Friday 2010-08-06 Dev. update and Discussions

[luthier]

Hello everyone,

Some fresh shots for this week. Keeping it very brief because I had very little time to work on these. Just like last week, we're not showing any WIP effects, so the skies are briefly peaceful yet again.

[zauii]

Awesome :D, Too bad you're not showcasing SoW at gamescom? :(

[yogy]

Coming closer to reality :!::cool:

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

Yeah ... great!!!!! :grin:

[kendo65]

Some great shots there. Pics 1 and 2 should encourage a lot of people regarding the terrain / scenery - nice to see it coming together.

Great lighting and nice to see the crewman in the Blenheim shot.

[No601_Swallow]

Saw my bathroom window in the second pic! Amazing!:o

[Hecke]

Good shots Luthier.

Could you answer me these questions?


1. Aren't the trees in picture 2 maybe a bit too high?

2. Will we have like dynamic ground so that bombs will make deep craters or is it again just texture overlay?


Thx, Hecke

[SlipBall]

Very nice!...I'm happy to see some sand beach area in the 3rd shot:grin:

[Biggs]

Wow... amazing, simply amazing... how im ever gonna run this on my rig, I dont know... but still, amazing.

[kendo65]

Good shots Luthier.

Could you answer me these questions?

1. Aren't the trees in picture 1 maybe a bit too high?


Yeah, see what you mean. Hadn't noticed that - using crappy work PC.

WIP..?

[jameson]

Too many trees in second shot! Either side of the roads = an avenue and this is ok, but when such built up areas were being built any tree would have flattened and new trees added later. Trees are regulated in the UK regarding distances to houses and the amount of light they prevent entering the dwelling.
Landscape still doesn't look quite right to me, not green enough, lol! Fields look a bit small and repetitive, perhaps for different locations the size could be varied? How are we going to land in those! In the countryside they would have been bigger, but probably tend be smaller between or near towns.
The planes look great and I can't wait to be flying them. All the best!

[luthier]

The trees are all a standard size, inside cities or outside. We can either have tall trees in cities, or tiny regulated runts in the woods. If we had to have different types of trees and check where they grow, we'd lose way too much FPS.

[kendo65]

Landscape still doesn't look quite right to me, not green enough, lol!

I thought it looked fine in this respect. Considering it is high summer. Summer 1940 was hot afaik - by English standards :)

[kendo65]

The trees are all a standard size, inside cities or outside. We can either have tall trees in cities, or tiny regulated runts in the woods. If we had to have different types of trees and check where they grow, we'd lose way too much FPS.

What struck me Luthier was in the lower part of Pic 1 the trees look a little like they're 'floating' in the air. No trunks visible (as is probably correct given perspective) but they do look a little 'high' and 'floating' above the landscape?

Edit: seems that Hecke and myself are talking about different things here. I was referring to an apparent 'floating' effect visible on the foreground trees in Pic 1. Pic 2 trees look fine to me

[Hecke]

The trees are all a standard size, inside cities or outside. We can either have tall trees in cities, or tiny regulated runts in the woods. If we had to have different types of trees and check where they grow, we'd lose way too much FPS.


But the trees have double the height of a high building? That's very confuse. And too many trees.

Will there be Craters or just overlay textures?

[SlipBall]

But the trees have double the height of a high building? That's very confuse. And too many trees.

Will there be Craters or just overlay textures?



I think some 80 foot trees are about right:grin:

[NSU]

the Trees look like to hard, make a little transparens so look like softer and better in the landscape.

[ZaltysZ]

Do all trees have density (in sense, that you can collide with them)?

[luthier]

But the trees have double the height of a high building? That's very confuse. And too many trees.

Those are 2 and 3 story buildings. I'm sitting on the third floor right now, and I'm looking UP at a bunch of trees.

And I think there's just enough trees for the kind of town it is. It's supposed to be a light green suburban-type area. There are fewer trees in heavier downtown areas, and fewer still in industrial ones. Seems perfectly fine to me.

[Robert]

Thanks Luthier. Nice update, and I'm really liking the terrain through the He111 pit. Good job to the crew.

[Bloblast]

Luthier,

The 2nd picture is it above a coastal city?

