesn't mean its gonna be implemented. Any engine of any game has endless more possibilities than what's actually included in a specific game, unreal , cryengine.. (aka It's a ******* engine)

Besides why would we be interested in a simulated world, we are here for a flight sim.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Of course there are other ways of developing an immersive environment for a combat sim experience. But for the life of me I cant bring myself to ask my wife to get up at four o'clock, dress up as my batman, polish my boots wake me up with a cup of tea before cooking me a hearty meal of kippers prior to my first mission of the the day!

Personally I think it would be more likely to get Oleg to include civilian targets!


Cheers! :)

[fireflyerz]

Hmmm , I seem to remember another groupe of people who went around telling others what they could and couldnt say and how they should and should'nt be thinking... now what were they called , oh well perhaps it will come to me later.:rolleyes:

[BadAim]

Besides why would we be interested in a simulated world, we are here for a flight sim.

Perhaps because airplanes are flown in the world? .......Just sayin'.

[Daniël]

Some ideas for the future: Maybe actions of resistance groups can be modelled or the airforce can help the resistance, like this: Some Mosquitos bombed a Gestapo-headquarter in Denmark at the 25th of March 1945 so all the prisoners could escape. (You can find the story and some more stories at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito_operational_history.)

[Avimimus]

When someone finally builds the absolute-universe emulator, you and I will both be dead and will not care for one.

But, at least you'll be emulated... ;)

[Avimimus]

Some ideas for the future: Maybe actions of resistance groups can be modelled or the airforce can help the resistance, like this: Some Mosquitos bombed a Gestapo-headquarter in Denmark at the 25th of March 1945 so all the prisoners could escape. (You can find the story and some more stories at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito_operational_history.)

The Lysander is being modelled as an AI aircraft...

So we can certainly hope.

[Novotny]

Hmmm , I seem to remember another groupe of people who went around telling others what they could and couldnt say and how they should and should'nt be thinking... now what were they called , oh well perhaps it will come to me later.:rolleyes:

Lol! We're not trying to be nazis about it, it's just that quite a lot of people have very unrealistic expectations which they can be quite adamant about. I do try to be polite in my posts, but it's tiresome to read well thought-out, highly detailed but completely unrealistic requests.

[Insuber]

Hmmm , I seem to remember another groupe of people who went around telling others what they could and couldnt say and how they should and should'nt be thinking... now what were they called , oh well perhaps it will come to me later.:rolleyes:

hmmm ... priests ? :D

[TheGrunch]

hmmm ... priests ? :D
Bingo! Some people's expectations are really starting to get quite ridiculous. This game has enough of a hype-complex already without people being so silly.

[AndyJWest]

Quite right Grunch.

Perhaps Oleg should release two versions of SoW:BoB: a flight sim for the 'realists', and a 'universal simulator' for the dreamers. Expected release dates are 'realist' version within six months*, 'dreamers'... well never really, they can think of new things to add faster than anyone could possibly program them in...

*Ok, maybe I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...

[zauii]

Quite right Grunch.

Perhaps Oleg should release two versions of SoW:BoB: a flight sim for the 'realists', and a 'universal simulator' for the dreamers. Expected release dates are 'realist' version within six months*, 'dreamers'... well never really, they can think of new things to add faster than anyone could possibly program them in...

*Ok, maybe I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...

Well said, at least there are a few folks with brains around here :-P

[zapatista]

I had a favorite mission that I had made in IL2. It was a ground based mission that had 50 vehicles on the road. They were jeeps, buses, fuel trucks all on the roads as singles, through out the scope of the map. My machine seemed to handle it well, but I had a hell of time finding many of those moving possible target's. Its a big map, with lots of roads and eyestrain, looking and searching non stop. But when one was found, it sure was fun to make an ID with a low pass, and if one of ours I would tip my wings and move on. If Oleg could offer human figures in the objects list, I think it would add a lot to the map, while not causing too big of a PC hit. The vehicles could always be just added by the mission designer.

exactemundo !

there are several problems with the current empty and dead il2 world we have now, and by the sounds of it oleg recognizes this to and is in the process of addressing both elements

1) for the lifeless empty world of il2, oleg is now adding "life"
- some animals will be added as static objects and have been confirmed (? cows, horses, sheep in fields ?). and some bird groups/flocks will fly around and exist as "objects" you might hit (bird strike)
- i hope this will include some further objects like tractors moving around in fields, some civilian cars/trucks/bicycles on roads (driving a preset trajectory or loop probably). civilian ships on the water to, fishing boats have been seen in screen shots already.
- airfields will have a certain amount of AI ground activity now, probably jeeps and trucks driving around. ambulances and fire crews responding to damaged aircraft landing is likely. refuel and rearming on the ground will get some sort of animated ground crews

2) the other aspect is having to identify ground targets before you engage them, so it isnt the current "shoot anything that moves".
- even over enemy territory there should be civilian traffic, and penalties for hitting them (even some civilian air traffic ?)

about having individuals modeled and function in an animated form, we already had the single cyclist modeled in il2, having more of this type of single human action should be a logical progression for BoB (farmer in field, a pedestrian walking around in town, single mechanic/technician/pilot walking around the airfield, civilian cyclist on road ?). the articulated skeleton oleg developed for pilot and aircrew could be adapted to function in that role i presume (maybe in a lower detail mode, like the ships/vehicles are lower detail then the high polygon aircraft.
- i havnt seen oleg post much about it so far (other then as human animations he is planning on for refueling/rearming etc), but if it is possible in the new engine and he adds a few "active" objects like this, then it can be added on or expanded on later (3e parties being able to develop this further ?)
- modeling groups of individual humans marching/moving will probably be the most difficult from a technical point for programmers and seems unlikely for a while. like troops marching on their way to the front, columns of prisoners, roads clogged with refugees, etc .. and would be the most cpu/gpu hogging.

what i am hoping for in BoB, and there are direct confirmations that oleg is adding several of these elements already, is to get a living breathing active world to have our air war in.

to take this one step further, i am hoping we will also be able to fly some transport and resupply missions in unarmed or even civilian planes (mail, parts, troop transport etc). i initially this might be missions like flying supplies into Stalingrad for the germans, air dropping some allied supplies to the french resistance at night at a specific grid position (with points obtained depending on accuracy), picking up downed pilots from french fields, etc.. other missions might be flying photo reconnaissance over enemy lines etc

hopefully eventually the dynamic campaign engine will be able to "task" missions like that in the same way that combat missions are available for fighters and bombers.

