Friday 2010-07-16 Dev. update and Discussions about the update ONLY!

[luthier]

Gentlemen,

Your update for tonight is as follows:

1. Hurricane too late to save a merchant ship from enemy bombs.

2. Wellingtons ablaze after a Messerschmitt attack!

Stand by for more exciting screenshots in part two!

[luthier]

Your update continues.

3. Hurricane gives the Jerry a good scare!

4. Jerry fighters hunt Blenheims as seagulls look on.

5. Cranes!

Good luck gentlemen!


Tune in next week for another exciting installment of the...

DEVELOPMENT UPDATE FROM LUTHIER!

[Tree_UK]

Thanks for the update.

[Fragal]

Sweet!!!! :D is the fire spreading on that wellington ??

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Im the first one to say WOW!!!


WWWOOOOWWWWWW.....!!! :grin:

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Damn, finished third!

[1.JaVA_Sharp]

can you say, Hot damn!

[Sven]

Awesome!!!! Keep it up BoB team!

[Chiz]

Really nice stuff, thanks for the update Luthier :)

[Rubberchicken]

Makes me wonder, can the seagulls hit your windshield? :grin:

[zauii]

Amazing as always, can't wait to hear some sound effects.

[322Sqn_Dusty]

WoW....

Indeed..seems the fire does spread, can it be 'blown' out?

Thx for the update!

[philip.ed]

Some great shots shown there; love the seagull and the cranes and the trees are looking a bit better.
tracer looks quite good and the fire looks deadly. I still don't like the smoke though, but maybe it looks better in video?
Interesting stuff.

Can fire spread?

And will the AI turn their heads? The heinkels crew look asleep.

:-P

[AdMan]

ooooooooooooooooooohhh!!

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh!!

[PeterPanPan]

Excellent, this is a step up in screenshots, for sure. The fire looks mighty impressive. Well done.

PPanPan

[luthier]

And will the AI turn their heads? The heinkels crew look asleep.

:-P

You. Have. No. Idea.

We have something amazing cooking with animations which we really should show in a video.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Forgot to ask very important question! ;)

Will we be able to use the cranes? I know its a flight sim but it would be cool if we can drive them and give more diversity to the sim! :mrgreen:

[ECV56_Lancelot]

You. Have. No. Idea.

We have something amazing cooking with animations which we really should show in a video.

This will cost me all kinds of insults, but don´t, keep it as a surprise! :)

[Manuc]

very nice screenshots.

is it possible to shot the seagulls?

[philip.ed]

You. Have. No. Idea.

We have something amazing cooking with animations which we really should show in a video.

You really know how to wet a man's appetite!

And smoke and fires etc; are they open to modding after the sim is released?

[luthier]

is it possible to shot the seagulls?

Shoot AT the seagulls? Yes.

Hit? You can try.

[322Sqn_Dusty]

Shoot the German mail pigeon.....

[Ctrl E]

You. Have. No. Idea.

We have something amazing cooking with animations which we really should show in a video.

You really should show it in a video!

absolutely amazing stuff. i simply can't wait.

and yes - please bring on korea after!

[luthier]

Forgot to ask very important question! ;)

Will we be able to use the cranes? I know its a flight sim but it would be cool if we can drive them and give more diversity to the sim! :mrgreen:

Oh sure, in our next add-on, BoC, Battle of the Cranes.

Our cranes are actually animated, they turn their heads, the winches move, i.e. they kind of look like they're doing something.

[F19_lacrits]

Thanks for the update pics, great! :D
.. Can't wait to get my hands on a copy of SoW once it's released.

[Drum_tastic]

Well, it is all looking really great, I love the way the new detailed aircrew really help to bring the aircraft to life.

Regarding the video, please dont hold back, bring it on!

I'd love to see a video of one of the aircraft being started up on the runway, and running the engine up, from in cockpit and outside.

Any chance Luthier?

[Insuber]

Hi Luthier,

Thx for the screenies! One question: will you solve the issue of the engine noise, which in Il2 is very audible from another plane, making impossible a sneaky 6 o'clock attack ?

Thank you,
Insuber

[PilotError]

You. Have. No. Idea.

We have something amazing cooking with animations which we really should show in a video.

Superb update again.:grin:

The pictures posted are teasing us, but your statement about the animations is verging on mental torture.:evil:

This is going to be spectacular, provided my computer doesn't melt.

[TallBonapart]

Oh,cant wait to give you,my hard earned 40 euros.

[kendo65]

Excellent. The flames on the Wellington actually look frightening - especially the last shot with the inside of the fuselage an inferno!

Raises an interesting question about what it will be like from a crewman's perspective inside these bombers... :)

Intrigued by the comments about crew animation....how about next week for that video update ;)

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Maybe we´ll have crews that spit through out the window!. And be carefull, because if you hit the spit of a gunner with a flue, you could end up with big green uggly spot on your windshield, see nothing and crash another aircraft! :D

[sport02]

- for dommage plane , does the fire extend with the time ?

- can we seen smoke from exhaust in futur ? perhaps no active in all the screens

[DBCooper]

It's getting better and better all the time! Great work!

P.s. Please don't kill any Seagulls! Thank you! :-)

[imaca]

Wow, the sea in the 110/Blenheim pic looks like amazing, a photographic shot.
Also the edges of aircraft are looking sharper.
Do I detect anti-aliasing?

[julian265]

Nice update, looking good.

Hi Luthier,

Thx for the screenies! One question: will you solve the issue of the engine noise, which in Il2 is very audible from another plane, making impossible a sneaky 6 o'clock attack ?

Quoted for emphasis! I'm not sure how close you'd have to be to hear another plane's engine above your own, but it sure as **** has got to be closer than 100m from 6 o'clock! :)

[zapatista]

luthier & oleg,

thx for the new screenshots !

aircraft quality looks amazing in closeup shots, and nice to see the scenery building with vegetation, houses, roads, dock equipment etc..

looks like it is all coming together nicely :)

[BadAim]

Fan-freaking-tastic! The fire inside the Wellington is indeed frightening, not a place I'd want to be.

I have an odd question; the crane on the right appears to be slightly more weathered than the other. If this is not my eyes playing tricks on me, are they wearing different skins or is there some kind of weathering scheme for ground objects as well as planes?

BTW, I love the way you tease us Luthier, have you studied marketing you sly dog? :)

[Ploughman]

Thanks for the update, it's all coming along nicely. Looking forward to seeing some of these amazing effects in video.

[katdogfizzow]

Fantastic....still enjoying the old game every night! Glad you're taking your time to do it right..sp fx look great

[Cpt_Farrel]

This is great! I remember the good old days when we were getting teasers about IL-2 and then the Forgotten Battles addon... The excitement of waiting for something as cool is not all bad, I kinda like it sometimes. :)

I too reacted to the scary look of the flames inside the bomber. It's really an inferno in there.

This is just getting better and better. Also, I think it's great that we get to see other things than the usual BoB planes I.E. Blenheims, Wellingtons and so on.

Big thanks for the update!

[tailchopper71]

The flames looks amazing. A video of the whole fire spreading will be great!

[JtD]

Man, these seagulls will lead to a lot of overclaiming! "Got two pretty small enemy airplanes of unknown type."

Nice screenshots, and I hope that things look even better when moving! Thanks!

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Fantastic update, thank you very much. :-)

[Foo'bar]

The trees look darker and nicer than before.

[rakinroll]

Thanks for the update Luthier.

[Tempest123]

Great stuff! Thanks!

[Avala]

Oh sure, in our next add-on, BoC, Battle of the Cranes.

Our cranes are actually animated, they turn their heads, the winches move, i.e. they kind of look like they're doing something.

Reminds me of my jobs so far. You just had to look that you are doing something :)

Great update!


Steer ow ow five for Kenly, if need turn channel C for Charlie, jerry plotting toward Dover . . .

[holdenbj]

Luthier, Thanks for yet another excellent update :-)
Looking forward to flying the Hurri.

[luthier]

Nice update, thanks for feed us...;)

But looking at these pictures, I would like to go back to some problem was also detected in IL2: models scale.

All our planes are exact down to a millimeter, vehicles down to a centimeter, and buildings down to a few centimeters.

The scales are, in a word, perfect.

I looked at the screenshots again and I can't see anything that hints at any issues with relative size.

[Zorin]

Nice update, thanks for feed us...;)

But looking at these pictures, I would like to go back to some problem was also detected in IL2: models scale.

I hope the reason is some kind of optic effect, but some pictures showing different size planes (i.e. hurries and he111, bf110, etc...), and also objects (i.e. cranes and hurry in the last picture), seems to me there is huge scalation discrepancy if you compare their sizes with real ones.

Former IL2 also had these problems, mainly with land objects (tanks, AAA, etc...) but also with some planes and ships...

Are you aware of this??

Thanks again and keep on the good working!!

They are all build to scale, don't worry. It is most likely a camera lens distortion causing this.

[Splitter]

Wow! Great pics and I will agree that the fire looks both fantastic and scary. Time to either bail or pull out the pistol.

Luthier, post the video. Olegg is on vacation and we'll never tell so he would never know :). It'll just be our little secret, k?

Splitter

[csThor]

Uh, Ilya ... Do I detect the beginnings of the fighter markings on that 109 in the background (with the burning Wellington)? Or is that still a placeholder?

[Foo'bar]

luthier, post the video. Olegg is on vacation and we'll never tell so he would never know :). It'll just be our little secret, k?

haha! :D

[Zorin]

1. I still see the large trim tabs on the Bf110. Need to be persistant on this.

2. The wake of the ship and the water around it do not look like it traveling out at the sea. More like a river cruise. IMO, there should be a real wake wave, prowling in front of the stern and rolling down the whole length of the ship, leaving a trail of distorted water.

3. Will their be the option to specifiy whether a ship is loaded or empty in FMB? And will this lead to it sitting deeper in the water? That would make torpedo attacks a lot more challenging and real.

[luthier]

Luthier, post the video. Olegg is on vacation and we'll never tell so he would never know :). It'll just be our little secret, k?

I gotta make it first. :???:

Uh, Ilya ... Do I detect the beginnings of the fighter markings on that 109 in the background (with the burning Wellington)? Or is that still a placeholder?

It's working perfectly. I was going to post a nice pretty squadron of 109s today, but a silly unfortunate bug with pilot animations prevented me from it. By the time it was fixed, I had already posted the update.

I think there's over 40 different codes for different types of markings you can put on the aircraft, in addition to the regular numbers (<0 and <0- and I<< and <|- and all that kind of stuff)

[BG-09]

Damn gooooooood update. Especialy the flames of the Wellington. Unbelievabley good...and hot.
~S!

[philip.ed]

It seems easier to twise Ilya's arm than oleg's. Is this a long vacation? ..... :-P :grin::cool:

[Foo'bar]

I was going to post a nice pretty squadron of 109s today, but a silly unfortunate bug with pilot animations prevented me from it. By the time it was fixed, I had already posted the update.

Ilya, it isn't to late at all. We all are sitting in front of our displays ;) keep on posting! :D

[csThor]

Ilya, just remember I have my manual on the fighter markings & emblems here. And you know what a nag I can be when it comes to that kind of stuff. :mrgreen:

[luthier]

It seems easier to twise Ilya's arm than oleg's. Is this a long vacation? ..... :-P :grin::cool:

All things must come to an end. It's the end of the day Friday, and I'm off to enjoy my weekend. And then I'm usually too busy to post on here a lot.

Although if we have time I might post something entirely unexpected here mid-week.

[Armatian]

More than be able to collide and shoot seagulls, it would be nice to have a peek at how are animated, short video if devs are so kind please! =D

[Dano]

Although if we have time I might post something entirely unexpected here mid-week.

LOL, you just know that's going to get taken as a promise ;)

Great update though, cannot wait to fly this :D

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Nice update, thanks for feed us...;)

But looking at these pictures, I would like to go back to some problem was also detected in IL2: models scale.

I hope the reason is some kind of optic effect, but some pictures showing different size planes (i.e. hurries and he111, bf110, etc...), and also objects (i.e. cranes and hurry in the last picture), seems to me there is huge scalation discrepancy if you compare their sizes with real ones.

Former IL2 also had these problems, mainly with land objects (tanks, AAA, etc...) but also with some planes and ships...

Are you aware of this??

Thanks again and keep on the good working!!

It's the lens.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Yep, nice set of pics there :) Have a good one!

[zapatista]

Luthier,

with a multi crew aicraft like that on fire (or under attack, damaged), will some of the endangered crew (by nearby fire or damage) jump from the aircraft on their own initiative, or will it always only happen when (we) as the pilot order it ? (ie, one "bailout" command for all crew at once, and crew wont jump on their own when fire comes near or starts near them).

and similar with AI crews, will some AI crew from an aircraft jump on their own, and will the AI pilot continue to try and get his aircraft home even with severe damage and a partial crew ?