[HFC_Dolphin]

Excellent pictures, thanks!

[barndoor]

I like very much. thank you.

Pic 1 - the window bars look raggerdy. Is this normal?
Pic 2 - I see their is smoke out of chimney. Wow. Will wind direction blow smoke?
Pic 3 - will crew member in front move a little or be stil?

barndoor

[luthier]

What struck me Luthier was in the lower part of Pic 1 the trees look a little like they're 'floating' in the air. No trunks visible (as is probably correct given perspective) but they do look a little 'high' and 'floating' above the landscape?

Edit: seems that Hecke and myself are talking about different things here. I was referring to an apparent 'floating' effect visible on the foreground trees in Pic 1. Pic 2 trees look fine to me

It's called LODs :) At that distance our airplanes lose their gear legs and canopy framework and flaps, buildings lose their chimneys, tanks lose their gun barrels, and so why should the trees keep their trunks?

We still live in the age where computers have limited resources. Some day PCs will become powerful enough to render a fully modeled tree with every twig and every leaf all the way to the horizon, and that'll be a very happy day for everyone in game development, but the way things are, if we were to splatter a bunch of tree trunks everywhere around the player, you'd be looking at an extremely pretty picture that runs at about 1 frame per minute.

[luthier]

The 2nd picture is it above a coastal city?

Yes, there's the bit of the Channel in the top left corner. The rest is morning fog.

I like very much. thank you.

Pic 1 - the window bars look raggerdy. Is this normal?
Pic 2 - I see their is smoke out of chimney. Wow. Will wind direction blow smoke?
Pic 3 - will crew member in front move a little or be stil?

What's raggedy, do you mean jagged? Yeah, I don't have AA turned on.

Crew members will move, and how! This was actually the first in the series of screenshots showing him move around, but after I took them I realized that it just doesn't have the same effect on static screenshots. It's just so lifelike to see the guy get thrown about by your maneuvers, almost adds a slightly sadistic elements to the game. Make a pinata out of the navigator! Boom, slam, bang! Uh oh, a flat spin.

[Hecke]

It's called LODs :) At that distance our airplanes lose their gear legs and canopy framework and flaps, buildings lose their chimneys, tanks lose their gun barrels, and so why should the trees keep their trunks?

We still live in the age where computers have limited resources. Some day PCs will become powerful enough to render a fully modeled tree with every twig and every leaf all the way to the horizon, and that'll be a very happy day for everyone in game development, but the way things are, if we were to splatter a bunch of tree trunks everywhere around the player, you'd be looking at an extremely pretty picture that runs at about 1 frame per minute.

That's understandable, yes, but will you improve it, because now it looks like green oil film swimming on the ground surface. Unfortunately, the trees don't seem to be any voluminous from that altitude.

[BG-09]

Unbelievable good update. I am beginning to be afraid of the altitude...Looks damn real.

~S!

[mark@1C]

Hope you are all right, all the staff, and all the people in Moscow,
I mean the forest fires, what a mess...

Best wishes.

[dali]

Those are 2 and 3 story buildings. I'm sitting on the third floor right now, and I'm looking UP at a bunch of trees.

And I think there's just enough trees for the kind of town it is. It's supposed to be a light green suburban-type area. There are fewer trees in heavier downtown areas, and fewer still in industrial ones. Seems perfectly fine to me.

if anyone of you is going to notice the exact height of the trees during the flight or even fight, I buy him a pint. At 400 mph you notice details only for fraction of the second, the mind is capable of quick focusing in dynamical environment, then the focus is again quickly widened. You would know exactly what I'm talking about if you were a pilot, because distribution of attention is vital in flying, especialy military. I still remember some tiny details from my low-level flights 20 years ago, like man riding a bike, woman walking across the square and such... but generaly, you more sense the ground bellow than actualy "see" it. The lower you go, the further on the horizon one tends to gaze, because visual clues are disapearing too quickly bellow the plane and mind needs at least some stabile visual clues in the distance to keep the situational aweareness.

Screenshots of course capture the moment and you see all the details.