[ChrisDNT]

The problem is that if you include objects like that there will be a certain percentage of people that will target them out of preference. It would also lead to vartiey of tasteless video's and movie sequences.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Simple, to avoid the legal actions of the PC police, just make the civilian objects not destroyable.

[zauii]

The problem is that if you include objects like that there will be a certain percentage of people that will target them out of preference. It would also lead to vartiey of tasteless video's and movie sequences.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Simple, to avoid the legal actions of the PC police, just make the civilian objects not destroyable.

I doubt that there would be any controversy surrounding SoW BoB at all. We're talking a flight sim here which means no gore, which is usually the number one thing people complain about if it involves civilians.

Secondly as long as you're not tasked with killing civilians on purpose i see no problem at all, the PC police has enough to do with games like GTA and even there Jack Thompson and his fellow babies failed. This is the least of issues Oleg has.

Then there are some folks around here that think this Flight sim is gonna be the new multi verse simulator, maybe it's time to wake up...or someone is gonna get disappointed at launch..

[whatnot]

A lot of threads seem to have a very similar lifecycle here these days:

1) A good (well personal preference ofcourse, but atleast feasible) idea is introduced
2) Someone envisions that even further, maybe even to unrealistic heights
3) A horde of unofficial resource controllers and priority polices hit the thread with "BOB is not a universe / farm / car / prison break / ground force / tree / cooking / whatever simulator! Stick to the essentials, resources are limited."
4) The original idea of the thread and the possible brainstorming around the topic slowly fades away

Interesting =)

[SlipBall]

exactemundo !

there are several problems with the current empty and dead il2 world we have now, and by the sounds of it oleg recognizes this to and is in the process of addressing both elements

1) for the lifeless empty world of il2, oleg is now adding "life"
- some animals will be added as static objects and have been confirmed (? cows, horses, sheep in fields ?). and some bird groups/flocks will fly around and exist as "objects" you might hit (bird strike)
- i hope this will include some further objects like tractors moving around in fields, some civilian cars/trucks/bicycles on roads (driving a preset trajectory or loop probably). civilian ships on the water to, fishing boats have been seen in screen shots already.
- airfields will have a certain amount of AI ground activity now, probably jeeps and trucks driving around. ambulances and fire crews responding to damaged aircraft landing is likely. refuel and rearming on the ground will get some sort of animated ground crews

2) the other aspect is having to identify ground targets before you engage them, so it isnt the current "shoot anything that moves".
- even over enemy territory there should be civilian traffic, and penalties for hitting them (even some civilian air traffic ?)

about having individuals modeled and function in an animated form, we already had the single cyclist modeled in il2, having more of this type of single human action should be a logical progression for BoB (farmer in field, a pedestrian walking around in town, single mechanic/technician/pilot walking around the airfield, civilian cyclist on road ?). the articulated skeleton oleg developed for pilot and aircrew could be adapted to function in that role i presume (maybe in a lower detail mode, like the ships/vehicles are lower detail then the high polygon aircraft.
- i havnt seen oleg post much about it so far (other then as human animations he is planning on for refueling/rearming etc), but if it is possible in the new engine and he adds a few "active" objects like this, then it can be added on or expanded on later (3e parties being able to develop this further ?)
- modeling groups of individual humans marching/moving will probably be the most difficult from a technical point for programmers and seems unlikely for a while. like troops marching on their way to the front, columns of prisoners, roads clogged with refugees, etc .. and would be the most cpu/gpu hogging.

what i am hoping for in BoB, and there are direct confirmations that oleg is adding several of these elements already, is to get a living breathing active world to have our air war in.

to take this one step further, i am hoping we will also be able to fly some transport and resupply missions in unarmed or even civilian planes (mail, parts, troop transport etc). i initially this might be missions like flying supplies into Stalingrad for the germans, air dropping some allied supplies to the french resistance at night at a specific grid position (with points obtained depending on accuracy), picking up downed pilots from french fields, etc.. other missions might be flying photo reconnaissance over enemy lines etc

hopefully eventually the dynamic campaign engine will be able to "task" missions like that in the same way that combat missions are available for fighters and bombers.



All very good ideas!...that mission that I made was very time consuming to fly because of the few vehicles scattered all over the map. To add life over the entire map may not be possible because of the PC hit. Hundreds of vehicles would be needed to make the map more interesting, and more true to life, but it sure would be cool:grin:

[AndyJWest]

A lot of threads seem to have a very similar lifecycle here these days:

1) A good (well personal preference ofcourse, but atleast feasible) idea is introduced
2) Someone envisions that even further, maybe even to unrealistic heights
3) A horde of unofficial resource controllers and priority polices hit the thread with "BOB is not a universe / farm / car / prison break / ground force / tree / cooking / whatever simulator! Stick to the essentials, resources are limited."
4) The original idea of the thread and the possible brainstorming around the topic slowly fades away

Interesting =)
Something that might have been 'a good idea' earlier in the SoW development cycle but that only gets suggested now is unlikely to be incorporated into the release version unless it needs minimal work, I'd have thought, and many of the suggestions are anything but simple. One of the 'resources' involved - possibly the most significant one - is development time. If 1C:Maddox were to incorporate even only the best 'good ideas' they'd risk never actually releasing anything - it is a darned sight easier to think of an idea than implement it.