[Insuber]

Yeaaaah! Up with Luthier!!!! By the way, may I ask you the date of release of SoW ? :D



Although if we have time I might post something entirely unexpected here mid-week.

[w1nd6urfa]

It's working perfectly. I was going to post a nice pretty squadron of 109s today, but a silly unfortunate bug with pilot animations prevented me from it. By the time it was fixed, I had already posted the update.



We will be here Monday when the bug's been fixed :grin:
ANy chance of a repost?

[Il2Pongo]

Hi Luthier,

Thx for the screenies! One question: will you solve the issue of the engine noise, which in Il2 is very audible from another plane, making impossible a sneaky 6 o'clock attack ?

Thank you,
Insuber

Excellent question.

[Baron]

Looking good.


I know its WIP and all so im just wondering about the first pic where the ship explodes, cant see any shockwaves on the water (not much of anything really, excpet the fireball) Will the effects/debries be there in the final version?

[Old_Canuck]

Absolutely brilliant! The excitement is building. I missed the beginning years of IL-2 but this must have been what it was like with the screenshots revealing more and more and today "109 viewers" on the forum already.

[Sturm_Williger]

Man, these pics just get more droolworthy every week !

Thanks for posting and causing much excited anticipation.

[choctaw111]

Thanks Luthier!
This is a great update.
There are so many really nice touches shown here.

[Derzasi]

Can you imagine: been the Wellington`s rear gunner and see that flames and fumes all around your turret? How to Bail out?
Veeery frightening....
Derzasi

[Jaws2002]

Great update Luthier. Thaat fire is bloody scary!:eek: Looks like fuel is pouring out if the plane and burning low behind the plane.:o
I love the shiny metal visible under the paint on the engine in the first shot.:eek: That creates great contrast with the flat paint. Naked metal is visible in many areas where the paint is chipped.:-P

Those Bf-110 shots are great. That thing looks just mean. I think that will be my first ride in SOW.:-P
I still don't like the trees much. :( I don't think they are as good as the rest of the stuf.

All in all great update. Lookking forward for more

[Avimimus]

Luthier,

with a multi crew aicraft like that on fire (or under attack, damaged), will some of the endangered crew (by nearby fire or damage) jump from the aircraft on their own initiative, or will it always only happen when (we) as the pilot order it ? (ie, one "bailout" command for all crew at once, and crew wont jump on their own when fire comes near or starts near them).

and similar with AI crews, will some AI crew from an aircraft jump on their own, and will the AI pilot continue to try and get his aircraft home even with severe damage and a partial crew ?

A very good question. There are a number of cases of aircrew members bailing out without permission (and at least one or two where the gunner made his way to the cockpit to release the plane had been flying itself).

One thing I've often want in Il-2 is the ability to order the rest of the crew to bailout. There are some situations where I'd be willing to try and land a damaged plane, but where I wouldn't want to risk the lives of my gunners/navigators.

Besides, the add weight ;)

[IceFire]

Nice update, thanks for feed us...;)

But looking at these pictures, I would like to go back to some problem was also detected in IL2: models scale.

I hope the reason is some kind of optic effect, but some pictures showing different size planes (i.e. hurries and he111, bf110, etc...), and also objects (i.e. cranes and hurry in the last picture), seems to me there is huge scalation discrepancy if you compare their sizes with real ones.

Former IL2 also had these problems, mainly with land objects (tanks, AAA, etc...) but also with some planes and ships...

Are you aware of this??

Thanks again and keep on the good working!!
Most of the scales are right in IL-2. Is there a specific object that is a problem (I know there were one or two).

Most people are surprised to find out, for example, how small some World War II era tanks really are. They aren't as big as a modern MBT. Some aircraft really are that "big" or "small".

In any case it's been pointed out before and Luthier did again that the modeling is down to a very precise level this time. I don't see ANYTHING out of scale. What do you see?

[Pato Salvaje]

Really GOOD work!! thak you Ilya!!
Keep the good work! and
We´d be waiting for this "extra" release... ;)

[C_G]

The flames are SOOOO much better with those "stretchy" flame streaks pulling backwards due to the airstream... I think that given the amount of flame the smoke is good too, especially when it's noted that the smoke trails left by the other two burning aircraft in picture #4 seem to attenuate quite quickly (though that may be a function of the LoD).
In any case, the updates are really beginning to whet my appetite! It's looking seriously AWESOME!

[arjisme]

Nice update!

Question: is that Wellington nose gunner being a hero? In shots 4 & 5, the flames have pretty much engulfed the aircraft and he is still at his position targeting enemy fighters. I would think it is time to jump!

[Intz]

Thank you Luthier for another up date!
HE111 looks great!
My friend did not belive those updates is screenshots from game :grin:

[tagTaken2]

My apollogies for the off topic Luthier, but would like to try to ask...

How is the Korean war project? Is still on hold?



Unlike the poster I'm extremely interested in SoW: Korea :)

I will absolutely buy and play BoB, but every weekly update makes me wonder why we haven't received even a hint about Korea and the timeframe of releases once the SoW engine is finished.

Been a long time since MiG Alley.

[luthier]

I will absolutely buy and play BoB, but every weekly update makes me wonder why we haven't received even a hint about Korea and the timeframe of releases once the SoW engine is finished.

Korea was always intended as a sequel to Battle of Britain. We thought at first that we could develop them in parallel, but that turned out to be too optimistic. So we're fully focused on BoB at the moment.

A huge pile of Korean content is already finished and just waiting to be made into a complete game. Trust me, I'm more excited about MiGs and Sabres than anyone here, but let's ship BoB and make it a huge commercial success first!

[baronWastelan]

Finally, fabric that goes away as it burns. I'm seriously considering buying this game when it's released.

[C_G]

You're "seriously considering buying this game"?

All I can say is that I hope there are no old ladies or young children between me and the game store when they tell me my copy has come in!!
:grin::grin:

[philip.ed]

You're "seriously considering buying this game"?

All I can say is that I hope there are no old ladies or young children between me and the game store when they tell me my copy has come in!!
:grin::grin:

Are old ladies and kids prone to stealing reserved copies of games where you live? :-P

[T}{OR]

Awesome stuff!

You're "seriously considering buying this game"?

All I can say is that I hope there are no old ladies or young children between me and the game store when they tell me my copy has come in!!
:grin::grin:


I seriously hope that there won't be a copy protection that would turn me down from buying this game. ;)

[Jaws2002]

Awesome stuff!




I seriously hope that there won't be a copy protection that would turn me down from buying this game. ;)


I'd be really pissed if they don't have a rock solid copy protection.
They better get every cent for their hard work, so the game can grow and expand. If this means sign in online for copy validation, that's fine with me.

I'd hate to see soo much hard work wasted because of piracy.:(

[TallBonapart]

I seriously hope that there won't be a copy protection that would turn me down from buying this game

Oh no,not another antiDRM crusader.

[Ian_Guerrero]

Please, we already have this simulator for ...

http://virtualbattleofbritain.org/virtual-bob/

S! ;)

[BigC208]

It's coming nicely together. The flames in and around that Wellington scare the crap out of me.

[Abbeville-Boy]

luthier fine job! you are jerry material, come fly your new 109 with us. We depart in __hours/days, please fill in the blank time area :grin:

[Blackdog_kt]

Edited as per request. Cheers ;)

[Abbeville-Boy]

there goes this thread :grin: why not start a new one for that subject

[arjisme]

Please drop the off-topic arguments about the DRM! While I think it is a worthy topic to discuss, it should be in its own thread, not thread-crapping this one.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

....Trust me, I'm more excited about MiGs and Sabres than anyone here...

You better give me the Douglas Skyraider and the F9 Panther with carrier operations or there will be UGLY AND BLOODY REPERCUTIONS!!!
Unlike most, i don´t care about Sabres!

[_ITAF_UgoRipley]

To the "photographer" side of Oleg...the flames in the first shots look awesome...but it looks like like they're a bit "overexposed" in the inner-glowing part.

[robday]

Great up-date. Thanks guys

[Avimimus]

Nice update!

Question: is that Wellington nose gunner being a hero? In shots 4 & 5, the flames have pretty much engulfed the aircraft and he is still at his position targeting enemy fighters. I would think it is time to jump!

The nose gunner is the last person to see the flames...?

[322Sqn_Dusty]

Ilya, just remember I have my manual on the fighter markings & emblems here. And you know what a nag I can be when it comes to that kind of stuff. :mrgreen:

During BoB the Luftwaffe used allsorts of identification on their planes e.g. yellow noses, white rudder/elevators etc in various sizes. Are they in Sow standard careers or should the community skin them for use?

Great detail. Can't wait to see a shadow overhead and hear it roar past.

*It can be played on LAN whitout online connection i hope....otherwise events will have a problem.
For the rest I don't mind..my cash will flow to the developer.

[bf-110]

Makes me wonder, can the seagulls hit your windshield? :grin:

Even worse,can the seagulls hit the engines??



And will the AI turn their heads? The heinkels crew look asleep.

:-P

I guess they won´t wake up...never.

And BTW,what happened to Oleg????He always posted the news from SoW.

[zorlac]

He's on holiday

[Blakduk]

Well done guys- there are so many positive things to say about these screen shots.
The cliffs in the scene with the cranes, the seagulls, the burning fabric on the Wellington (it look like you could recreate the burning of the Hindenburg with this game engine!), etc.
I am really looking forward to some videos.
BTW- will you offer therapy for gamers who get post traumatic stress disorder after being in that inferno in the Wellington?

[caprera]

Fire still sucks :rolleyes:

[Blackdog_kt]

Please drop the off-topic arguments about the DRM! While I think it is a worthy topic to discuss, it should be in its own thread, not thread-crapping this one.

Sorry, it got the better of me.
I just hope we'll get a good simulator with user-friendliness and functionality to match, that's all.
I'm goint to edit the post in question just to keep everyone happy :grin:

[tagTaken2]

Korea was always intended as a sequel to Battle of Britain. We thought at first that we could develop them in parallel, but that turned out to be too optimistic. So we're fully focused on BoB at the moment.


Understandable, thanks for the response.

Good times for a flight simmer, and some real gratitude to developers, particularly a bunch of Russian studios for the soul they put in to the games.

[EvilFD]

Wonderful update. Can't wait guys, keep up the good work ;) Please hurry though haha, the anticipation.................

[Sturm_Williger]

Fire still sucks :rolleyes:

I think one has to also bear in mind that a static screenshot may not capture dynamic flames at their best.
I'm sure there are many programming tricks used to achieve the look of realistic flames which work best when all is in motion. A screenshot may well capture the action between renderings of some of the flames making it look less than brilliant.

That said, I think the flames we see look pretty damn scary and realistic even in the static shots we have been shown.

[~BeoWolf~]

Hey Ilya, what's going on with Project Galba?

Have not seen anything on that project for quite some time, is it on hold while you fine tune SOW?

[csThor]

During BoB the Luftwaffe used allsorts of identification on their planes e.g. yellow noses, white rudder/elevators etc in various sizes. Are they in Sow standard careers or should the community skin them for use?

Great detail. Can't wait to see a shadow overhead and hear it roar past.

*It can be played on LAN whitout online connection i hope....otherwise events will have a problem.
For the rest I don't mind..my cash will flow to the developer.

Dusty most of the german emblems for SoW-BoB were made by me (until I was rudely interrupted by a serious illness and now I have not the time to devote it to finish the last emblems and write the last manuals) and I provided Maddox Games with a number of "manuals" for the emblems, their application and the other facts pertaining to german units and their markings (colour, style etc). The fighter manual alone has 103 pages in PDF. :cool:

[Lucas_From_Hell]

It's too hot to think here, so I can only say it looks pretty awesome and I can't wait to get my hands on that :mrgreen:

About the fire, it does look great, but I think it'd be healthy to increase the resolution of the flames. Right now, you can see some fairly jagged edges from some angles, and that can make some picky guys unhappy and trigger some trolls.

I don't think anyone will seriously notice such details when pulling 7Gs with bullets flying around your cockpit, but judging by the usual standard of bitching about small and ridiculous details, it wouldn't be a bad idea to improve it right away...

[caprera]

I think one has to also bear in mind that a static screenshot may not capture dynamic flames at their best.ù

I tried but still they look like from another game. And the color itself seems too cartoonish to me...

[fireflyerz]

Yes

[whatnot]

The best set of screens I've seen so far and the first ones with some AA finally which make them look extra gorgeous! Fantastic work and these combined with luthier's teasers made the wait even tougher than before! Gimme gimme gimme! :-)

Some comments:

1) Fire is quite ok to my eyes and it must be frustrating to see dumbass beavis & butthead comments like 'xyz sucks' after the devs go through the trouble providing these luxury updates. Comparing the flames to photographs the biggest difference I see is that the 'white highlight' (or whatever it's called:) in the heart of the flame is too large and bright white.