I think it is more important to enable visual clues than give you 30 types of trees. For me it is much more important to have real 3d tree in Bob, compared to quasi 3d trees in Il-2, which were not adding, but substracting from the feeling of depth and height. Judging from the screenshots from Ilya, I can already see, that the low and mid-level flights will be a real joy, since there are enough visual clues to maintain the field of vision depth.

In this sense, Bob has already fulfiled my "dreams" :)

[Ploughman]

Looks very nice, the landscape's really populated and, even at this stage, quite good looking, and we'll have crew to keep us company which is a step up from Il-2 (there were a few planes with crew if I recall, but mostly you were on your own in there). Having them animated will really add to the immersion, be like a mosh pit in the glass house of a Ju-88. Thanks again.

[Skarphol]

This looks really fantastic!
And the trees are exactly the height of trees outside mye office window.

One thing puzzlez me though: It looks like the cockpit of the Heinkel has no glass in the windows. Nor the framing around them. Only the window on the left of the pilot seems to have some frame to attach the glass to the fuselage. How are those glass panels attached to those bars?

Skarphol

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Screenshots look amazing, thank you for yet another great update.

[NSU]

how your Team make the trees?

i like this way

a photo from a tree, cut out with Alpha
http://www4.pic-upload.de/thumb/06.08.10/yl4amxdfnaf1.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-6616463/tree3.jpg.html)

two planes (low polygone)
http://www4.pic-upload.de/thumb/06.08.10/krlz517oovkh.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-6616459/tree1.jpg.html)

and the low poly tree look good (ok i make it fast)
http://www4.pic-upload.de/thumb/06.08.10/xu5hp4e4rwm.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-6616461/tree2.jpg.html)

you need tree photos, please call me i make many pictures.

[lbuchele]

So,Luthier,if gunners will be throw around in high G manouvering,
is safe to say that they will be no more capable to shoot at us
in those situations too?

[Meusli]

how your Team make the trees?

i like this way

a photo from a tree, cut out with Alpha
http://www4.pic-upload.de/thumb/06.08.10/yl4amxdfnaf1.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-6616463/tree3.jpg.html)

two planes (low polygone)
http://www4.pic-upload.de/thumb/06.08.10/krlz517oovkh.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-6616459/tree1.jpg.html)

and the low poly tree look good (ok i make it fast)
http://www4.pic-upload.de/thumb/06.08.10/xu5hp4e4rwm.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-6616461/tree2.jpg.html)

you need tree photos, please call me i make many pictures.


Here is what they use NSU. http://www.speedtree.com/trees/

[NSU]

i know speed trees, but a flightsimulation need low polygone trees

[Vylsain]

I agree there's a little problem with tree's scale. I understand that some trees are higher than houses but these ones look like big shrubs. Big trees are far more complicated. Look at the leafs. Some are as big as windows or doors of houses.
With textures, these are the last worrying points for me. I trust Oleg for the rest !

Thanks for the update !

[zauii]

That's understandable, yes, but will you improve it, because now it looks like green oil film swimming on the ground surface. Unfortunately, the trees don't seem to be any voluminous from that altitude.


Seriously give it a rest man.

[LukeFF]

Tree-whining, this week's flavor of criticism. :-|

[zaelu]

pic1: has poor textures in Heinkel cockpit... outside is different than Il-2... better maybe... but far from "reality". In a glance I cant spot any reference. I wouldn't normally compare it to other existing sims (like DCS) but we have to wonder... DCS Black Shark (LO FC2) has a game engine quite old but with a bit of moding (hi rez textures) looks quite believable... and in December A-10 module will come with even more improvements...

pic2: way too many low poly low rez cartoonish trees. yes... far better than Il-2 but... it's 2010...

pic3: Still a bit of low rez/cartoonish looking cockpit textures and outside... "place holder" basically.

Why I say this?

I am not a fan of world of warcraft coming here daily almost to bash what developers of Battle of Britain does. But I want to tell that at least me.... and I believe many others think similar to me but maybe don't voice their thoughts... don't like to fall on my back to anything a developer throws at me as a teaser bone. Especially when my feed back can actually help him spot some possible improvements in their work.