You might argue 'include it in a later version' - well yes, but before you do that, at least see what version 1 actually does first.

And pointing out that resources are finite isn't 'policing', it is stating an elementary fact.

[artjunky]

Something that might have been 'a good idea' earlier in the SoW development cycle but that only gets suggested now is unlikely to be incorporated into the release version unless it needs minimal work, I'd have thought, and many of the suggestions are anything but simple. One of the 'resources' involved - possibly the most significant one - is development time. If 1C:Maddox were to incorporate even only the best 'good ideas' they'd risk never actually releasing anything - it is a darned sight easier to think of an idea than implement it.

You might argue 'include it in a later version' - well yes, but before you do that, at least see what version 1 actually does first.

And pointing out that resources are finite isn't 'policing', it is stating an elementary fact.

So you're saying this is a good idea if it was introduced earlier in development?

I suggested this idea about 6-7 years ago. This was WELL before there was even talk of BOB so I think you must agree this is possible.

I also remember when Flight Sims didn't have ANY ground objects and the same sort of people said the SAME sort of things. And now today "it's preposterous to suggest new ideas." And even though Oleg has told us, HIMSELF, that they plan to have civilian buses, that run on a path, people STILL insist that THEY are the arbiters of ALL good ideas.

For example, while some here will "Geek-out" on the climb ratio of the BF-109, I really couldn't care less about it. It's just not something that interests me but I understand that some people have different ideas that DON'T include scenery. What interests me in this sim is flying in a "realistic" environment. To me, civilians bring a level of realism that doesn't CURRENTLY exist.

If it's a bad idea, fine, argue on that merit. However, what people are REALLY saying is "don't make suggestions unless it's a suggestion "I" agree with. If I agree with the idea then they're TOTALLY possible."

Civilians in the sim are totally possible. Most likely, some executive somewhere made the choice and that was that.

As far as the position that people shouldn't use the Civilians in the Sim to make violent videos, well, I wonder if that means Legos should stop making civilian Legos because someone might make a YouTube Video of their Military Legos killing the "civilian" Lego sets.

[AndyJWest]

So you're saying this is a good idea if it was introduced earlier in development?
I wasn't commenting on any particular idea, I was responding to whatnot's last post - the one I quoted. Whah I am actually REALLY saying is that there are finite resources. Nothing more, nothing less. Is this so difficult to understand?

[artjunky]

A lot of threads seem to have a very similar lifecycle here these days:

1) A good (well personal preference ofcourse, but atleast feasible) idea is introduced
2) Someone envisions that even further, maybe even to unrealistic heights
3) A horde of unofficial resource controllers and priority polices hit the thread with "BOB is not a universe / farm / car / prison break / ground force / tree / cooking / whatever simulator! Stick to the essentials, resources are limited."
4) The original idea of the thread and the possible brainstorming around the topic slowly fades away

Interesting =)

I've noticed that same trend.

[major_setback]

The problem is that if you include objects like that there will be a certain percentage of people that will target them out of preference. It would also lead to vartiey of tasteless video's and movie sequences.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Simple, to avoid the legal actions of the PC police, just make the civilian objects not destroyable.

+1
That was exactly my thought too!

Lots of people, who run for cover if an aircraft appears, and who dive for cover as it approaches, and who survive the ensuing attack.
They should of course stand around talking about their experience after the attack :-)

[artjunky]

Whah I am actually REALLY saying is that there are finite resources.

Yes, and let me continue your idea...'for things that I like.'

I totally understand that. As long as they focus on "your" areas of interest...(reports on how many bullet holes are in your plane, etc, etc...) that's where the resources should go? In another thread you said something to the affect that "This game is supposed to be about flying..." Well, that's an opinion but it's not held by everyone.

Had Oleg not thought it important, he wouldn't have bothered building all those beautiful factories and houses that the arbiters insisted would be cpu hogs.

[Igo kyu]

I also remember when Flight Sims didn't have ANY ground objects
I don't. :evil:

There were ground objects in F16 Combat Pilot on the Atari ST, there were ground objects in Falcon, there were ground objects in MiG 29, there were ground objects in Snow Strike. There may have been ground objects in Anco's Jump Jet, but it was so rubbish I didn't bother flying it long enough to find them.

[AndyJWest]

Yes, and let me continue your idea...'for things that I like.'

I totally understand that. As long as they focus on "your" areas of interest...(reports on how many bullet holes are in your plane, etc, etc...) that's where the resources should go? In another thread you said something to the affect that "This game is supposed to be about flying..." Well, that's an opinion but it's not held by everyone.

Had Oleg not thought it important, he wouldn't have bothered building all those beautiful factories and houses that the arbiters insisted would be cpu hogs.

Why should I 'let you continue'? Since you clearly can't read my mind I don't see why I should.

If you really don't think "this game is supposed to be about flying" then what do you think it is about?

[artjunky]

Yes, of course it's about "Flying." People differ in what they find interesting about this sim. Some geek out about the climb and turn rate of one plane vs another to others its about "experience" of flying. It's about feeling like you're immersed in a real world when you look out the cockpit at the objects below and feeling like you're somewhat in this world they have created.

It's bewildering to me to think that people are ACTUALLY arguing not to have more complexity to a Sim.

How dare people offer suggestions...