2) My gut feeling is that every single WW2 aviation nerd looming around these forums will crap their pants and run to the store to get minimum three copies of BOB SOW when it's released even if it would costs 300€ / piece and has a DRM that kills 30 DVD drives an hour and requires 1Gb connection and latency < 1ms. LOL @ the 'I won't get it unless it has x copy protection. No one will buy that bluff, not here atleast :o

3) If the ground would look as good as the skies it would be too much to handle for us waiting for the release. Interested to see what kind of wonders the finetuning will do the terrain.

[Immermann]

I don't think there's any AA on these screen shots. It's just the blue-greys of the sea that sometimes gives the same effect on the edges of the planes.

[caprera]

dumbass beavis & butthead comments like 'xyz sucks' after the devs go through the trouble providing these luxury updates

I prefer to call it a "direct critique" and i explained also why i said that.

Surely more helpful than noob pointless cheering for every screenshot shown that even can't recognize AA or HDR like you....so please spare me.

[Hecke]

I prefer to call it a "direct critique" and i explained also why i said that.

Surely more helpful than noob pointless cheering for every screenshot shown that even can't recognize AA or HDR like you....so please spare me.



I totally agree with caprera. It's more helpful to give critique instead of always telling it's awesome.
Because in the end when the product is out it's you guys that recognize it's actually not that good/ realistic.
If you tell the developers that everything is perfect, why should the they change anything or go on improving?

[Rodolphe]

...


Nice sun reflexion on this He 111 H internal cockpit glass.

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Reflet.jpg


...

[caprera]

Thanks Hecke, for example i'm happy with the cokpits' glasses, i find them much more realistic than before...

[Insuber]

The better is the enemy of the good.

1C should publish the game as soon as possible, and let us customers evaluate the whole package, in key areas such as DM, FM, LOD's, sound, maps, smoothness and playability, campaign modes, online modes, etc etc.
Improvements and visual fine tunings will came later, when we will be able to appreciate the whole picture and prioritize the corrections for the patches to come.

Focusing on small details now makes little sense, IMHO.

Cheers,
Insuber

[caprera]

They should also sell the game, not only present it to be modded...

[Tree_UK]

I have to say that im not feeling much love for the landscape that Ive seen so far, to me it looks like a water colour painting, i would like to see a comparison screenshot between WOP and SOW landscape i seem to remember Oleg mentioning that he may do this. Also I honestly think that the Il2 trees look better although i appreciate that it is all still WIP's. The detail on the aircraft is incredible though and the water looks stunning.

[Hecke]

Same for me.

+

Planes are great
Water is good already


-

The ground textures look like low resolution and not good at all.
The trees look too bad, too.
fire too bright on its hottest part

[furbs]

i agree tree...but i just hoping we havnt seen the landscape in its full glory yet...and when it all comes together it will look stunning.

luthier...any chance of seeing a short vid of flames and smoke?...im sure it would put lots of peoples mind at rest.

[GopherStibble]

Don't trust Luthier. Many years ago he promised me a potpourri plankton special edition of Pacific Fighters, with varying ocean colours depending on seasonal plankton levels... but... it... never... happened!!

:cry:




:-P

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Better is the enemy of good, but haste is the enemy of perfection. Look at what happened with Rise of Flight - publishers rushed it and they had to release a buggy version that caused disappointment between many flight simmers, and only recently they started their comeback.

Nobody - and I stress nobody - except the developers themselves need the game released in an X date. You might think you want it ASAP, but trust me, you don't.

For evaluating the package in key areas you have experienced people that know exactly how things should look, sound and feel like, and they are to point that out to the developers - that's what beta testing is for.

Early unfinished releases are never good; it has been proved throughout the years.

It's a matter of being professional. Releasing an unfinished product to see the reaction isn't professional at all. Releasing a small beta demo is a different matter, but publishing it? That would be just rushing things out to satisfy a bunch of bored geeks. It's summer, do like Oleg and Ilya and take some days off, relax and forget about this whole thing for a while.

From what I know about the developer's philosophy, they would never release anything unfinished. It's easy to guess by their position about features - it was stated over and over by many members of the development teams that, if they can't implement a feature with 100% accuracy, they just don't include it until it's done.

That's how it should be ;)

C'mon guys, just chill out... You don't need a buggy and rough Storm of War just for having it earlier.

There's nothing to worry about, we can wait as much time as the developers need. Just enjoy summer and be happy, SoW will come someday :rolleyes:

[Friendly_flyer]

I think there's over 40 different codes for different types of markings you can put on the aircraft, in addition to the regular numbers (<0 and <0- and I<< and <|- and all that kind of stuff)

I know the Luftwaffe had all kinds of funny markings, but the RAF had some interesting variations too: several different fuselage roundels, tail flashes and fonts for the squadron codes, and mirrored camo pattern (A- and B-scheme for even and odd serials respectively). Are the planes to include some of that diversity?

Oleg has stated that there will be a simplified skinning process, with rivets/lines/wear, markings and camo paint all in different layers. Can you tell us which of these layers you plan to make available to skinners? Will the layers be laid out in the same fashion as in IL2, with the plane "unfolded" over a picture file??

[I/ZG52_Gaga]

I take it that the Seagulls are not final right?

at first, i thought you pasted the Acs on a random sea background and there were left overs from a monochrome deleted background that had the Acs on .....

I'm not crazy about the screenshots ... but they'll do ... :)

[I/ZG52_Gaga]

I take it that the Seagulls are not final right?

at first, i thought you pasted the Acs on a random sea background and there were left overs from a monochrome deleted background that had the Acs on .....

Seagulls bon't blend in well that's my opinion ..

I'm not crazy about the screenshots ... but they'll do ... :)

[Insuber]

Lucas,

No hurry here (not after 5 years, come on!), and no wish of a buggy software. I'm just afraid that perfectionism will kill the chicken in the egg. If fires will stay cartoonish, I will not deem SoW as an unfinished software.
Again, small details can be adjusted later. I mean small details, not bugs, of course, such as flames colors, sea hue, or tree nuances.

And RoF is a successful experience, IMHO.

Cheers,
Insuber

[Hecke]

BTW On the Crane photo. Are these little zeppelines or what?

[johnnypfft]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzIPYnQ6zNE

[Superluminal_8]

BTW On the Crane photo. Are these little zeppelines or what?

Barrage ballons

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Lucas,

No hurry here (not after 5 years, come on!), and no wish of a buggy software. I'm just afraid that perfectionism will kill the chicken in the egg. If fires will stay cartoonish, I will not deem SoW as an unfinished software.
Again, small details can be adjusted later. I mean small details, not bugs, of course, such as flames colors, sea hue, or tree nuances.

And RoF is a successful experience, IMHO.

Cheers,
Insuber

I see your point, Insuber.

However, we both know this community very well, and I guess you are aware that some members will troll and complain for the very unimportant details, so for the sake of the dev's mental health, I think that should be avoided :mrgreen:

Plus, most of these small imperfections are easy to correct during the final stages, it's not something that can postpone the release for another month. Those details are something people will see quite often while flying, so sooner or later it will catch a nitpicker's eye, and I can't see why not dealing with it if there's enough time :) Even if it gets postponed for two more weeks, I think that's a reasonable wait for getting a polished simulator.

About Rise of Flight, it has become a successful experience after constant patching and debugging, but in the very beginning, most people were everything but happy about it as a whole.

[TallBonapart]

If be honest,I don't care much about ground textures,trees,water,seagulls,DRM and all that secondary and unimportant stuff.Just give me nice and realistically looking cockpit,good physics,and I will give you my 40 or 50 Euros straight away.So no need to wait 1C,after all its just a business,not the competition for most sophisticated product of the decade.

[Tbag]

I have to say that im not feeling much love for the landscape that Ive seen so far, to me it looks like a water colour painting, i would like to see a comparison screenshot between WOP and SOW landscape i seem to remember Oleg mentioning that he may do this. Also I honestly think that the Il2 trees look better although i appreciate that it is all still WIP's. The detail on the aircraft is incredible though and the water looks stunning.

I think we've seen much better landscape shots than those in recent updates already:

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/grab0003.jpg

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/grab_010.jpg

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/grab_011.jpg

[Foo'bar]

BTW On the Crane photo. Are these little zeppelines or what?

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/storm-of-war-offizielle-screenshots-mai-2009/

Barrage balloons.

[Hecke]

Quote: I think we've seen much better landscape shots than those in recent updates already:


yeah a bit better.

But especially the trees (shape and) colour look much nicer than in the latest updates.

[Chivas]

I agree with Lucas_From_Hell that a product shouldn't be released early, but that doesn't always work.

ROF for example would not have been released at all if they waited until is was finished. They needed the cash flow to continue work on the sim. Sure this upset a few people, but it did save the product, that many are enjoying now. Instead of having nothing in the end, you now have a developer with the cash flow to continue to improve a great product.

SOW is in the same boat although I'm sure it will be in a more finished product when released than ROF was. The SOW developer has stated many times he must release the sim as soon as possible for financial reasons. He has also stated in the Russian forums he would have liked to delay the release until 2011 to add some features but it won't be possible.

IF sales are good for the BOB SOW series, you will see a constant improvement of features as the sim progresses thru many addons. Hopefully the community will have the foresight to see that their favorite aircraft, theater, improved features will eventually be available in the SOW series, but they will need to support the developer now not later.

[erco]

Incredible update- can't wait to see it in motion. And as others have said, Luthier really ought to be in marketing, he knows how to push a simmer's buttons!

I took part in the beta test for ROF, and, while I can't argue with the developer's decision to release an unfinished game rather than shelve the whole project, my experience with the beta put me off buying the game, which I had fully intended to do. I'm still interested in ROF, I gave the demo a whirl a few months back, but I'm still not impressed with the game. Sure, the graphics are great, lots of people are enjoying it, but it still doesn't feel polished enough (seriously, no SLI support?) for me to bother with.

Oleg & Co are 100% right to only release what is working 100%. If that means some features are cut (initially) from the release, so be it.

[furbs]

I think we've seen much better landscape shots than those in recent updates already:

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/grab0003.jpg

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/grab_010.jpg

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/grab_011.jpg


yep...those trees look much better...so i wonder why they dont look as good in the last few updates?

anyone have a idea?

[=XIII=Shea]

IMHO people should pass judgement until we see an actual gameplay video,showing smoke,fire,ground detail,I think Oleg and the team know what they are doing;)

[David603]

yep...those trees look much better...so i wonder why they dont look as good in the last few updates?

anyone have a idea?
Didn't Oleg switch from using trees that were made by his own team to using trees made by a company called Spreadtree since those shots were taken?

Oleg also said something about bugs in the system and how they were using the reduced detail distant models at the moment, which would explain the poor trees in the most recent shots.

[zauii]

Comparing screenshots to one and another never gives any fair results.
Just wait til you have the game in motion and on your computers until you judge.

[lbuchele]

Oh sure, in our next add-on, BoC, Battle of the Cranes.

Our cranes are actually animated, they turn their heads, the winches move, i.e. they kind of look like they're doing something.

That´s good news , but I demand cranes might be able to transform in giant robots, flying ones if possible , to fight the nazis.
Megan Fox must be included in the Collector´s Edition, of course.
This is just the minimum I require from a realistic flight simulator.:rolleyes:

[CRO_Adriatic]

Now looks really scary to burn...

[Splitter]

Not to offend anyone, but I can't believe the nitpicking on the scenery.

I have bought software since it came on cassette tape. I have seen good graphics (for whatever time period) on bad games and "OK" graphics on very good games. Poor games don't get played for very long. Good games with OK graphics were (and are) played for many hours.

The are many things that go into actual "game play" that are more important than being able to take photo realistic screen shots.

I know from competing that most people have to sacrifice some aesthetics for frame rate. People are bringing up RoF as an example of what happens when a product is released too early but looked pretty. I would also point out that Crysis was a good game, and gorgeous, but many end users couldn't play it on their systems. The graphics were too good for all but the most powerful systems. So I would say that the greater danger is in SoW becoming another Crysis....stunning but unplayable for many.

In the US we have an expression: boondoggle. Programmers chasing their tails tweaking graphics and delaying release dates equals a boondoggle. Games staying in development for years on end equals a boondoggle (Team Fortress 2 anyone?).

Releasing a solid, great game that is used as a platform on which to improve further updates and releases equals a WIN for the end users and the publisher.

We're talking about the tree shade colors? Seriously? Were I Olegg I wouldn't be publishing these updates at all. I am waiting on the release of a new version of my favorite flight sim and the owner of that company gives almost no details so as to avoid discussions like this. That sim is still getting buzz in their community....especially because the current customers are hanging onto every rumor and tidbit of information that leaks out.

The fire has too much red in it? Seriously? The graphics look almost good enough for release, if the gameplay is outstanding then we won't be griping when it is released. The expression "you can't have everything" comes to mind, especially when we are talking about a $50 product.

Splitter

[Rodolphe]

...



Our cranes are actually animated, they turn their heads, the winches move, i.e. they kind of look like they're doing something.