So... please... this community is really starved and anxiously waits the gem, it will take anything as a "Wow!"... many going to fanboysm similar in manifestation to the hilarious characters from "The Fift Element" movie that accompanied the radio DJ... if people remember them... :) .

Pictures without anti-aliasing for a WIP game in 2010 looks like lack of care... like walking with unpolished shoes in front of women.
Low rez terrain and features should be hidden as much as possible.... especially if they will improve in the final product...

You better show some short animations or multi-player/ map building/ mission creating features than debatable pictures.




To all fans here... like me. Don't jump on my criticism... it's true... I didn't made any sim in my life... but... I just voice a fear that all of us share.

I don't want SoW Battle of Britain to disappoint. I am not easily disappointed... i am not a fan boy of CS that can't adapt at new features and bash the new product as "disappointing" for trivial reasons. I just believe that SoW BoB should kick major arse being so much time in development and some of the image updates from WIP worries me.

In the end... take a look at a promo of current Lock On 2... platinum... an old game... (I picked LO FC2 - DCS BS cause is the other sim I play and cause its developer (ED) is very close to Maddox.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99_hoJNj3ys&fmt=22

And for comparison to pics from moded pit by RICHARDO (for free):

[ECV56_Lancelot]

if anyone of you is going to notice the exact height of the trees during the flight or even fight, I buy him a pint. At 400 mph you notice details only for fraction of the second, the mind is capable of quick focusing in dynamical environment, then the focus is again quickly widened. You would know exactly what I'm talking about if you were a pilot, because distribution of attention is vital in flying, especialy military. I still remember some tiny details from my low-level flights 20 years ago, like man riding a bike, woman walking across the square and such... but generaly, you more sense the ground bellow than actualy "see" it. The lower you go, the further on the horizon one tends to gaze, because visual clues are disapearing too quickly bellow the plane and mind needs at least some stabile visual clues in the distance to keep the situational aweareness.

Screenshots of course capture the moment and you see all the details.

I think it is more important to enable visual clues than give you 30 types of trees. For me it is much more important to have real 3d tree in Bob, compared to quasi 3d trees in Il-2, which were not adding, but substracting from the feeling of depth and height. Judging from the screenshots from Ilya, I can already see, that the low and mid-level flights will be a real joy, since there are enough visual clues to maintain the field of vision depth.

In this sense, Bob has already fulfiled my "dreams" :)

Well said!

[Feuerfalke]

Well, zaelu, that's the difference between a 2DOF and a 6DOF full geometry cockpit. Maybe you can figure out yourself, which one is easier to render. And even then, you always have an option to increase or decrease level of detail. I don't know what detail level the cockpit is set to - how do you know?


Hopefully the animated crewmen will do their part to stop the dogfighting Bombers as they are common in IL2 - LOL.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Maybe i´m just to easy to convince, but IMO the terrain on the first screenshot looks excellent.
Beside, now we know we will not have "ghost" gunners and copilot on bombers. Long time ago it was said that we would have "ghost" planes for saving resources and because of all the animations required. Now we can see gunners, is a new adition, and only Maddox Games know what else they have in reserve for us.
Thanks for the update.

[barndoor]

Yes, there's the bit of the Channel in the top left corner. The rest is morning fog.



Fantastic - morning fog! Will make landings and takeoffs good!



What's raggedy, do you mean jagged? Yeah, I don't have AA turned on.

Crew members will move, and how! This was actually the first in the series of screenshots showing him move around, but after I took them I realized that it just doesn't have the same effect on static screenshots. It's just so lifelike to see the guy get thrown about by your maneuvers, almost adds a slightly sadistic elements to the game. Make a pinata out of the navigator! Boom, slam, bang! Uh oh, a flat spin.

Yes, jagged, sorry. OK, I understand. Can we see with AA on?!

Wow, am sooooo exited about the crew moovments. Sounds fantastic!!

barndoor

[dali]

To all fans here... like me. don't jump on my criticism... is true... i didn't made any sim in my life... but... i just voice a fear that all of us share.

I don't want SoW Battle of Britain to disappoint. I am not easily disappointed... i am not a fan boy of CS that can't adapt at new features and bash the new product as "disappointing" for trivial reasons. I just believe that SoW BoB should kick major arse being so much time in development and some of the image updates from WIP worries me.