[zapatista]

I also think humans would help put things into better scale. When flying over cities, at times, the buildings seem somewhat out of scale and to have people near them, it might make it more natural.

agreed ! the good news is:

1) oleg seems to have listened/been-aware of the large amount of "feedback" about the problem with incorrect proportional sizes in the il2 series (buildings / vehicles / humans / pilots / objects). i think some were "out" by around 30% iirc. for BoB the rules are much stricter, and all indications are that proportions/sizes will now be correct (i have seen screenshots of foo'bar the german modeler using human figures next to the buildings he created for BoB, but cant see them on his website anymore)

2) most of us really should only fly 95% of the time in il2/BoB with the correct FoV setting for our individual monitor sizes, so it is set to the exact field of view the monitor occupies. that way you would get the correct/realistic "sensation of speed" when flying at low altitude over the scenery. with many people flying in a more zoomed view (to compensate for the severe "distant object" visibility problem in il2), this completely distorts the sense of distance to objects, and our aircraft speed in flight. by all indications this will be resolved for BoB

It would also be interesting to be able to build columns of refugees leaving battle areas.
the more i think about this, i cant really figure why modeling groups of "individuals" moving together would be such a problem (to keep it simple, lets say an infantry group of soldiers on a road). surely modern game engines for fps/driving/flying sims dont constantly draw/display each individual object no matter how close/far it is to the player/viewer.
for ex for the group of 50 soldiers marching i would have expected a game engine to use
- in close up, display/draw/calculate each individual soldiers skeletal movements
- at medium distance: have the soldiers together displayed as a single object for which only one position/movement is calculated (similar to what is done for an aircraft)
- at far distances, use the old "dot" method

iirc in the old 486 cpu days, one gfx card (powerVR) had as its great strength that it only used gpu power to draw/display what the player could physically realistically see from the position he was in on the "game map", it wouldnt waste gpu power on drawing objects and scenery "over the horizon" or out of view. most other cards at the time (3dfx voodoo etc) would actually draw the whole game world iirc, yet the player was only in one part of the map. and that is over 10 yrs ago.

surely in 2010 most modern gfx cards do something similar to that powerVR card now, so having 30 or 50 soldiers marching on a road should not be a waste of cpu/gpu when you are flying an aircraft miles away. the game engine should imho only keep track of the overall game plan and mathematical position of variables inside the game world, and objects would be grouped into a single variable once out of view.

as one poster mentioned in another recent thread here, one core of the cpu could deal with the campaign engine, another core draws the game world we see etc...


-

[zapatista]

Whah I am actually REALLY saying is that there are finite resources. Nothing more, nothing less. Is this so difficult to understand?

for somebody so new here to the BoB project you dont seem to know much about what detailed information oleg has provided on all of this, his plans are (thankfully) much greater then the depressed narrow world you are trying to limit it to

and can you make some effort to stick to what these forum threads are for instead of in a boring monotone keep arguing AGAINST what other people here are discussing. this OP is discussing what HE and OTHER members here find interesting, that doesnt need your approval, consent, or depressive banter. say it once you dont like it, fine, but you keep going on and on with the same negative drivel as if what others discuss here needs your approval, it doesnt. find that hard to grasp perhaps ? if you have no interest in this threads content just go and slither away under some rock somewhere and leave other forum users here to what THEY find interesting

[zapatista]

Why should I 'let you continue'? Since you clearly can't read my mind I don't see why I should.

If you really don't think "this game is supposed to be about flying" then what do you think it is about?

what an absolute load of drivel, you weirdo !

where in the dark recesses of your somber mind do you now start to believe people here have to explain and justify ANYTHING to you about what THEY want to have included in oleg's flightsim project ?

[AndyJWest]

or somebody so new here to the BoB project you dont seem to know much about what detailed information oleg has provided on all of this
So you are claiming to be 'part of the BoB project' now are you zapatista? I think this is a clear indication of the usefulness of your postings, and their connection with reality.

Since neither of us is involved in BoB development, I'd say that my grasp of elementary principles on application design, whhich is evidently greater than yours, is much more relevant than how long I've been posting on this forum.

And isn't it rather infantile to use personal abuse when you don't have a better response?

-----------------

zapatista is back on ignore....

[zapatista]

So you are claiming to be 'part of the BoB project' now are you zapatista?

wow jeez gosh !! AndyJWest takes what is said and spins it to its absurd extreme and pretends it was what i said, how surprising ! used to arguing in donald duck forums with primary school kids it seems.

I'd say that my grasp of elementary principles on application design.. thats amazing, you just turned yourself into an experienced game designer of infinite wisdom and everybody else in this forum knows nothing about BoB eh, isnt the internet great ? you print your own diplomas to perhaps ?

And isn't it rather infantile to use personal abuse when you don't have a better response?

short attention span combined with low IQ is a real problem when facing reality it seems. right now you have with your multiple monotone posts in this thread contributed EXACTLY NOTHING, can you spot a pattern there ? remember what these threads are for yet ?

zapatista is back on ignore....

lol, you cant even get that right can you. wasnt i on ignore already or where you fibbing again ?

/note to lab: no increase in AndyJWest cognitive and reasoning ability despite repeatedly being given all information to solve simple clue's. behavioral pattern and genetic sequence of subject makes it unlikely they will ever contribute to the benefit of others around him

[kendo65]

Don't want to get involved in what has become a very personal dispute, but thought i'd try to give my perspective on these issues. At the risk of being accused of 'copping out' I can see merit in both your arguments.

Zapatista, I don't think any of us would say that we don't want a 'living, breathing world' to fly over and interact with in SOW, and you are right that Oleg has told us that civilian traffic (buses, cars, etc) is modelled and will be included. This is definitely something that I have little doubt will play a big part in the future of this sim. I wonder though how much will be available and usable in the initial release?

This is where I think Andy makes a good point - the word is 'resources' - both in Maddox Games development time AND in PC processing power.

We are already aware that Oleg is aiming for a release later this year and that many crucial aspects of the game remain to be tuned and added. This means that of necessity some of the desirable but non-essential extras will be pushed back for inclusion after initial release. The best examples of 'desirable but non-essential' would be things like wildlife in the fields, civilian traffic, animated civilians (farmers, pedestrians, kids playing in the back yard, etc).

The issue of PC processing power is key here too. There will not be much point in developing and including all the features of this world if no-one has a powerful enough PC to actually enable and run it.