Well, those crane should do something like this ? :grin::grin:


He 59 B, Seenotflugkommandos 3 , Boulogne-sur-Mer. 2nd half of 1940.
http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Seenot.jpg


Any news about the He 59 project ?

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/He59.jpg
...

[Hecke]

Not to offend anyone, but I can't believe the nitpicking on the scenery.

I have bought software since it came on cassette tape. I have seen good graphics (for whatever time period) on bad games and "OK" graphics on very good games. Poor games don't get played for very long. Good games with OK graphics were (and are) played for many hours.

The are many things that go into actual "game play" that are more important than being able to take photo realistic screen shots.

I know from competing that most people have to sacrifice some aesthetics for frame rate. People are bringing up RoF as an example of what happens when a product is released too early but looked pretty. I would also point out that Crysis was a good game, and gorgeous, but many end users couldn't play it on their systems. The graphics were too good for all but the most powerful systems. So I would say that the greater danger is in SoW becoming another Crysis....stunning but unplayable for many.

In the US we have an expression: boondoggle. Programmers chasing their tails tweaking graphics and delaying release dates equals a boondoggle. Games staying in development for years on end equals a boondoggle (Team Fortress 2 anyone?).

Releasing a solid, great game that is used as a platform on which to improve further updates and releases equals a WIN for the end users and the publisher.

We're talking about the tree shade colors? Seriously? Were I Olegg I wouldn't be publishing these updates at all. I am waiting on the release of a new version of my favorite flight sim and the owner of that company gives almost no details so as to avoid discussions like this. That sim is still getting buzz in their community....especially because the current customers are hanging onto every rumor and tidbit of information that leaks out.

The fire has too much red in it? Seriously? The graphics look almost good enough for release, if the gameplay is outstanding then we won't be griping when it is released. The expression "you can't have everything" comes to mind, especially when we are talking about a $50 product.

Splitter



All I have to say about this and all similar comments: OMG

Giving critique to the developers about screen updates is not an insult.
It's just help to make everything better.
When will you people understand?

Don't you know the saying: Two heads are better than one?

Oleg and his team are not all knowing.

[Friendly_flyer]

Splitter speaks the wisdom here.

[PhilHL]

Hello Oleg Maddox!

I have a question for you. The damaged planes look very similar to the ones in IL-2 (lot of Alpha-Channel use). I have seen many very good damage models in other games which look much better as on your screenshots. For example many racing games. or the damage model of rise of flight, i knew your answer, but SOW will be released way after ROF and it should be better in my eyes.

Is the damage model in SOW again relativly simple as in IL-2? Like having tree different damage models for every part of the plane and if this particular part is hit by bullets it will always look the same?

I know you have the dynamic weathering effects, thats not what I want to hear ;)

I have the feeling, also in other new games that some parts are not really beeing improved. More poygons, highter res of textures and more effects.. yeah thats nice, but thats not a game mechanics improvement.

As I first saw some screens of SOW i just thought.. oh no.. they use too much from il2 in this new game. I know you are basicly the same programmers but IL-2 looks very similar to SOW and not only the graphics.. also the above mentioned doubts of the new damage modell.

Can you release a more professional made video of SOW?? Videos are not the strength of your team or not in your interest or both.

[Avimimus]

Dusty most of the german emblems for SoW-BoB were made by me (until I was rudely interrupted by a serious illness and now I have not the time to devote it to finish the last emblems and write the last manuals) and I provided Maddox Games with a number of "manuals" for the emblems, their application and the other facts pertaining to german units and their markings (colour, style etc). The fighter manual alone has 103 pages in PDF. :cool:

I hope your health does well.

Very impressive number of pages there...

[SlipBall]

Thanks for the up-date, everything's looking great!

[Avimimus]

Hello Oleg Maddox!

I have a question for you. The damaged planes look very similar to the ones in IL-2 (lot of Alpha-Channel use). I have seen many very good damage models in other games which look much better as on your screenshots. For example many racing games. or the damage model of rise of flight, i knew your answer, but SOW will be released way after ROF and it should be better in my eyes.

Is the damage model in SOW again relativly simple as in IL-2? Like having tree different damage models for every part of the plane and if this particular part is hit by bullets it will always look the same?

I know you have the dynamic weathering effects, thats not what I want to hear ;)

I have the feeling, also in other new games that some parts are not really beeing improved. More poygons, highter res of textures and more effects.. yeah thats nice, but thats not a game mechanics improvement.

As I first saw some screens of SOW i just thought.. oh no.. they use too much from il2 in this new game. I know you are basicly the same programmers but IL-2 looks very similar to SOW and not only the graphics.. also the above mentioned doubts of the new damage modell.

Can you release a more professional made video of SOW?? Videos are not the strength of your team or not in your interest or both.

Hi, as Luthier is off for the weekend and Oleg is on vacation I thought I'd pass on what I've gleaned.

The damage model won't include the type of warping/bending seen in Rise of Flight. WWII aircraft tended to be made out of metal cantilever structures which would snap and fragment before they would bend (in most cases) and it wasn't felt to be worth the effort (last I heard anyway). However, the new model will include structural weaknesses and failures. So damaged aircraft may break up in flight some time after being damaged (or even after the combat has ended) depending on how sharply they turn etc. This is similar to the modeling in Rise of Flight. The damage model is based on a system similar to that used in Il-2, but more detailed. The main advance is much more detail to internal modeling (eg. more parts to the engine, more complex engine failures). Oleg also seems to have stated that it will include modeling of wing spars - so the type of unpredictable damage seen in Rise of Flight, where a luck shot can sever a wing is possible. Finally, bullet holes will appear at the exact points where machine-gun bullets hit. However, damage from cannon shots will be much like in Il-2 and always appear in the same spot (the reason is that this can allow much more realistic detailing by Oleg's artists then any automatic system could)

The dynamic weather model is being rebuilt for the new engine.

As a basic principle I wouldn't expect radical differences in art or style from Il-2 (it is after all, being made by the same people). However, expect a lot of very interesting surprises and very real improvements to AI, weather, ground target details and many other areas. The sim will also allow much more end user modification - so terrains, smoke, new aircraft etc. can be made.

I hope that help satisfy you're appetite. I too await new videos, but after ten years I've finally achieved patience and a little bit of confidence in Oleg's abilities. My only concern is that he may be too much of a visionary and try to achieve too many features too soon.

[whatnot]

I prefer to call it a "direct critique" and i explained also why i said that.

Surely more helpful than noob pointless cheering for every screenshot shown that even can't recognize AA or HDR like you....so please spare me.

Yes, we need more people writing oneliners about what sucks in the screenshots, that improves the game and developer's motivation a lot.

And we also need more gentlemen like caprera calling people noobs cheering for every screenshot when they point out two areas that could need improvement in a bit more civilized manner. That contributes to the discussion pretty well too.

[AC_Black]

~S~

Thanks again DT looks great :cool:

[Chivas]

Fire is very dynamic and can only be fairly critiqued after seeing it in a video. Saying the fire suxs at this juncture would be a noob comment.

[Sutts]

Thanks for the update guys, impressive stuff.

The trailing fire is really good. I think you'll have to see it in a video to get the full benefit though. You can get away with lower resolution textures in areas that move or change rapidly like the fire. I'd rather see the developers make frame rate saving decisions in areas that aren't really noticable like this. If we go 100% photorealistic on everything then it will never run on most people's PCs.

The fire inside the fuselage is fantastic and very scary looking. Never seen anything as real looking as that before in a sim. I particularly like how the fire has highlighted internal details like the flare chute tube (I think) in the rear fuselage.

Cheers

[Kudlius]

Sea looks fantastic, but forest? Is that real map?

[Dano]

yep...those trees look much better...so i wonder why they dont look as good in the last few updates?

anyone have a idea?

I'd hazard a guess that we are seeing a low quality landscape with low quality trees, ie; the worst it will look.

[socorrista22198]

Hi

I think particle systems are part of the past, would be nice use volumetric systems http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPILh1JrEM0


Thanks for the game :)

[nearmiss]

That looks like a marshmallow farm growing its product in time-lapsed views. :razz:

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Not to offend anyone, but I can't believe the nitpicking on the scenery.

I have bought software since it came on cassette tape. I have seen good graphics (for whatever time period) on bad games and "OK" graphics on very good games. Poor games don't get played for very long. Good games with OK graphics were (and are) played for many hours.

The are many things that go into actual "game play" that are more important than being able to take photo realistic screen shots.

I know from competing that most people have to sacrifice some aesthetics for frame rate. People are bringing up RoF as an example of what happens when a product is released too early but looked pretty. I would also point out that Crysis was a good game, and gorgeous, but many end users couldn't play it on their systems. The graphics were too good for all but the most powerful systems. So I would say that the greater danger is in SoW becoming another Crysis....stunning but unplayable for many.

In the US we have an expression: boondoggle. Programmers chasing their tails tweaking graphics and delaying release dates equals a boondoggle. Games staying in development for years on end equals a boondoggle (Team Fortress 2 anyone?).

Releasing a solid, great game that is used as a platform on which to improve further updates and releases equals a WIN for the end users and the publisher.

We're talking about the tree shade colors? Seriously? Were I Olegg I wouldn't be publishing these updates at all. I am waiting on the release of a new version of my favorite flight sim and the owner of that company gives almost no details so as to avoid discussions like this. That sim is still getting buzz in their community....especially because the current customers are hanging onto every rumor and tidbit of information that leaks out.

The fire has too much red in it? Seriously? The graphics look almost good enough for release, if the gameplay is outstanding then we won't be griping when it is released. The expression "you can't have everything" comes to mind, especially when we are talking about a $50 product.

Splitter

++1

[zauii]

Not to offend anyone, but I can't believe the nitpicking on the scenery.

I have bought software since it came on cassette tape. I have seen good graphics (for whatever time period) on bad games and "OK" graphics on very good games. Poor games don't get played for very long. Good games with OK graphics were (and are) played for many hours.

The are many things that go into actual "game play" that are more important than being able to take photo realistic screen shots.

I know from competing that most people have to sacrifice some aesthetics for frame rate. People are bringing up RoF as an example of what happens when a product is released too early but looked pretty. I would also point out that Crysis was a good game, and gorgeous, but many end users couldn't play it on their systems. The graphics were too good for all but the most powerful systems. So I would say that the greater danger is in SoW becoming another Crysis....stunning but unplayable for many.

In the US we have an expression: boondoggle. Programmers chasing their tails tweaking graphics and delaying release dates equals a boondoggle. Games staying in development for years on end equals a boondoggle (Team Fortress 2 anyone?).

Releasing a solid, great game that is used as a platform on which to improve further updates and releases equals a WIN for the end users and the publisher.

We're talking about the tree shade colors? Seriously? Were I Olegg I wouldn't be publishing these updates at all. I am waiting on the release of a new version of my favorite flight sim and the owner of that company gives almost no details so as to avoid discussions like this. That sim is still getting buzz in their community....especially because the current customers are hanging onto every rumor and tidbit of information that leaks out.

The fire has too much red in it? Seriously? The graphics look almost good enough for release, if the gameplay is outstanding then we won't be griping when it is released. The expression "you can't have everything" comes to mind, especially when we are talking about a $50 product.

Splitter

+1 & quoted for truth.

[Tempest123]

Not to offend anyone, but I can't believe the nitpicking on the scenery.

I have bought software since it came on cassette tape. I have seen good graphics (for whatever time period) on bad games and "OK" graphics on very good games. Poor games don't get played for very long. Good games with OK graphics were (and are) played for many hours.

The are many things that go into actual "game play" that are more important than being able to take photo realistic screen shots.

I know from competing that most people have to sacrifice some aesthetics for frame rate. People are bringing up RoF as an example of what happens when a product is released too early but looked pretty. I would also point out that Crysis was a good game, and gorgeous, but many end users couldn't play it on their systems. The graphics were too good for all but the most powerful systems. So I would say that the greater danger is in SoW becoming another Crysis....stunning but unplayable for many.

In the US we have an expression: boondoggle. Programmers chasing their tails tweaking graphics and delaying release dates equals a boondoggle. Games staying in development for years on end equals a boondoggle (Team Fortress 2 anyone?).

Releasing a solid, great game that is used as a platform on which to improve further updates and releases equals a WIN for the end users and the publisher.

We're talking about the tree shade colors? Seriously? Were I Olegg I wouldn't be publishing these updates at all. I am waiting on the release of a new version of my favorite flight sim and the owner of that company gives almost no details so as to avoid discussions like this. That sim is still getting buzz in their community....especially because the current customers are hanging onto every rumor and tidbit of information that leaks out.

The fire has too much red in it? Seriously? The graphics look almost good enough for release, if the gameplay is outstanding then we won't be griping when it is released. The expression "you can't have everything" comes to mind, especially when we are talking about a $50 product.

Splitter

++1 from me!

[philip.ed]

I disagree slightly, if a product is future-proofed and has an excellent market like the Il-2 market the company should make the best looking product available. It may not be highly playable on full-settings this year, but give a year or two it will grow into something astounding. ;)

[Splitter]

Well, whichever side you come down on for graphics, I think we can all agree that we won't buy the game if they put time limits on missions lol.