In the end... take a look at a promo of current Lock On 2... platinum... an old game... (I picked LO FC2 - DCS BS cause is the other sim I play and cause it's developer (ED) is very close to Maddox.



And for comparison to pics from moded pit by RICHARDO (for free):

well, as far as your "criticism" goes, I can say only this - Bob is still unfinished and as Ilya pointed out several times, he has visual settings set somewhere in the middle, even AA is off. Talking of LO FC2 - I was beta tester for LOMAC, so I know the series quite well. LO FC2 has some amazing details, like perfectly readible service labels on the skin, but is this contributing to the overall feeling? I would say no. If you want eyecandy for screenshots, then details you are describing are of course on the top of the list. If you want something else from the sim, than eye candy is somewhere in the middle of the "desireable features". For instance - inertia modeling in the LO FC series is far, far from something beliveable. One small detail - braking on the ground - there is one old A10 sim called A10 Cuba!, which has that feeling of weight coded much better than LO FC. I haven't seen or tried Bob yet, but judging from that Ilya's video with spit in major role the inertia modeling is far the best I've ever seen in general public simulator so far. I think that Oleg and team have chosen the correct set of goals (at least those they are sharing with us) for their sim. For me the feeling of mass (weight of the airplane) and intertia, correct dynamics of bullets, aerodynamics, weather, field of vision and AI are the most important for combat sim of this kind. Ilya and Oleg are showing us the visual parts only, which is nice, I like to watch Friday updates, but they don't reflect the qualities behind. That rests to be seen in the near future.

[Caveman]

Luthier, Oleg...

It's looking fantastic. Lighting really adds to everything quite nicely. The landscape is really coming together.

I went back to the old Spit Video released a few months back and noticed how well made the cockpits were and how well detailed and real the lighting looked. It's obvious this sim will take the best IL-2 ever was a multiply by 4 or 5.

Excited to see the crew animations too... Can't wait to fly this beast...

[Dano]

how your Team make the trees?

i like this way

a photo from a tree, cut out with Alpha
http://www4.pic-upload.de/thumb/06.08.10/yl4amxdfnaf1.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-6616463/tree3.jpg.html)

two planes (low polygone)
http://www4.pic-upload.de/thumb/06.08.10/krlz517oovkh.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-6616459/tree1.jpg.html)

and the low poly tree look good (ok i make it fast)
http://www4.pic-upload.de/thumb/06.08.10/xu5hp4e4rwm.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-6616461/tree2.jpg.html)

you need tree photos, please call me i make many pictures.

I utterly detest trees done via this method, they look absolutely awful.

[Robert]

Crew members will move, and how! This was actually the first in the series of screenshots showing him move around, but after I took them I realized that it just doesn't have the same effect on static screenshots. It's just so lifelike to see the guy get thrown about by your maneuvers, almost adds a slightly sadistic elements to the game. Make a pinata out of the navigator! Boom, slam, bang! Uh oh, a flat spin.


Hee hee! Now THAT I can't wait to see.

[Blackdog_kt]

Amazing update! Some issues with trees (scaling, as leaves seem a bit too big compared to building features in the town shot and the "floaty" patches of green) but we all know we can't have perfect visuals without perfect supercomputers.

In fact, looking at it a bit closer it's not so much that the trees are "floating" per se, so i'd say it's not about the lack of trunks. Trees are there, shadows are there for depth perception and there needs to be some FPS optimization too, so i'd say they are as good as can be.

The one bit that sticks out in my eye is the patch of trees visible near the yoke and left rudder pedal through the cockpit glass. Trees in the distance look great and they probably even have a lower LOD detail model, because when viewed from an angle their difference in height and shape gives a sufficient impression of volume. It's only the ones that are viewed at an almost vertical angle that look a bit weird, because the top of the entire tree patch looks like it's the same height, giving the false impression of a flat/2D surface.
Of course, the trees are still 3D and different in size and their closer distance to the player means they use higher detail LODs, so i'm curious as to why. Maybe the upper layer of tree patches in near range LODs just needs a bit more contrast or "jaggednes" to accentuate the feeling of it being a non-uniform surface.