I think given this the most realistic result in BOB will be that some minimal amount of civilian traffic, wildlife, etc will be available for use. I fear though that attempts to make heavy use of it while simultaneously having decent-sized air battles will result in low frame-rates (similar to il2 over cities).

However, one thing that I'm sure will be ruled out for the foreseeable future is the possibility of continuing the game on the ground after the pilot has bailed out. The big difficulty here is in developing realistic AI to control all of the vast number of possible interactions between a downed pilot and his environment. It is not enough having cars with open-able doors or pedestrians that follow pre-programmed routes along designated paths. That kind of 'dumb' modelled world is perfectly believable from a plane at 2000 feet, but when you are standing next to the pedestrian or when you attempt to eject a passing motorist from his car - think of all the possible interactions that will have to be modelled to make it seem real....!

The only alternative I can see to this (initially) would be having your downed pilot in an unpopulated, dead environment - not very rewarding and not very realistic.

[whatnot]

Something that might have been 'a good idea' earlier in the SoW development cycle but that only gets suggested now is unlikely to be incorporated into the release version unless it needs minimal work, I'd have thought, and many of the suggestions are anything but simple.

How I see the purpose of these forums when it comes to ideas is that the sim community (pretty hc simmers here on average I'd assume) shout out ideas they have and then the development crew are the ones who actually pick'n'mix what is feasible and suits the title / franchise.
And when talking about ideas for SOW I don't think it should be limited to the initial release since we're looking at an epic saga unfold. So they can address whatever future patches or releases too. Otherwise as the release gets closer and closer no one could type their suggestions as the RTM is imminent.

So my perception in a nutshell: open brainstorming here on the forum, validation / feasibility analysis by the Maddox crew who actually has a say on things.

But I've blabbered enough on this topic already, I guess I'll zip it and just watch the loop repeat itself. :cool:

[Novotny]

Well, you're possibly right, whatnot. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that Oleg and his team are probably quite a bit more hardcore than your average gamer.

It bothers me that people think Oleg just muddles along with no clear idea of what he's doing; previously in this thread and others internet people make claims that something was only fixed or introduced because of their feedback.

I'm of the impression that Oleg is quite intelligent - maybe even nearly as clever as some of our forum posters. Perhaps he is quite completely aware of issues such as human-building scaling, and they get attended to as and when he and his team can. Perhaps other things have higher priorities.

Only my opinion, but I'd guess that nineteen out of twenty suggestions/demands/complaints made by gamers here have previously been considered by Oleg.

[whatnot]

Only my opinion, but I'd guess that nineteen out of twenty suggestions/demands/complaints made by gamers here have previously been considered by Oleg.

Yes, I guess he has has spent an hour or two thinking about these things as this project might be more or less his day job.

Still hundreds of brains passionate about flight sims that are thinking the game from perhaps different angles can yield something worth while. Assuming ofcourse that OM has the time and patience to read through all this crap. :)

[zapatista]

This is definitely something that I have little doubt will play a big part in the future of this sim. I wonder though how much will be available and usable in the initial release?

i dont disagree with that.

what got my reaction was that some late arrivals in this forum seem unaware there is a whole range of elements oleg has spoken about himself that he has incorporated already, and other elements he has factored into the engine and will be developed further as the later installments of BoB/SoW get released (or will be open to 3e party folks to develop)

We are already aware that Oleg is aiming for a release later this year and that many crucial aspects of the game remain to be tuned and added. This means that of necessity some of the desirable but non-essential extras will be pushed back for inclusion after initial release.

i dont see it that way, and i believe oleg is well on track to release by his intended date. he indicated around the middle of last year that he intended to have "many 1000's of players" using BoB/SoW by the anniversary date of BoB in 2010. there are several possible specific dates for this, latest possible one being mid/late sept 2010. given he has been at the stage of integrating his completed components already in the last few months, jumping straight to beta stage with all elements working without the usual protracted alpha stage, oleg pretty much already knows what will be in the sim and what not. he wont waste adding months to develop/add some non core new feature just because of a discussion in a forum thread (as some here seem to believe might be the case).

The best examples of 'desirable but non-essential' would be things like wildlife in the fields, civilian traffic, animated civilians (farmers, pedestrians, kids playing in the back yard, etc).
we already have several of those include, no need to be modest. we will have birds flying in flocks near cliffs at the coast (and causing bird strike when hit), and hopefully (but unconfirmed) some birds in other fields. we also have some civilian road traffic, working and modeled london buses oleg already mentioned several yrs ago (and posted screenshots). in a post in this forum he also confirmed some civilian road cars were working in the sim (but didnt say if would be included at release)

what hasnt been confirmed is static animals in farmer fields (oleg did say there would be no animated horses/cattle/sheep etc at release), but presumably adding some static animals would not be a big deal and i hope will be included (to be switched of in options for those wanting to reduce fps drain, just as you can do in rowan's BoB now)

oleg also didnt confirm or comment if there would be "farmer driving tractor in fields", or "civilian truck on roads", personally i think that is very simple to add and would take one of his programmers 20 min. you just set the tractor/ truck to drive at a preset loop on the road or field, and thats it (maybe synced to server time, so the farmer dont work his fields at night)

adding individual civilians walking around villages/towns is a bit much to ask for now, BUT we will have the equivalent on airfields, by having some form of animation of refueling/rearming etc on airfields, AND fire and ambulance trucks (presumably not ghost driven, so there has to be a figure inside). adding some static civilians in some parts of the map, on bridges, next to rivers, or passengers on a bus etc is not that big of a leap. we already have in il2 a troop truck with simple animated figures jumping out of it when strafed, is it that big of a leap of faith to have a more modern and better detailed version of a similar feature in 2010 BoB, i dont think it is ! will it be included at release ? no idea, but to me it is a very obvious possibility to be expanded on (either by oleg or 3e party)

since oleg already stated he hoped to include at release the ability to control at least a single vehicle, and probably a ship/boat at release or soon thereafter, then these vehicles/ships have to include a modeled driver/pilot. so again it emphasizes oleg's recent efforts in working on that aspect (as can be clearly seen in his detailed human figures, and a recent video of animated skeletal pilot entering/exiting an aircraft). will this be a simple animation ? will this be under player control in 1e or 3e person ? no idea, but to pretend it isnt part of BoB's future is just silly, it obviously is in some form.