From what I have seen on graphics and such so far, the only things that would stop me from buying this game would be poor missions, poor campaigns, poor flight models, or a total lack of a career mode (and I am flexible on that last I guess). I don't want to be thrown into a different airplane for every mission and I would really prefer some strategic control over targets, mission assignments, and tactics.

But, as for those game play elements beyond graphics, I guess we will have to wait and see. It's just that I would hate to wait for "better trees" and fire when a game with solid game play could be released sooner rather than later.

Splitter

[David603]

Well, whichever side you come down on for graphics, I think we can all agree that we won't buy the game if they put time limits on missions lol.

From what I have seen on graphics and such so far, the only things that would stop me from buying this game would be poor missions, poor campaigns, poor flight models, or a total lack of a career mode (and I am flexible on that last I guess). I don't want to be thrown into a different airplane for every mission and I would really prefer some strategic control over targets, mission assignments, and tactics.

But, as for those game play elements beyond graphics, I guess we will have to wait and see. It's just that I would hate to wait for "better trees" and fire when a game with solid game play could be released sooner rather than later.

Splitter
I'm going to assume you have played the console game Il2 Birds of Prey but not any of the PC Il2 Sturmovik games. None of the problems you have mentioned such as time limits on missions, changing between aircraft every other mission etc have ever been in the the PC games, they were all introduced by the development team that produced Birds of Prey.

As far as the quality of missions, the team at Maddox games have always produced good missions and campaigns, and there are literally thousands of player created missions and campaigns out there for Sturmovik.

[nearmiss]

Well, whichever side you come down on for graphics, I think we can all agree that we won't buy the game if they put time limits on missions lol.

From what I have seen on graphics and such so far, the only things that would stop me from buying this game would be poor missions, poor campaigns, poor flight models, or a total lack of a career mode (and I am flexible on that last I guess). I don't want to be thrown into a different airplane for every mission and I would really prefer some strategic control over targets, mission assignments, and tactics.

But, as for those game play elements beyond graphics, I guess we will have to wait and see. It's just that I would hate to wait for "better trees" and fire when a game with solid game play could be released sooner rather than later.

Splitter

The BOB SOW is a different genre of game. It is an advanced air combat simulation more than a game. If you have a propensity for detail and have the patience to take weeks or months to learn to fly one aircraft it might be for you. You'll also have to have a very competent computer, joystick, and some other hardware that will cost you a great deal more than the game.

Technologically advanced products are often cheap so most people can afford them, but are never going to make the required effort to get the most from it. Most people never think about how much they are willing to learn, cell phones, tv sets, etc. to properly enjoy the value of advanced technology.

You can buy a copy of the IL2 1946 very cheap right now. I would suggest you buy a copy and then see if you are into it. Regardless, the BOB SOW won't be that expensive. You can always Ebay it, and get most of your money back if it's too much for you.

[Splitter]

I see why you would say that, but I have not played the Birds of Prey console game although I am aware of the complaints from end users. I have played other games in the past that had time limits on missions so I can sympathize. The same goes for switching planes every mission (Janes ATF, grrrr...).

The fact that the design team has produced good missions and campaigns in the past is promising. I hope and trust that they will stick to that strategy. My "want" in a similar area is for a good career mode.

So thanks and good to know!

Splitter

[Chill31]

the first picture with the blenheim on fire looks fake due to the amount of damage it has sustained. it looks see through...a little over done in my opinion

[DK-nme]

the first picture with the blenheim on fire looks fake due to the amount of damage it has sustained. it looks see through...a little over done in my opinion

I believe U mean the Wellington? Well, if it is the Wellington U're refering to, Barnes Wallis' geodetic design made the Wellington very strong. The screenshots are therefor very plausible. The Wellington was built in an advanced metallic structure, with fabric covering all the plane - thus flames burn through the fabric the way U see on the screenies...


DK-nme

[Wolkenbeisser]

Phantastic shots! Fingernailbiting here, just as it was back then with old IL-2.

Is there someone else out there, who stops breathing while clicking on the newest friday-update?

Just great! Thanks lutier (and all the staff around Oleg).

[Romanator21]

Last week's smokes were rather strange to me, but the flames coming from the Wellingtons look spot-on. Keep it up Oleg and Company! :)

[GHOST]

I do a lot of reading and not much posting, but i have noticed a lot of interesting talk about the fire. I came across this video and i thought all of you would be interested to see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc3InHWB1es&feature=PlayList&p=D2BD54DBB23A6283&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=17

[nearmiss]

It isn't so sweet when you see it happening in the real world.

THanks for the video

[baronWastelan]

It isn't so sweet when you see it happening in the real world.

THanks for the video

If it hadn't happened in the real world, would you be interested in BoB?

[zapatista]

the fires in the BoB aircraft looks very good imho so far from what oleg has posted, and is very close to the real thing (as we have seen from posters here providing real life video and photographs as a comparison).

to have one newbie retard post in a thread here "this sux" is absolutely meaningless. not only does it show bad manner and low emotional intelligence, but it shows a complete lack of understanding of what real life fires look like in real historical events, and there is no shred of evidence provided to make some kind of counter argument

the real question is going to be about the degree these fires (and smoke) will vary in BoB depending on what parts on the aircraft are damaged, and how long the fires will last, and if the fires and damage spreads etc.. so we get some variation in small fires and big fires, mixed with variations of smoke effect, and maybe some aircraft exploding mid air when bomb stores or fuel containers are affected by fire. from other snippets oleg has provided in the past, he is taking account of that to some degree, so fires in aircraft in general look very good to me so far.

i agree with some of the other earlier posters in this thread, constantly over criticizing on minor aspects can become self defeating if we (as the fanbase) dont keep a sense of perspective and context, since oleg is currently focused on getting the project finished (and significant further delays could potentially put the whole project at risk). the most important thing is that the core subcomponents of the project are included, like dynamic campaign engine, flight models, new gfx engine with scalable high quality visual effect (which can be improved over time) etc..

[Sutts]

I do a lot of reading and not much posting, but i have noticed a lot of interesting talk about the fire. I came across this video and i thought all of you would be interested to see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc3InHWB1es&feature=PlayList&p=D2BD54DBB23A6283&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=17

Great footage Ghost, thanks for posting. Interesting to see how the amount of smoke fluctuates. I guess the fire burns richer and more smokey (less efficiently) when larger quantities of fuel are dumped out and more intensely with less smoke when the fuel flow reduces. The intermittent bursts of fire in the smoke stream were also interesting.

It would be nice to see variations like this in the game.

[philip.ed]

I do a lot of reading and not much posting, but i have noticed a lot of interesting talk about the fire. I came across this video and i thought all of you would be interested to see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc3InHWB1es&feature=PlayList&p=D2BD54DBB23A6283&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=17


This, paired with the colour ww2 footage I posted last-week shows that, whilst Olegs smoke may not be wrong, clearly it is a bit OTT using it in what we may feel is the norm when the A/C is on fire. I mean, the smoke here looks a lot like WoP to me, and WoP is an arcade sim that goes overkill on the damage. Whilst the fire here looks awesome, this smoke is still not good enough for 2010 I don't think. I am of the opinion that posting the same damage effects will just make us feel that this is the only type of smoke that will come out when an A/C catches fire. Whether this is true we can only guess, but I still would like to see all the different types of damage smoke to prove my current ideas wrong.

If anyone is interested, I can post the colour footage again for comparison.

[zapatista]

yep...those trees look much better...so i wonder why they dont look as good in the last few updates?

anyone have a idea?

i suspect, and hope i am wrong here, that oleg in the last months completely switched his tree modeling from his own creations he made previously in the last few years (seen in your post of old screenshots), to now using the new generic "speedtrees" (which some game manufacturers purchase as a 3e party element from a separate company, you can google it to find more info, there is webpages with all the tree models they make)

most likely oleg's only reason for this is that the scenery vegetation and trees he initially made (which look much better !) were to much of a cpu and gpu hog. when in the last 6 months oleg started integrating all the various sub components to put his modualr game design together, he might have found he couldnt get the frames per sec he hoped for. it would have been one of the most simple things to replace the trees/shrubs, while keeping all the other elements he made for the game which also drain cpu/gpu (dynamic campaign engine, weather modeling, flight physics for aircraft, etc..)

if that is the compromise needed to get the finished sim out the door this year, so be it imo. hopefully later oleg can replace the speedtrees with his own creation once they have the luxury of time to make further refinements for game efficiency later

all this is pure speculation on my part :)

[Xilon_x]

yes i loock the video and the center of flames is brilliant white light the intensity of brilliant light intensity 'depends precisely the presence of flammable liquid fuel. yes SOW brilliant effect is fac-simile.
But Explosion is different effect.depends of type army BOMBS, MISSILE,OR BULLETS if you loock sequence of explosion first loock the white ball brilliant and after this ball transform in red color whit black smoke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_eDC8R4H9c&feature=related

[Tree_UK]

i suspect, and hope i am wrong here, that oleg in the last months completely switched his tree modeling from his own creations he made previously in the last few years (seen in your post of old screenshots), to now using the new generic "speedtrees" (which some game manufacturers purchase as a 3e party element from a separate company, you can google it to find more info, there is webpages with all the tree models they make)

most likely oleg's only reason for this is that the scenery vegetation and trees he initially made (which look much better !) were to much of a cpu and gpu hog. when in the last 6 months oleg started integrating all the various sub components to put his modualr game design together, he might have found he couldnt get the frames per sec he hoped for. it would have been one of the most simple things to replace the trees/shrubs, while keeping all the other elements he made for the game which also drain cpu/gpu (dynamic campaign engine, weather modeling, flight physics for aircraft, etc..)

if that is the compromise needed to get the finished sim out the door this year, so be it imo. hopefully later oleg can replace the speedtrees with his own creation once they have the luxury of time to make further refinements for game efficiency later

all this is pure speculation on my part :)

Surely if that is the case though he could simply get his tree's back from WOP, they seem to look better at the moment and the fps is fine, obviously some have issues with the colour of WOP terrain but on the whole it still looks better than the WIPs we are seeing from SOW.

[Sturm_Williger]

To be honest, as long as we have moved on from the Side-on-Invisible-trees(tm) of IL2, I'll accept pretty much any compromise regarding trees.

I'm happier with FM, DM & AI hogging my cpu/gpu cycles.

[AndyJWest]

To be honest, as long as we have moved on from the Side-on-Invisible-trees(tm) of IL2, I'll accept pretty much any compromise regarding trees.

I'm happier with FM, DM & AI hogging my cpu/gpu cycles.
Exactly. +1 to that.

The obsession with eye-candy shown by some on this forum could be counter-productive if Oleg and co were to take it too seriously. Yes, I want SoW:BoB to look good (and from what I've seen it will), but that isn't what is going to determine its long-term viability.

[lbuchele]

Exactly. +1 to that.

The obsession with eye-candy shown by some on this forum could be counter-productive if Oleg and co were to take it too seriously. Yes, I want SoW:BoB to look good (and from what I've seen it will), but that isn't what is going to determine its long-term viability.
That´s why I said in another post that is easy to sims like WoP to do the best eye-candy possible.They don´t have to compromise anything.
I drop it in less then a week as a result and I believe that most of people here eventually do the same with arcade games like that.
All we want here is to be challenged , the most, the better and doing a sim capable of challenge us is something that Oleg, Ilya and team are masters.
I truly believe that this will be a masterpiece, my real concern is about my real life ...

[Tree_UK]

But hang on a minute, when people on here were getting excited about the terrain in 'WOP' Oleg stated that we could be sure that the terrain in SOW would be a whole lot better, at this moment in time I am not seeing that, ok maybe in 2 months time when SOW is released it will look a whole lot better.

[zapatista]

Surely if that is the case though he could simply get his tree's back from WOP, they seem to look better at the moment and the fps is fine, obviously some have issues with the colour of WOP terrain but on the whole it still looks better than the WIPs we are seeing from SOW.

iirc oleg only provided the code for the flight modeling to WoP, nothing else. the scenery and all other parts are of their own creation

having looked at video's of WoP gaming (but not played it), i'd say that sim has significant problems of its own in the way it represents scenery. from a few specific distances/altitudes the scenery looks very good, other times it doesnt, and at times it even looks very cartoonish. overall visually (to me) it very much gives the impression of a console game from 5 yrs ago.

[Chivas]

The SOW engine has been developed not only for a combat flight sim but possibly for CGI generated movies. Hence Olegs attempts to make the SOW graphics cinematic. I like the graphics we've seen so far, but it isn't cinematic YET, and it may not be cinematic in the initial release of BOB. That said, I have no doubt that the graphic engine will be capable of becoming cinematic at some point during the series.

Hopefully Oleg will be able to generate much greater funds with the SOW engine, other than the relatively small flight sim community. It could bode well for all of us.