In any case, just like i always say seeing it in motion will be better.

I like details like the chimney smoke a lot, especially if it can be used as a wind indicator for us to make dead-stick landings in the fields after receiving battle damage. With the improved FM and and the dynamic weather knowing which way the wind is blowing will be crucial, especially when emergency landing a damaged plane.
The buildings look great and the fog near the sea is a very nice touch.
Terrain on the whole looks very good to me, despite the debates about the proper shade of green for English grass.

I think that terrain colour in general just has a lot to do with the amount of ambient light and shadowing and the way they affect color perception and in that sense, i find it sufficiently realistic. I mean, on one hand we have people who like WoP-style shadowing and lighting effects on the landscape and on the other we have people who expect to see the same vibrant shade of green in every screenshot, regardless of surrounding weather and light conditions.
I think the terrain we see in the updates is somewhere in the middle between these two extremes and that enforces my belief that it is in fact realistic. We have shading and light effects without them being overdone.

Finally, the aircaft models look great as always, but what really gets my blood pumping is the cockpits and the animated crew members.
I can't wait to "sit" in one, press every button, flick every switch and watch those needles move on the instruments :grin:

As for the first shot, it just looks like something out of a movie, or a wartime photo album. It looks somewhat majestic, but only because there is no gunfire. If there was gunfire coming from that Spit it would simply be scary, sitting in that glass nose and all :grin:
I agree with what's been said that the glass might seem a bit too transparent, but if you look a bit lower and to the right from the nose gun the reflections are apparent. So, i'm guessing that both the lack of reflections in the rest of the cockpit glass and the not-so-green landscape has to do with the fact that there's some moderate cloud cover. Seems that the amount of ambient light and shadows has a wide and profound effect on how everything is diplayed without being overdone, i like that a lot.

[Kefirchik]

Hi Ilia! Nice sceenshots. I want to ask you about lighting inside cockpit. At the screenshot we see aluminum metal without paint. I think? what Aluminum must reflect much more than paint. So on these sceen's we don't see the difference in reflect paint and aluminum. Is it optimization for FPS or still WIP?

[Caveman]

well, as far as your "criticism" goes, I can say only this - Bob is still unfinished and as Ilya pointed out several times, he has visual settings set somewhere in the middle, even AA is off. Talking of LO FC2 - I was beta tester for LOMAC, so I know the series quite well. LO FC2 has some amazing details, like perfectly readible service labels on the skin, but is this contributing to the overall feeling? I would say no. If you want eyecandy for screenshots, then details you are describing are of course on the top of the list. If you want something else from the sim, than eye candy is somewhere in the middle of the "desireable features". For instance - inertia modeling in the LO FC series is far, far from something beliveable. One small detail - braking on the ground - there is one old A10 sim called A10 Cuba!, which has that feeling of weight coded much better than LO FC. I haven't seen or tried Bob yet, but judging from that Ilya's video with spit in major role the inertia modeling is far the best I've ever seen in general public simulator so far. I think that Oleg and team have chosen the correct set of goals (at least those they are sharing with us) for their sim. For me the feeling of mass (weight of the airplane) and intertia, correct dynamics of bullets, aerodynamics, weather, field of vision and AI are the most important for combat sim of this kind. Ilya and Oleg are showing us the visual parts only, which is nice, I like to watch Friday updates, but they don't reflect the qualities behind. That rests to be seen in the near future.

Agree. I've been simming for 28 years and can attest to the fact that graphics, while important, are down the list of desireable priorities relative to flight modeling, damage, etc... All the fantastic moments in IL-2, or any other sim have come from those moments of "wow, that behaved so realistically". The mind tends to "fill in the blanks" a bit easier on graphics than roll rates, air densities, etc...

[whatnot]

Thanks for the update Luthier, looking good! I'm dying to see what the shots will look with final AA's and effects in place and crew bouncing around like crazy as I throw some G's to my crate.