i think some people here (not you, but people like andywest) should go and refresh there mind, or find out for the first time, on the extensive comments oleg himself has previously made on this over the years, much of which has been confirmed by development screen shots and video's.

and like another recent poster stated, these forums, particularly the ones oleg and Co read themselves, are as much a brainstorming resource and a place for idea's as they are a location for general fan/user discussion, so think big, and come up with suggestions for further improvements :)

[kendo65]

It bothers me that people think Oleg just muddles along with no clear idea of what he's doing; previously in this thread and others internet people make claims that something was only fixed or introduced because of their feedback.

Perhaps he is quite completely aware of issues such as human-building scaling, and they get attended to as and when he and his team can. Perhaps other things have higher priorities.

Only my opinion, but I'd guess that nineteen out of twenty suggestions/demands/complaints made by gamers here have previously been considered by Oleg.

How I see the purpose of these forums when it comes to ideas is that the sim community (pretty hc simmers here on average I'd assume) shout out ideas they have and then the development crew are the ones who actually pick'n'mix what is feasible and suits the title / franchise.

So my perception in a nutshell: open brainstorming here on the forum, validation / feasibility analysis by the Maddox crew who actually has a say on things.


I don't see the chat on this forum as being primarily directed at the enlightenment of Oleg and the developers (except in the few cases they specifically ask for help or feedback).

I think the main issue is that we're all to a large degree still in the dark about what the game will be like, plus we're all extremely interested in the possibilities. What this leads to is speculation, wishes and opinions.

Most of the time the issues we direct at Oleg are questions about whether some feature we think would be excellent will be included. But this only comes about because Oleg plays his cards close to his chest. Most of the time I think people are looking for reassurance from Oleg that their particular preferences will be included, NOT trying to say that they know better than the developers. edit:(We tend to argue with each other about things that are uncertain - i don't recall too many of us telling Oleg directly that his plans sucked..! Ok, there was the furore over the early WIP landscape...I'll be charitable and call that a 'misunderstanding' ...and stop digging holes for myself... :lol:)

In the absence of full and complete info about the game from the man building it all we can do is debate, argue and talk amongst ourselves.

Sometimes it's pointless and ends up going round in circles because the only person who can really say YES or NO usually has better things to do.

Edit #2: just read the SOW AI Crew Members thread. I take it all back. We are a bunch of smart-arses who think we know best :rolleyes:

[philip.ed]

Zapatista, most of the things that you are saying we 'will have' are really quite speculative. We have seen one model of a sea-gull that for the sim (which is now quite old, so maybe obsolete...), and this accompanied with him saying that it is possible to have this implemented. There has been no direct comment from him to say whether it will 'definately' be shipped with the initial game or whether it will made available in any updates or by third-party people.
Honestly, you are over-reacting to Andy's comments. If you feel he hasn't been here long enough and is 'naive' to all of this, then you need to grow up a bit. Obviously he may not have seem every-update released-so more the reason for us to refresh his mind and help him; without getting aggressive about it and name-calling.

[philip.ed]

what an absolute load of drivel, you weirdo !

where in the dark recesses of your somber mind do you now start to believe people here have to explain and justify ANYTHING to you about what THEY want to have included in oleg's flightsim project ?

Was his question directed to you? No, it wasnt, so calm down and stop being so aggressive. Name calling won't get you anywhere; all Andy wanted to know was what the chap felt he wanted out of the sim. Your reaction was completely over the top.

[AndyJWest]

And perhaps Zapatista should stop assuming that the only people who read this forum are those that post on it. Until 1C:Maddox started giving regular details about SoW:BoB, and Team Daedolos started reporting on IL-2 patches, there was little on the forum worth the bother of commenting on, at least in my opinion.

[philip.ed]

And perhaps Zapatista should stop assuming that the only people who read this forum are those that post on it. Until 1C:Maddox started giving regular details about SoW:BoB, and Team Daedolos started reporting on IL-2 patches, there was little on the forum worth the bother of commenting on, at least in my opinion.

Exactly; just because you joined at a certain date it doesn't mean that you haven't been watching the forum beforehand ;)

[johnnypfft]

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/sow_seagull.jpg

a seagull :cool:

[philip.ed]

That was the pic I'd seen ;) Although I can't recall it being posted on the forum.

Whether or not we'll see it in the game is anyones guess :D

[zapatista]

Was his question directed to you? No, it wasnt, so calm down and stop being so aggressive.

was the comment directed at you ? no, so calm down and limit yourself to posting about the OT in this thread

all Andy wanted to know was what the chap felt he wanted out of the sim. Your reaction was completely over the top.

no he wasnt, in the consistent pattern of andywest's perpetual ignorance on many topics here he thought other people needed to justify to him whatever they were interested in

Zapatista, most of the things that you are saying we 'will have' are really quite speculative.

you either havnt read what i posted or you are not familiar with the info oleg himself posted in various locations over the years. some things we know he has worked on and made significant progress on, others he would like to include at some point after release but might not be in the initial BoB game, does all that really get confusing to you ?

nothing in life is certain, not even your next breath. what many people her DO know if they have followed the development of il2 since its inception is that oleg is aiming at a "next level" sim that goes beyond aircraft shooting at each other in a stale empty lifeless world, however pretty it might look with new modern gfx, and yes there are lots of clues he has given, and hints, and hopes, and some specific facts. do i know what will be in the final release, nope, but i do like to aim for the positive picture to see many of those elements included (either working from the start, to be expanded by 3e party or later patches, or simply factored into the game and engine design so it can be worked on later on and does not require us to wait 10 years for il2-v3)