[Romanator21]

I would say some screen-shots are photographic, so I wonder if some of the videos presented later will be cinematic. :) The little gif with the Stuka comes to mind.

I would also venture to say that SoW terrain is already far better than WoP's. It really just needs fine tuning of colors, shapes, etc.

[Antoninus]

Indeed. The WOP terrain looks impressive but artifical, just like the overdone modern CGI movies. Certain aspects of SOW might not (yet) look as good as in WOP, but for me the overall impression is much closer to reality.

[Hecke]

But hang on a minute, when people on here were getting excited about the terrain in 'WOP' Oleg stated that we could be sure that the terrain in SOW would be a whole lot better, at this moment in time I am not seeing that, ok maybe in 2 months time when SOW is released it will look a whole lot better.


Yes he "promised" that so I expect a bit more. Hope the ground graphics at the moment ar far away from the final look.

[KOM.Nausicaa]

The SOW engine has been developed not only for a combat flight sim but possibly for CGI generated movies.

Well, I know something about 'CGI generated movies' as you call it, and it won't look like that. You can't match a rendering time of 24-48 hours for a single frame, and you don't want that. ;-) SoW terrain looks just fine to me. This is not the small maps of BoP. It looks just fine, if the rest is a real combat flight sim and calculations that go with it, IMO.

[Chivas]

Well, I know something about 'CGI generated movies' as you call it, and it won't look like that. You can't match a rendering time of 24-48 hours for a single frame, and you don't want that. ;-) SoW terrain looks just fine to me. This is not the small maps of BoP. It looks just fine, if the rest is a real combat flight sim and calculations that go with it, IMO.

Well I don't know anything on how CGI works, but Oleg has mentioned that he hopes to have cinematic graphics and use the SOW engine in the movie business.

[Friendly_flyer]

I am of the opinion that posting the same damage effects will just make us feel that this is the only type of smoke that will come out when an A/C catches fire. Whether this is true we can only guess, but I still would like to see all the different types of damage smoke to prove my current ideas wrong.

We have different smokes for different types of damage in IL2. I would be _extremely_ surprised if the same is not true in SoW:BoB.

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

The SOW developer has stated many times he must release the sim as soon as possible for financial reasons. He has also stated in the Russian forums he would have liked to delay the release until 2011 to add some features but it won't be possible.


Can anyone get me a link for this statement?

[Insuber]

Can anyone get me a link for this statement?

Here you go:

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3049614/5.html

Link to the original interview:

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=52383&page=234


Cheers,
Insuber

[Richie]

This is great! I remember the good old days when we were getting teasers about IL-2 and then the Forgotten Battles addon... The excitement of waiting for something as cool is not all bad, I kinda like it sometimes. :)

I too reacted to the scary look of the flames inside the bomber. It's really an inferno in there.

This is just getting better and better. Also, I think it's great that we get to see other things than the usual BoB planes I.E. Blenheims, Wellingtons and so on.

Big thanks for the update!


I sure remember those days too Cpt. I even remember that droning music they played along with some of the IL-2 2001 previews. The same music that's with the video intro if you have it checked while the game loads.

[Richie]

But hang on a minute, when people on here were getting excited about the terrain in 'WOP' Oleg stated that we could be sure that the terrain in SOW would be a whole lot better, at this moment in time I am not seeing that, ok maybe in 2 months time when SOW is released it will look a whole lot better.

Just wait ...you'll see


aka Hackl

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

Here you go:

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3049614/5.html

Link to the original interview:

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=52383&page=234


Cheers,
Insuber

Thanks!

[philip.ed]

We have different smokes for different types of damage in IL2. I would be _extremely_ surprised if the same is not true in SoW:BoB.

I know, but there is only one type of black-smoke in Il-2 (currently anyway). In SoW, it'd be great if the smoke would fluctuate.

[zapatista]

Well I don't know anything on how CGI works, but Oleg has mentioned that he hopes to have cinematic graphics and use the SOW engine in the movie business.

i interpreted that oleg statement as meaning BoB visuals would be good enough to be used by the movie industry for documentaries, for ex to illustrate specific aircraft or combat events. the computer programs and grafix used for this in the last few years has been rather rudimentary and looks somewhat primitive. i dont think oleg's BoB is intended for major hollywood movie productions :)

personally i dont like the whole CGI visual effect used in so many movies these days, it always looks very artificial and easy to spot. also gives the impression the producers were to cheap or hurried to "get the real thing". no substitute for creating the right atmosphere with vintage planes,vehicles and ships, and actually have it filmed in the real physical location it is intended to represent

[brando]

i interpreted that oleg statement as meaning BoB visuals would be good enough to be used by the movie industry for documentaries, for ex to illustrate specific aircraft or combat events. the computer programs and grafix used for this in the last few years has been rather rudimentary and looks somewhat primitive. i dont think oleg's BoB is intended for major hollywood movie productions :)

personally i dont like the whole CGI visual effect used in so many movies these days, it always looks very artificial and easy to spot. also gives the impression the producers were to cheap or hurried to "get the real thing". no substitute for creating the right atmosphere with vintage planes,vehicles and ships, and actually have it filmed in the real physical location it is intended to represent

Unfortunately, that ideal is made very difficult by the physical changes to the landscapes over which many of the war's air battles were fought; certainly in Europe at least. Modern buildings, telecommunications towers and, most especially, modern road systems (and reduced railway lines) would make the earthly background to aerial combat quite anachronistically unreal. There is just too much new 'stuff' to ignore.

B

[Hecke]

Hi,

I dont wanna open a new thread because of one little question.

Is there a list out there which planes will definately be in SOW BoB?

[Blackdog_kt]

[
the real question is going to be about the degree these fires (and smoke) will vary in BoB depending on what parts on the aircraft are damaged, and how long the fires will last, and if the fires and damage spreads etc.. so we get some variation in small fires and big fires, mixed with variations of smoke effect, and maybe some aircraft exploding mid air when bomb stores or fuel containers are affected by fire. from other snippets oleg has provided in the past, he is taking account of that to some degree, so fires in aircraft in general look very good to me so far.


Exactly. Gettin a minor flame every single time is just like getting the same colour of smoke or a huge flame every single time. It's not only boring, it's also unrealistic. Just look at the youtube video of the modified Corsair, that thing has a constant smoke stream which varies in colour depending on what's burning, plus an intermittent flame stream which turns into a permanent one, then cuts out again when the plane goes inverted and finally gets extinguished as it picks up speed in the dive after the pilot bails out.

That doesn't mean I expect the development team to include a load of painstaking and FPS-costly calculations to do this according to what material is burning on the release version. I'll be perfectly happy if they only have 5 different fire types and 5 smoke types that randomly change from one type to another or cut out under some simple triggers. For example, "if airspeed>400mph then flame=0", simple stuff like that.

Things like fluctuating instrument needles, engines that run on the same power settings and yet they develop different temperatures, fuel consumptions and problems, all it takes is randomizers and we'll get a much more believable experience. This doesn't have to be 100% real, unless we somehow get cray supercomputers to run this, it just has to feel real and make you feel like there's things working under the hood. Later on, when we get more powerful PCs, it's just a case of replacing the random functions with precisely detailed ones that take more things into account. Like i've said in the past, we didn't have water=3 and perfect mode when IL2 was first released but we got it eventually. Show the guys who are coding this a little bit of faith, they've earned it after all these years ;)

I like the screenshots in this update and i think they are good portrayals of "catastrophic damage, GTFO out of the plane" type of fires. Supposing that SoW will have a life as long as IL2 and the fact that it will be open to modding from the start, all we need is provision for certain effects and triggers. I can bet my right thumb that within a week of releasing the 3rd party tools there will be a few hundred modified flame textures for us to pick and choose from, let's not worry about things that will be easily fixed according to our taste. It's like buying a car and basing the decision entirely upon the color of the models that the dealer has in stock, without even considering what's under the hood. Just like this, it's the underlying structure of the game engine that matters most for long term updates and development. I can live with reduced detail in a few things while waiting for stronger PCs to come, as long as the important stuff is there (FM/DM, campaigns, AI, user-friendliness, moddability) and i know the engine has spare room for extra "modules" to be "plugged in" at a later date.

As for the comparison between IL2, SoW and WoP, correct me if i'm wrong but i think that WoP's maps are tiny compared to the ones used in IL2 and SoW. It's no wonder they can cram so much detail into it if they have a similar CPU/GPU to run it on that only has to render 50% the map sizes. When the 3rd party tools come out i bet we could see a BoP-level object density map, it would just probably be that tiny stretch of the channel between Calais and Dover in order to maintain acceptable framerates.

In retrospect, criticism and fancy ideas are always good to have for the long run, but when asking for things to be included on the release version let's at least try to keep it in perspective a bit. We need the dreamers with the wild ideas just as much as we need the totalitarian accuracy nazis and the guys who will compromise for less, so that the new sim will not only have the drive to evolve and improve, but also the revenue stream needed to fund this evolution. Just my friendly 2 cents as usual :cool:

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Oleg, Ilya and co. have stated over and over (and over, and over, and over, and...) that they will NOT show the big picture until the final release, for the surprise effect.

What we see on these updates are tiny details - the kind of details that show why this game will be 100 times cooler than anything ever put together before.

I'm pretty sure they've referred to this question of terrain and map specifically as well countless times.

They won't show anything in its full glory. They want you to use your imagination, just to make you think of something "good" and then blow you away with something a bit "HOLY SHIT! *jaw drops*"

If they show everything it won't be fun to wait for friday hitting F5 anymore...

[Tree_UK]

Oleg, Ilya and co. have stated over and over (and over, and over, and over, and...) that they will NOT show the big picture until the final release, for the surprise effect.

What we see on these updates are tiny details - the kind of details that show why this game will be 100 times cooler than anything ever put together before.

I'm pretty sure they've referred to this question of terrain and map specificially as well countless times.

They won't show anything in its full glory. They want you to use your imagination, just to make you think of something "good" and then blow you away with something a bit "HOLY SHIT! *jaw drops*"

If they show everything it won't be fun to wait for friday hitting F5 anymore...

No pressure then.....

[Zorin]

Hi,

I dont wanna open a new thread because of one little question.

Is there a list out there which planes will definately be in SOW BoB?

Player controlled:

1. Spitfire Mark I
2. Hurricane Mark I
3. Blenheim IV
4. Gladiator II (maybe)
5. Tiger Moth
6. Bf109E-3
7. Bf110 (not sure which version)
8. Ju-88A-1
9. He-111H-2
10. Cr. 42
11. G. 50
12. Br. 20
13. Bonus Su-26 aerobatics plane
14. Ju87B

AI:

RAF

Vickers Wellington
Short Sunderland
Westland Lysander
Bristol Beaufighter
Supermarine Walrus
Avro Autogiro
Boulton Paul Defiant
Avro Anson
Bristol Blenheim IF

Luftwaffe

Do17Z
Do215
Ju52
Ju52 seaplane
Fw200C-1
He59
He115
Bf108B

[Fireskull]

1C: Maddox Games,


That was a great decision to release images of the seagulls first. They are mostly white and easy to model. It is good to start small and develop more difficult things later.


Good thinking! :grin:

Thank you for considering my endless requests for birds!

"Remember: Birds are everywhere!", but there are some other things that are everywhere, too! :-)

[nearmiss]

Of course those birds would be a plus, it takes just about as much in math processing to provide flying birds as flying planes.

To those with the super fast (expensive) computer systems the birds probably won't make much difference.

Marginal or not so hot computer systems will have a tough enough time with the higher quality 16 poly graphics.

Then again if birds, sheep, humans or other critters moving all around are to be included there should be a switch to turn them off to save on FPS.

[Fireskull]

nearmiss,


Yeah, birds would be great, but I am sure that they could be done with little impact on Storm of War frames per second. Remember how the pilots in IL-2 could be reduced in quality with a graphics setting change? This made the pilots have less impact on IL-2.


In Storm of War, I trust that the Maddox Team will make many things available with variances of detail setting. How far this will go, we do not know at this time.

Like many things with all simulation or game developers, features tend to evolve with time. Perhaps a day will come when we can choose the number of extra features, such as setting the number of birds, leaves, dolphins, insects, dust, debris, and so forth generated in the simulation for customization. :mrgreen:

...Just a dreamer's thought.

Maddox Team: Have huge fantasies about your simulation! I hope that you really have fun in developing it. :grin:

[nearmiss]

Don't forget the flapping wings, aircraft have no flapping wings that are constantly being processed as when birds fly.

Again, I think if birds are in the package they should be switchable.

There are just so many things that would be more exceptional within the SOW.

[Fireskull]

Ah! Remember that birds are very small compared to aircraft with many features. :-P

Thank you for chatting with me. :)

[mungee]

"Although if we have time I might post something entirely unexpected here mid-week" - Luthier (last week).

I've got my fingers crossed!!

[ZaltysZ]

Birds are not eye candy, they are danger. :grin: Look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSqT-w-Zecc . Would be good to have something like this in SoW (no one is saying, that you need that blood on windshield).