[Blackdog_kt]

Hi Ilia! Nice sceenshots. I want to ask you about lighting inside cockpit. At the screenshot we see aluminum metal without paint. I think? what Aluminum must reflect much more than paint. So on these sceen's we don't see the difference in reflect paint and aluminum. Is it optimization for FPS or still WIP?

If i recall correctly from the days i was building model airplanes, all of the luftwaffe aircraft interiors (cockpits as well as the landing gear wells) were painted in RLM 02 colours, which is matte light gray paint. As for RAF aircraft, i think instrument panels were black and the rest was interior green. So, since it's not bare metal but a surface painted with matte colours, i think it's safe to say that they wouldn't reflect too much light.

If you think about it a bit, it makes perfect sense. Why have bare metal cockpits that reflect light and hinder the pilot's vision? ;)

[kestrel79]

Luthier,

Thanks for the pics. The last one has me very excited to see crew members in bombers!

Hopefully I hope to be able to fly my bomber over target while seeing my crew turning, moving, and firing the guns while I fly! Talk about immersive! Seeing shells fly, flash of the guns, this would be so cool.

Before this gets clogged with people who will diss the WIP screenshots I just want to say I trust you and Oleg and going to deliver whenever this comes out. I know you guys are holding all the good stuff back :) And whenever the time comes to show off the "good stuff", no doubt in my mind you guys will blow us all away with the best flight sim ever.

[Kefirchik]

look at the picture. Paint relfect same as aluminum... We can see only diffuse map, without reflect map.
For compare some picture from Wings of prey...

[BadAim]

Will we be able to turn to the co-pilot and say "take over for a minute, I'm gonna go for a wiz and a cup 'o coffee" ? ;) Seriously though, it's looking nice, I just can't wait to see this thing rendered in it's full DX11, tesselated, HDR'd, and AA'd glory!

[easytarget3]

Thanks a lot for the update!It looks amazing!the models are just stuning considering it WIP!!!
i have one concern, but it could be from my lack of info and experience, because i don see it in motion!
But on picture 2. the tree leaves look very big, compare to a window it looks like same size as 1.5 m window?i know you have limitation and you have only one size of tree, but is itnt the size of detail things like leaves what makes the feelings of scale?maybe in motion we wont see it and maybe this size is perfect for flying around in a cocpit, i just hope that it wont cause the feeling we fly above toy city with toy tree :) when we go low,
thanks for your hard work

D

[CZS_Ondras]

Hallo,

concerning the trees I wonder what results could have been achieved if Oleg's team joined their powers with another very experienced (with large landscapes) team most of you know - Bohemia Interactive. Their software known as Linda: http://pro.bistudio.com/index.php/services/linda-tree-generator.html appropriately used and optimised for the purposes of flight simulation might have done intresting things. Speedtree looks too like from coloring book, but it is perhaps only my opinion and the final result is going to be excelent. :cool:

O.

[BadAim]

look at the picture. Paint relfect same as aluminum... We can see only diffuse map, without reflect map.

All of the spots you show are in shadow, except the part that's reflecting perfectly. I mean, can we be serious here? Paint certainly doesn't reflect the same as aluminum, and all aluminum doesn't reflect the same. None of that even takes into account the fact that this is all rendered on what Ilya has admitted to be a "crappy computer". It's already been stated that they are putting the game together on lower range computers on purpose to ensure the highest level of compatibility.

Shall I remind everyone again that this is WIP?

[kendo65]

It's called LODs :) At that distance our airplanes lose their gear legs and canopy framework and flaps, buildings lose their chimneys, tanks lose their gun barrels, and so why should the trees keep their trunks?

We still live in the age where computers have limited resources. Some day PCs will become powerful enough to render a fully modeled tree with every twig and every leaf all the way to the horizon, and that'll be a very happy day for everyone in game development, but the way things are, if we were to splatter a bunch of tree trunks everywhere around the player, you'd be looking at an extremely pretty picture that runs at about 1 frame per minute.

I probably didn't express myself well enough. I wasn't criticising the absence of tree trunks - completely understand the situation re resources, etc.

I was referring to an apparent 'floating' effect on the trees in the foreground in Pic 1 - viewed on my work pc they look slightly as if they're suspended in mid-air. As no-one else seems to have commented on it , it may be down to viewing it on low-spec machine / screen.