We have seen one model of a sea-gull that for the sim (which is now quite old, so maybe obsolete...), and this accompanied with him saying that it is possible to have this implemented.

wrong ! what he has said is that he has single birds working and flocks of them flying around already, near coastal area's specifically, he even specified that for now he didnt intend to have them "inland" (not sure for that reason, hopefully we get some in fields near airfields, or even on some of the less busy grass strips), what oleg also said about it is that birdstrike was already working as a damage model.

if you'd have been paying attention or a better working memory of what you came accross you would remember this from may 2009 in oleg's own words about the seagulls

"It is animated for flight and sitting. Additional gameplay moments with collision over the cliffs. Detailisation -- you will almost never see it so close as it is in our tools in this screenshot. Anyway, detailisation is very high for hundreds of seagulls in a frame."

what could it all mean, what could it all mean, life must be such a mystery to you. i DO know what that means however, but does that guarantee the sun will rise over the horizon tomorrow as it has done every day for several hundred million years, i got no idea :) what seems to be the case with you and the jolly gang of depressives here, is that you are strongly arguing the sun wont rise again because nobody can proove it to you or garantee it (as if somebody had to)

There has been no direct comment from him to say whether it will 'definately' be shipped with the initial game or whether it will made available in any updates or by third-party people. you must live in a really confusing world

there is no certainty on ANYTHING either in life or what oleg will or will not include in BoB, you and your jolly herd of doomsayers however on many of those issues are not informed enough. and i'll do an andywest on you now: you go and prove to me by quoting clips from oleg that he is completely uncertain if birds will EVER be in BoB as object, that birdstrike is so technically difficult it would delay the whole BoB project, and that the one picture of the single bird just posted is the ONLY one he ever created while working on this, see how absurd your "andyjwest logic" is ?

you have the complete right as an individual to believe in anything or nothing, even that BoB will be a complete sterile world with a few pretty airplanes and little else, none of that bothers me, and it doesnt matter if you have been here one day, one year, or since the forum started. what DOES matter is that on many of the actual details you are either poorly informed, have a short memory, or are actually going around in a depressed state in life where even on a sunny day you only see doom and gloom. just dont post that crap here pretending it is FACT, 'cause it aint.

to be fair, at least you seem to be a little better informed then the earlier rude spotty faced teen, or the other dude (neil from "the young ones"), you seem to remember "there was something about birds" previously released by oleg, and it isnt total news to you. that actually is a sign of progress compared to many of the earlier doomsayer comments here recently :)

Obviously he may not have seem every-update released-so more the reason for us to refresh his mind and help him; without getting aggressive about it and name-calling. ahh the feigned claim of innocence, the lilly white being assaulted by evil doers in the lost corridors of the internet. again your memory fails you, nobody here is being jabbed at for no reason, read the actual thread. people asking for information and PARTICIPATING in a discussion (direction of which given in the OP) is one thing, getting an endless boring repeated interjection of uninformed negative banter trying to derail the ongoing discussion is another, particularly since it is ill informed and from somebody who doesnt actually know the detail of what we already have been told and pretend they are suddenly expert at everything BoB.

[AndyJWest]

Zapatista, since it appears that the moderators on this forum have no objections to your pig-ignorant personal abuse of anyone who points out the ludicrous nature of your postings, I assume they will have no objection to me replying in kind. Several points which are blindingly obvious to anyone who has been reading this forum for any length of time:

(1) You aren't connected with 1C:Maddox in any way, so you have no more knowledge on SoW:BoB than any others who have been following its development.

(2) When you see the least bit of detail about the project, you then assume that not only will it definitely be included, but that it will do everything you can possibly twist the words around to mean.

(3) You know absolutely nothing about computer programming (and s*d all about much else apparently).

(4) If anyone posts anything that doesn't fit in with your delusional fantasies, you respond with personal abuse rather than logical argument.

Given this, were Oleg Maddox or anyone else ask for your 'advice' on writing games software I'd assume that they were as crazy as you, and that any such project was doomed to failure. From all the evidence, Oleg & co are sane, rational human beings though, so your 'input' is wasted. Why don't you do something more useful instead, like writing graffiti on toilet walls?

[zapatista]

and for those that actually read threads like this to exchange information about oleg's upcoming masterpiece, just a few more clips of what Oleg actually DID say in the past about some of the new features we were discussing earlier in this same thread

1) further "bird" info bits oleg gave around the same time:
Yes, we can't kill using weapon. However, with mid-air collison you'll get some damage of aircraft, but no blood of the bird. The bird will dissapears after such a collison

So, say, at list this one (bird) will play some additional gameplay role when you are flying near cliffs.

Currently we have only such concept for seagulls

The type of seagull selected as the main type distributed around the world. Say in English Channel or on the great rivers of Siberia - there is just very small changes in color.

So, if there will be third party modellers that will make add-ons with "Pacific Fighters" - then this seagull will be actual there as well.

In future I promise you'll see more surprises, unexpected in fligtsim smile

and

Birds and the specific case - Seagulls over the cliffs - is a real problem of aviation. Why not to model it?
The bird's collission with aircraft happens many times per year.
Modern engines, say the new one for Sukhoi Superjet had a lot of tests for that case on a special stand.
And... you may fing a lot of photos in the internet about bird's collision with aircraft.

2) ...and when a poster commented on how good it was to get "AI animals/birds", oleg dropped the following hint about what else is around the corner
Traffic on the farm "roads" or online? wink
Or traffic of famous busses in London? wink

and back to the masters voice on birds

At the moment we have just one type of bird. And they are placed on a long distance from airfield.

In our docs we have more animals, birds. But we will model the most important currently that will go 100% in the final release. We have limits in time and I select the most important my or other developers ideas that really will play some role and not only for "WOW, they did it!" effect. The first - everything should play some role in a gameplay. Secondary - amount of types and subtypes... importance is definitely significant.