[imaca]

Birds would add overhead for little additional realism, in all my time flying I have never seen a bird from an aircraft (except on the ground) They are so small and generally stay very close to the ground.
In real life its hard enough to see another aircraft let alone birds. It makes sense to have only seagulls because of their size.

[imaca]

I don't think there's any AA on these screen shots. It's just the blue-greys of the sea that sometimes gives the same effect on the edges of the planes.

Yes there is.
If you right click - open in new window - you get the full res. Zoom in on the shots and it is obvious to see.

[Immermann]

No there isn't. :)

[philip.ed]

The birds in that video look really good. I'd love to see something like that in SoW.

[tagTaken2]

I'd just like to see SoW.

Seriously, aren't a lot of us losing sight of the bigger picture? A next gen combat flight simulator with realistic flight models, modd/expandability and a good campaign?

I have to assume some of the requests, such as falling leaves and different bird types, are taking the piss. If you want to pay for fripperies such as these in an addon, fine. But if details like this are causing release delays, I wouldn't want to be an investor in 1C.

[Splitter]

The birds in that video look really good. I'd love to see something like that in SoW.

With birds and the mocking deer (seriously, they look at you and smile) in X-Plane, there is a bit of a performance hit. And they are a little too common as I took three bird strikes in 10 flights which is statistically REALLY bad luck lol.

I wouldn't want the performance hit that comes with tracking bird's positions and then the graphical representation of flapping wings. I guess it would be cool to be able to switch birds on though.

Also, as good as X-Plane's flight model is, it isn't perfect. Better than any combat sim I have played for sure, but not perfect. Graphics for X-Plane 9 would be TERRIBLY disappointing to what the folks are expecting with SoW. Lakes with sharp corners, no real ground detail, randomized buildings in cities, etc.. Of course, X-Plane covers the whole world (and Mars lol) while SoW will have MUCH smaller maps.

Having said all of that, the only thing that X-Plane is really missing is combat. The flight model is so good that I could live with the graphics if they incorporated a good combat sim. The good news with all of that for companies like 1C is that the owner of X-Plane has no interest, apparently, in producing a combat sim.

So if you want a really good flight sim with a tremendous flight model, check out X-Plane. If you want a really good combat sim...like I do...well, here we are waiting anxiously for SoW. While I enjoy and have learned a lot from flight sims, there is nothing like a good air combat sim :).

I guess my prejudice toward gameplay, damage models, and flight models over graphics comes from my interest in flight sims.

Maybe Laminar and 1C should merge just to make me happy? lol

Splitter

[scrope]

At last, someone with a ton of sense, and these are the members that keep moaning about release dates. Good on yer tagTaken2.

[Viking]

Oleg is the man to have both the vision of the next gen flight sim as well as the ability to make a sound economical decision when to quit and publish.
He’s been around long enough.

Keep this tread clean for update discussion only please.
Regards

Viking

[philip.ed]

Regarding birds, I think modelling them could be simple. They can be placed in an area on the map, and have a small radius in which they fly in. When A/C are flying, the birds will take flight, but when all is calm they just settl on a fixed location in that area. In this way, the game won't be focusing on their moments, and they will only be disturbed when in visual distance of the player ;)

I think it is a possible workaround. I mean, in Bob2 there are birds, but you will never see them really because their size is realistic and their numbers are limited IIRC.

[constant]

The screenshots are overall decent, I love the burning planes. ++

However, the specular affect on the planes is severely dissappointing, having the same flat-"plastic" look as in IL2, instead of metallic.

With the new technology, and computers moving to the 64bit bandwidth platform, 1c should not be afraid to move to bump-mapping + environment mapping (reflective) for a more authentically "metal" look.

Notice the minute details of the highlights in the planes construction, the shine on the underside of the wing and on the lowered flap. (Even the orange paint on the tail has a good shine to it!)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3128/3173161701_52d8927fb5.jpg

Now notice how the plane basically looks flat IL2:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1262/1392328265_458c8921ff.jpg

Now look in SoW how well still have the same basic flat look, with what looks like a failed attempt to bump-mapping or a poor version of a bump mapped plane:

(image was too big to leave in a post..)

SoW Screenshot (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=2846&d=1279279647)

Producing a properly skinned plane with bump-mapping and environment mapping (even realtime) is not a difficult task these days. You could even generate an environment map for all planes using one render of the environment, say from the players plane position, to a texture, since any plane that will have this reflectivness will need to be within some distance to be noticeable anyway, much too close to notice the lackof diffierence in environment mapping. Even in non-commercial 3D engines such as Irrlicht, this is possible in as few lines as 20, I believe. And second-rendering the environment (not other planes, no ground objects, just ground, water, sky..) should not be a big performance hit either. This second render could then also be used for other things like reflectiveness of the environment off the water.. Not that the water looks bad at all.

However there is probably just too much for these guys to fix to even bother attempting to reproduce that wonderful realistic look that planes have at this point in development. I am just sorely dissappointed they could not address this major peice of the sim as it has plagued the realism in il2 and sorely hampered my willingness to make skins for planes, especially those like the p51 who have had polished metal panels instead of paint.

[BigC208]

@Constant. A while a go I saw a SOW Spitfire that looked metalic in one of the older updates. I think reflective bump mapping is supported. Not that it would be usable in the BoB.

[Sutts]

The screenshots are overall decent, I love the burning planes. ++

However, the specular affect on the planes is severely dissappointing, having the same flat-"plastic" look as in IL2, instead of metallic.

With the new technology, and computers moving to the 64bit bandwidth platform, 1c should not be afraid to move to bump-mapping + environment mapping (reflective) for a more authentically "metal" look.

Notice the minute details of the highlights in the planes construction, the shine on the underside of the wing and on the lowered flap. (Even the orange paint on the tail has a good shine to it!)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3128/3173161701_52d8927fb5.jpg

Now notice how the plane basically looks flat IL2:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1262/1392328265_458c8921ff.jpg

Now look in SoW how well still have the same basic flat look, with what looks like a failed attempt to bump-mapping or a poor version of a bump mapped plane:

(image was too big to leave in a post..)

SoW Screenshot (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=2846&d=1279279647)

Producing a properly skinned plane with bump-mapping and environment mapping (even realtime) is not a difficult task these days. You could even generate an environment map for all planes using one render of the environment, say from the players plane position, to a texture, since any plane that will have this reflectivness will need to be within some distance to be noticeable anyway, much too close to notice the lackof diffierence in environment mapping. Even in non-commercial 3D engines such as Irrlicht, this is possible in as few lines as 20, I believe. And second-rendering the environment (not other planes, no ground objects, just ground, water, sky..) should not be a big performance hit either. This second render could then also be used for other things like reflectiveness of the environment off the water.. Not that the water looks bad at all.

However there is probably just too much for these guys to fix to even bother attempting to reproduce that wonderful realistic look that planes have at this point in development. I am just sorely dissappointed they could not address this major peice of the sim as it has plagued the realism in il2 and sorely hampered my willingness to make skins for planes, especially those like the p51 who have had polished metal panels instead of paint.


What planet are you on mate?? Most early WWII aircraft were supposed to have a flat look. They used non-reflective flat paint containing light scattering particles just for that purpose. I remember reading that the engine will support reflective finishes but there isn't much use for that in the BoB period is there?

I think Oleg and team have done an incredible job with the new aircraft - the flat paint looks better than any sim I've seen and the details are all there, right down to the subtle quilting effect of the rivet lines. I fail to see why you are comparing a fighter featuring glossy paint and areas of bare alloy to early war aircraft covered in flat matt paint?? And then you have the cheek to slag off the teams efforts based on that!

I'm tired of hearing this endless stream of drivel from the self proclaimed "experts". If you can do better then why don't you write your own sim?

Rant over:evil:

[Tempest123]

The screenshots are overall decent, I love the burning planes. ++

However, the specular affect on the planes is severely dissappointing, having the same flat-"plastic" look as in IL2, instead of metallic.

With the new technology, and computers moving to the 64bit bandwidth platform, 1c should not be afraid to move to bump-mapping + environment mapping (reflective) for a more authentically "metal" look.

Notice the minute details of the highlights in the planes construction, the shine on the underside of the wing and on the lowered flap. (Even the orange paint on the tail has a good shine to it!)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3128/3173161701_52d8927fb5.jpg

Now notice how the plane basically looks flat IL2:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1262/1392328265_458c8921ff.jpg

Now look in SoW how well still have the same basic flat look, with what looks like a failed attempt to bump-mapping or a poor version of a bump mapped plane:

(image was too big to leave in a post..)

SoW Screenshot (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=2846&d=1279279647)

Producing a properly skinned plane with bump-mapping and environment mapping (even realtime) is not a difficult task these days. You could even generate an environment map for all planes using one render of the environment, say from the players plane position, to a texture, since any plane that will have this reflectivness will need to be within some distance to be noticeable anyway, much too close to notice the lackof diffierence in environment mapping. Even in non-commercial 3D engines such as Irrlicht, this is possible in as few lines as 20, I believe. And second-rendering the environment (not other planes, no ground objects, just ground, water, sky..) should not be a big performance hit either. This second render could then also be used for other things like reflectiveness of the environment off the water.. Not that the water looks bad at all.

However there is probably just too much for these guys to fix to even bother attempting to reproduce that wonderful realistic look that planes have at this point in development. I am just sorely dissappointed they could not address this major peice of the sim as it has plagued the realism in il2 and sorely hampered my willingness to make skins for planes, especially those like the p51 who have had polished metal panels instead of paint.


Your right, except that spitfires, hurris and other planes at this time had matte finishes for camouflage. The bare metal polished planes you speak of came around after air superiority had been largely achieved over Europe in late 1944. This was when the the Allies became the hunters instead of the hunted, and camouflage was less necessary (but more so for german aircraft!). In 1940 the Luftwaffe was the most dangerous air force in the world, and had control over the skies in Europe. The British/allies camouflaged their aircraft to avoid detection by prowling Luftwaffe aircraft. BTW there was a screenshot of a bare metal/reflective spitfire a few months back just to demonstrate that this was possible in the sim.

[Tbag]

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/x03.jpg

[PeterPanPan]

No no, this is the bad cop in Terminator 2, morphed into a Spitfire?

[Caveman]

What planet are you on mate?? Most early WWII aircraft were supposed to have a flat look. They used non-reflective flat paint containing light scattering particles just for that purpose. I remember reading that the engine will support reflective finishes but there isn't much use for that in the BoB period is there?

I think Oleg and team have done an incredible job with the new aircraft - the flat paint looks better than any sim I've seen and the details are all there, right down to the subtle quilting effect of the rivet lines. I fail to see why you are comparing a fighter featuring glossy paint and areas of bare alloy to early war aircraft covered in flat matt paint?? And then you have the cheek to slag off the teams efforts based on that!

I'm tired of hearing this endless stream of drivel from the self proclaimed "experts". If you can do better then why don't you write your own sim?

Rant over:evil:

Ditto. Planes look fantastic...

[whatnot]

With birds and the mocking deer (seriously, they look at you and smile) in X-Plane, there is a bit of a performance hit. And they are a little too common as I took three bird strikes in 10 flights which is statistically REALLY bad luck lol.

This was a real downer for me in X-Plane for when I first tried it. Birds everywhere flying irradically and hitting ground and environment randomly without much bird-like behaviour. Even a bigger setback were the 'airportdeers' running around around the planet finding the green grass of the airfields. One would assume that if a deer hears roaring engines it'd run 10 miles non-stop instead of enjoying the sight of airplanes operaring while having a snack in the middle of all that.

I assume you can set them off etc so it's not that big of a deal overall, but the overall takeaway is that if you don't plan to do it properly in par with all the aspects of the sim don't do it at all. But knowing the quality of work so far with Maddox releases I have no fear of that.

[BadAim]

+1 Or is it 2,3...er4? arg, me too..... Edit: and I'm even one post to far down.

[Tone71]

The screenshots are overall decent, I love the burning planes. ++

However, the specular affect on the planes is severely dissappointing, having the same flat-"plastic" look as in IL2, instead of metallic.

...



Ooh, shiney!

http://www.edupics.com/spitfire-fighter-plane-t12812.jpg

...erm, not. Have to agree with everyone here, although the engine can clearly cope with shiney planes, it's just not necessary.

[proton45]

I also like the idea of including birds around airfields and "other" low altitude scenarios (like strafing "targets" on a beach covered in sea gulls_lol). I dont remember what Oleg said about birds and such...I think he said it was possible but not planned for initial release (?). I "think" that different birds (and other flying creatures like bats) fly differently, in different situations...so the animators would have to do their homework (lol)...

Imagine this scenario...your sitting in your aeroplane waiting for flight instructions and bombs start falling around you. As you watch the explosions around you, you an see flocks of startled birds taking flight from the trees around the edges of the grass field.