I think if the life of BoB(Sow) will be long enough, then due features of engine we may see many interesting things in flight sim, but not other genre of games.

my my, he said 100%, didnt he, DIDNT HE ! ;) and he DOES hint/indicate seagulls will not be the only other "living creatures" we might eventually see in the sim

at the end of that same discussion thread a question was asked about other static or moving animals planned for BoB (such as cows in fields near airfields, and them scattering when a low flying aircraft approaches them), sadly the answer from saqson (oleg's side kick) said to this .... ( oleg himself did not comment further on it in that thread, which was at simhq BoB forum last year)

Animals as static objects are not planned. If not dead, certainly.

so on the one hand we have oleg indicating we might gradually get other animals/birds/fish (?) after the seaguls, but saqson's answer is a little confusing in that context

i'd say info like that is rather encouraging and uplifting, it shows vision and planning, and a lot of scope for further development.

[zapatista]

another interesting snip from oleg in another interview (russian website), was the fact vehicles/aircraft will leave tracks on the ground (only commented on afaik about grass, but presumably the same is true for dirt strips

http://spread-wings.ru/images/stories/Medoks_2/grassmask_sunset.jpg

[zapatista]

and some more snips from oleg (mid 2009), this one confirming there WILL be other animals (i am still hoping for cows/sheep in fields)

In online the score for the killing people will be absent. The score system will be around the planes, ground targets as tanks, cars, ships, etc.. This is my principle that I will never change. As well as you will be not able really to kill animals in our sim and to get the score for that... but animals of different kind will be present smile

gets a bit confusing is earlier saqson stated there wont be static animals, does that mean that .... ?

[philip.ed]

Hello Zapatista (and all) and good afternoon!
Nothing is certain, no, so I wonder why you (zapatista) just re-wrote everything I said? That was exactly the point of my earlier post; to point out that although these elements may be working in the sim, there is no given that they will appear in the initial release. Yes, flocks of sea-gulls may be working; but so are driveable vehicles with a 1st person perspecitve, and IIRC the pictures of these that Oleg showed were to demonstrate what 3rd parties could do as these elements may not appear in the final release :grin:



EDIT-from your evidence though mate, clearly you are right that the seagull will be included. Thanks for proving me wrong; in this instance it was worth it! :D However, I apologise for not having a completely perfect memory of everything I read; most of it goes in the memory bank, but that bit of info about the 'gull was info I have not read before ;)

2nd edit; in hindsight my original posting was maybe too harsh; I am not here to argue, but to enjoy this sim (Il-2) and hopefully SoW in the future.

[Abbeville-Boy]

the seagull announcement was huge news when it came out :grin: they will be cool

[philip.ed]

the seagull announcement was huge news when it came out :grin: they will be cool

I actually can't remember it being announced to this much extent! I can only remember viewing the picture on a forum-members website/photobucket account.

If anyone can be so helpful to tell me which discussion this was from I'll look for it :D (a date would be helpful).

EDIT_if not, I'll look for it when I have more time :D

[Abbeville-Boy]

I actually can't remember it being announced to this much extent! I can only remember viewing the picture on a forum-members website/photobucket account.

If anyone can be so helpful to tell me which discussion this was from I'll look for it :D (a date would be helpful).

EDIT_if not, I'll look for it when I have more time :D



i seem to remember announce over at simHQ :grin:

[philip.ed]

i seem to remember announce over at simHQ :grin:

Although I don't have an account at SimHQ, I too can remember reading about the sea-gull in a topic there. ;)

[zapatista]

Although I don't have an account at SimHQ, I too can remember reading about the sea-gull in a topic there. ;)

yeps the bits i remembered about the gull's were from a simhq post some yrs ago, and some of the quotes i posted are from it (should be simple enough to locate with their search function).

in the same forum saqson (from oleg's team) made the comment about "driving a tank to london", similarly oleg himself has commented about being able to control some ground vehicles and (more recently) some smaller ships (? torpedo boats or something similar). in another forum oleg posts in he made the comment about the civilian cars on roads and buses following a specific trajectory and even making specific stops along the way. once you then add the very recent video clip of the pilot physically climbing in/out of his aircraft and seeing the skeletal articulations in movement, the future possibilities increase exponentially


EDIT-from your evidence though mate, clearly you are right that the seagull will be included. Thanks for proving me wrong; in this instance it was worth it! :D However, I apologise for not having a completely perfect memory of everything I read; most of it goes in the memory bank, but that bit of info about the 'gull was info I have not read before ;)

2nd edit; in hindsight my original posting was maybe too harsh; I am not here to argue, but to enjoy this sim (Il-2) and hopefully SoW in the future.

no problemo !

btw, the reason i remember some of those specific points is not because i have magic memory, its mainly because over the years some old timer flightsimmers keep hoping some of these type of essential elements will be included in the newer flightsims and oleg has been repeatedly been asked about many of those elements over many years, to eventually be able to create a 24/7 living breathing flightsim in a combat environment (and it is along those lines the OP of this thread raised his point about civilian activity)

when oleg then makes specific hints or gives confirmations about elements of this aspect over the years, such as birds flying, animals (static for now), civilian traffic on roads (maybe in air to ?), some control over physical 3D movement of the pilot, control over some vehicles and some ships, 24/7 dynamic server, etc.. then those are the bits that stand out and i/we remember

when you will land your first damaged or crippled plane in BoB in a few months, you will wish that somebody with a creative imagination has thought of modeling fire trucks and an ambulance rushing towards you, if you catch my drift :)

[Skoshi Tiger]

when you will land your first damaged or crippled plane in BoB in a few months, you will wish that somebody with a creative imagination has thought of modeling fire trucks and an ambulance rushing towards you, if you catch my drift :)

Or maybe even a ground crew with a fire extinguisher if we over-prime our Spitfire and get an Exhaust Stack fire on startup! (Just day dreaming :) )