[Zorin]

Seeing that there are forest wardens who keep birds and other animals away from todays airports, I wonder if that would not have been the case during the 30s and 40s as well.

Bird strikes were a threat that the aircrews were aware of and why increase the risk by allowing birds to hang around the airfields?

[proton45]

Seeing that there are forest wardens who keep birds and other animals away from todays airports, I wonder if that would not have been the case during the 30s and 40s as well.

Bird strikes were a threat that the aircrews were aware of and why increase the risk by allowing birds to hang around the airfields?


Yea, of course they did...but no system is perfect. Bird strikes was still an issue, maybe "more" common on improvised airfields...but their are other situations where birds become an obstacle. Low altitude chases, is one example...

[constant]

What planet are you on mate?? Most early WWII aircraft were supposed to have a flat look. They used non-reflective flat paint containing light scattering particles just for that purpose. I remember reading that the engine will support reflective finishes but there isn't much use for that in the BoB period is there?

I think Oleg and team have done an incredible job with the new aircraft - the flat paint looks better than any sim I've seen and the details are all there, right down to the subtle quilting effect of the rivet lines. I fail to see why you are comparing a fighter featuring glossy paint and areas of bare alloy to early war aircraft covered in flat matt paint?? And then you have the cheek to slag off the teams efforts based on that!

I'm tired of hearing this endless stream of drivel from the self proclaimed "experts". If you can do better then why don't you write your own sim?

Rant over:evil:


You're blowing that way out of porportion and really shouldn't go to insults to make your point, if you're mad, keep it to yourself mate, this is a forum for discussion of the game, not your thoughts on me. Why your post even still exists boggles me. But you have me so wrong. have to say I appreciate everything Oleg and his team are doing and have yet to do. I love IL2 and can't play anything else without feeling like I'm downgrading. But I should be able to freely discuss what I think of these updates, shouldn't I?

If you read the whole post you would read that I wrote I know matte-like paints were used for planes in WW2, it only makes sense. However, not all planes are matte painted, and beside that minor detail, matte paint STILL does not give off a flat-plastic look. airplane metal, painted or not, has a texture, unless polished. You are focusing on the paint which is not the whole focus of my post.

Anyway, if Oleg came to me and said "Implement this.." I would say: "I've been dreaming to!"

Aaannnnd, its okay. :)

[Sutts]

You're blowing that way out of porportion and really shouldn't go to insults to make your point, if you're mad, keep it to yourself mate, this is a forum for discussion of the game, not your thoughts on me. Why your post even still exists boggles me. But you have me so wrong. have to say I appreciate everything Oleg and his team are doing and have yet to do. I love IL2 and can't play anything else without feeling like I'm downgrading. But I should be able to freely discuss what I think of these updates, shouldn't I?

If you read the whole post you would read that I wrote I know matte-like paints were used for planes in WW2, it only makes sense. However, not all planes are matte painted, and beside that minor detail, matte paint STILL does not give off a flat-plastic look. airplane metal, painted or not, has a texture, unless polished. You are focusing on the paint which is not the whole focus of my post.

Anyway, if Oleg came to me and said "Implement this.." I would say: "I've been dreaming to!"

Aaannnnd, its okay. :)

It was a bit of knee jerk post and for that I apologise but it did rather sound like you were on the attack yourself. I'll try to stick to the facts this time.

The paints used at this time of the war were called non-specular and were specifically designed so as not to reflect light. You'll be hard pressed to find an example of a BoB era aircraft that doesn't use non reflective finishes I think.
The paint contains angular particles which scatter light and this produces quite a rough surface which attracts dirt. I've used the same stuff on my jeep and can testify that it has no sheen at all but is a complete pain to keep clean. The only way you'll get a sheen from it is when something is rubbed against the flat finish or oil/grease is applied and wiped away.

So...on well used aircraft you may see a slight sheen around panels which are handled regularly and in engine areas where oil spills etc. are rubbed away but most of the airframe should be very flat and non reflective.

I think part of the problem is that the vast majority of warbirds that are operating at airshows today use non-original finishes. These aircraft are investments and the correct non-specular paint attracts dirt and is more porous than the satin and gloss varieties so it doesn't protect the metal as effectively.

I'm not a great fan of the BoB Memorial Flight's Lancaster finish as it looks quite different to the dull/stained look of the wartime birds but at least the aircraft is well protected.

Sorry for my rant but I do feel strongly that Oleg has got the look of the non-specular early war finishes pretty much bang on.

A quote from a site discussing wartime finishes:
"Non-specular or flat finishes were desirable to the glossy, and matte finishes of the pre-war era aircraft."

A quote from a wartime specification:
"All paint used should be non-specular in nature. All parts and fittings should be dulled down, so as not to reflect light"

[WTE_Galway]

Even a bigger setback were the 'airportdeers' running around around the planet finding the green grass of the airfields. One would assume that if a deer hears roaring engines it'd run 10 miles non-stop instead of enjoying the sight of airplanes operaring while having a snack in the middle of all that.


I recall a number of strips in western NSW where we had to do a low flypast to get the sheep off the runway before attempting to land :D Admittedly they got off the strip pretty quick when a 172 came roaring past.

[SpecialCake]

I was landing on a grass strip one time in a 172 when I noticed something on the runway.

"Is that an animal of some sort?" I asked my girlfriend in the co-pilot seat
"I don't know" she replies.

As we get closer, I see none other than a large tractor mowing the runway.

Just thought I'd share and contribute to the potential realism of this sim :-P

You have to mow it sometimes haha!

[proton45]

I'm wondering if the new game engine will be able to produce water falls? It would be a really detail for some locations. Maybe this would be done through animation?

Anyway...I know this subject "might" be a little OT for this thread, but i have never heard anyone comment on this topic. Realistic waterfalls would be a great "immersion" feature for some future maps...are their many waterfalls in the UK?

[AndyJWest]

are their many waterfalls in the UK?
In the UK, a few that you could see from the air, under ideal conditions... maybe.

In the parts of the UK likely to feature on the BoB map? I doubt it.

Still, never mind proton45, I'm sure you can think of another idiotic suggestion for something to incorporate into the new sim. Bee hives? Molehills (on the airfields they would clearly be of military significance :rolleyes:)? Piles of aluminium saucepans gathered to help the war effort (an obvious hazard to low flying aircraft...)?

This is intended to be a WW II air combat sim, not a reproduction of the entire 1940 universe.

[nearmiss]

This thread will be old news in a few more hours with a new update thread.

One week is just about the limit on keeping anything close to the topic.

It's about 9 am in Moscow now, so that probably means the update should be up within the next 6 or 7 hours.

[proton45]

In the UK, a few that you could see from the air, under ideal conditions... maybe.

In the parts of the UK likely to feature on the BoB map? I doubt it.

Still, never mind proton45, I'm sure you can think of another idiotic suggestion for something to incorporate into the new sim. Bee hives? Molehills (on the airfields they would clearly be of military significance :rolleyes:)? Piles of aluminium saucepans gathered to help the war effort (an obvious hazard to low flying aircraft...)?

This is intended to be a WW II air combat sim, not a reproduction of the entire 1940 universe.

Idiotic suggestion? I dont thinks so (in fact my comment, was a question about the game engine)...in fact their are places on this planet where the waterfall is an iconic symbols of the landscape.

I find your comment to be less relevant then my own...AND I find your use of the word "idiotic" to be idiotic.

This thread will be old news in a few more hours with a new update thread.

One week is just about the limit on keeping anything close to the topic.

It's about 9 am in Moscow now, so that probably means the update should be up within the next 6 or 7 hours.

Yup, that is true...its the perfect time for an OT question about the capabilities of the new game engine. And I think you will find that its a question that has never been asked.

[AndyJWest]

There are lots of questions about the capabilities of the SoW game engine that haven't been asked. Most of them shouldn't be...

Do you really think that Oleg Maddox is going to suddenly divert resources to 'waterfall simulation?'. If not, why do you think your 'OT question' was of any relevance at all?

[Blackdog_kt]

Jesus, some people woke up on the wrong side of the bed :grin:

It's true that we see a lot of nitpicking in these threads. On the other hand, not all "what if" questions are irrelevant. Seems like on one side we have some really outlandish requests (some even sound more like demands) and on the other one there's people who will dismiss anything that doesn't have a direct application in combat, wether that is complex aircraft systems management or a couple of graphical gimmicks sprinkled here and there for the occasional surprise factor.

I still don't see why these two groups can't exercise some self moderation and start combining their ideas for the long term future. In short, one group needs to stop asking about the modelling of the local grasshopper strains and maybe ask about things that will be, well, visible from the air while moving at 300mph, while the other one has to get their combat myopia fixed because it prevents them from appreciating whatever cool stuff may be lying a few feet beyond their gunsight. There's enough of a middle ground to be reached here. It might be a lot of science making a good flight sim, but it doesn't take science to know what are important features for one: user friendly and customizable, an engine with expansion and modding potential, get the technical stuff right like FM/DM/campaigns/AI/historical accuracy/etc, have adequate graphics and sounds for the time of release, sprinkle some "this world is alive" sauce and that's it. Getting obsessed with any one of those means you are going to lose points on the rest, as simple as that.

I's good to have a well rounded product that can be expanded on and improved from a solid starting foundation, rather than a one-trick pony that scores excellent marks on one field and neglects all the rest. It's like buying a new PC, spending all your money on a monster motherboard and the most expensive i7 6-core CPU you can find and then getting a 15 inch monitor with a 2 year old GPU and 1 GB of RAM because you have no more money. Meanwhile, someone else gets an entry level i7 920 that's less than half the price of the 6-core and uses the spare money on an up-to-date GPU, 4GB of RAM and generally builds a well-rounded system that, what a surprise, squarely kicks the butt of the previous "asymmetric" system in every way imaginable except maybe dedicated multi-core CPU benchmarks.

In this case here, it's not like the guy said "i demand waterfalls", he's just asking if the engine can do waterfalls and the question is anything but irrelevant (ie, he's not debating the accuracy of the horn shape on the cows grazing the fields).
If SoW aims to be the mother of all things simulator during the next decade and have some success with engine licensing fees to 3rd parties, people will want to know if the engine can do such things.

Some might think far fetched like a direct Crimson Skies remake, where the developer wants to stage some missions around the Niagara falls and Grand Canyon. Some might think something simpler but equally possible, user-made stunt and racing maps for SoW that feature custom landscape formations as obstacles, like waterfalls and rock tunnels. In any case, they will be interested to know if the engine can model such things and if they can design them in the map editor.

Just because some feature is not high priority for release in the specified theater doesn't mean it might not be a good feature to make in the future. As i usually like to say, it's just like perfect settings and water=3 switches in IL2, we didn't have them in the original version ten years ago but we're all glad we have them today ;)

[proton45]

There are lots of questions about the capabilities of the SoW game engine that haven't been asked. Most of them shouldn't be...

Do you really think that Oleg Maddox is going to suddenly divert resources to 'waterfall simulation?'. If not, why do you think your 'OT question' was of any relevance at all?

You have no imagination at all...and I feel sorry for you.


Jesus, some people woke up on the wrong side of the bed :grin:

In this case here, it's not like the guy said "i demand waterfalls", he's just asking if the engine can do waterfalls and the question is anything but irrelevant (ie, he's not debating the accuracy of the horn shape on the cows grazing the fields).
If SoW aims to be the mother of all things simulator during the next decade and have some success with engine licensing fees to 3rd parties, people will want to know if the engine can do such things.

Just because some feature is not high priority for release in the specified theater doesn't mean it might not be a good feature to make in the future. As i usually like to say, it's just like perfect settings and water=3 switches in IL2, we didn't have them in the original version ten years ago but we're all glad we have them today ;)

;)

[airmalik]

I recall a number of strips in western NSW where we had to do a low flypast to get the sheep off the runway before attempting to land :D Admittedly they got off the strip pretty quick when a 172 came roaring past.

The airfield I fly out of here in Queensland has a number of kangaroos. Usually they stay off the runways but I've heard of people having to go around because of them. A roo jumped in front of a landing RV7 once. It barely missed the prop, hit the leading edge of the wing with it's head and got knocked down. As it went down it's tail came up and hit the trailing edge of the flap damaging it considerably. The pilot had powered up to go around when he saw the roo jump in front and decided to continue. Fortunately the controllability of the plane didn't suffer and he was able to make a uneventful landing after a circuit. The roo? Got up and bounced away!

Here's a video I shot a couple of weeks ago at the airfield. Has some kangaroos too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cagwLyG4eA

[PE_Tigar]

I know a guy who hit (and chopped up) a deer twice in his 200-odd hours of flying :). The plane was repairable the first time, totaled the second time. I guess he was unlucky. I had near misses with birds 4-5 times (once the bird actually swooped on my C-150 :)).

[socorrista22198]

have I listened "birds"?
LOL to make this is soo fun. Turn up volume

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

Thanks all of you guys/girls for the inspiration, the visual is done, now it´s turn for a programer builds the colision file for this :D