I'll check it later on my LCD at home.

Impressed with the pics though :)

[Baron]

Good shots Luthier.

Could you answer me these questions?


1. Aren't the trees in picture 2 maybe a bit too high?


Thx, Hecke



How do u know that, maby its the houses thats to small?


Like some others have said i can look out from the second floor window and look UP at a gigantic cherry tree in my garden.


Thx for the update, coming along nicely and when people get their hands on BoB and relize it will look awsome in DX11 with AA and AF and have thire pc`s for lunch on high settings there will be hell to pay Luthier....be warned. ;)

[easytarget3]

I probably didn't express myself well enough. I wasn't criticising the absence of tree trunks - completely understand the situation re resources, etc.

I was referring to an apparent 'floating' effect on the trees in the foreground in Pic 1 - viewed on my work pc they look slightly as if they're suspended in mid-air. As no-one else seems to have commented on it , it may be down to viewing it on low-spec machine / screen.

I'll check it later on my LCD at home.

Impressed with the pics though :)

no you are right it looks like thr tree trunks are missing but its still WIP so maybe with all the effects on it will look fine!

cheers

[Asheshouse]

Trees are regulated in the UK regarding distances to houses and the amount of light they prevent entering the dwelling.

No they aren't.

Ashe

[Skarphol]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y1/Skarphol/he111-006sow.jpg



One thing puzzlez me though: It looks like the cockpit of the Heinkel has no glass in the windows. Nor the framing around them. Only the window on the left of the pilot seems to have some frame to attach the glass to the fuselage. How are those glass panels attached to those bars?

Seem like it looked that way in real life too:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y1/Skarphol/he111-006.jpg

Skarphol

[engadin]

He, he, simply outstanding! Love the cockpits, the Blemheim's gunner's neck and the trees. What a gift to my eyes!

Engadin

[FG28_Kodiak]

@luthier
Can we see a detail picture of this console:
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/632/shot20100805210304detai.jpg
seems there is a misspelling.
As a german i dont know the word "Höchenfl"

[tagTaken2]

I'd love to see a penalty for whining.

Tree-whining = plant 20 seedlings

Building/vehicle whining = contribute $5 to National Heritage

Pilot-whining = contribute $20 to a war widows fund

Cockpit-whining = build your own damn plane.

Wonder how many of you would have the balls to stand up and say in front of BoB veterans, "Sorry, that smoke is way too black!"

[Friendly_flyer]

Absolutely beautiful shots Luthier! The Spitfire comming in low and fast under the He 111 nose looks frightening! If these are peaceful skies, I fear what warlike skies will look like ;)

A small comment on British markings (again, if you will forgive me):

The standard RAF colour for squadron codes in 1940 was "dark sea grey" for Hurricanes and "sky grey" for Spitfires. The dark sea grey colour is markedly darker than the white used in the roundels, as seen in this photo:

http://www.strijdbewijs.nl/top/p/HUR21.jpg

This restored Hurricane showing the same colour:

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/galleries/images/22918/640x480/hawker-hurricane.jpg

The sky grey too was darker, though not as dark as the sea grey series of colours. The only figther squadron I have found that used white for codes in 1940 was No 261 Squ, operating Hurricanes from Malta.

There were exceptions to the "dark sea gray for Hurries, sky grey for spitties" policy. Here's the exceptions according to Ward, Cooksley and Shores, Aircam Aviation Series No S1, battle of Britain:

Hurricane squadrons:
* No 56 Squ: Sky grey
* No 111 Squ: Medium sea grey
* No 145 Squ: Sky grey
* No I51 Squ: Medium sea grey
* No 242 Squ: Sky grey
* No 257 Squ: Sky grey
All other Hurricane squadrons used dark sea grey

Spitfire squadrons:
* No 66 Squ: Changed from dark sea grey to sky grey in late september
* No 72 Squ: Dark sea grey
* No 92 Squ: Changed from dark sea grey to sky in october
* No 152 Squ: Dark sea grey
* No 609 Squ: Dark sea grey
All other Spitfire squadrons with sky grey codes.

[lbuchele]

I think we probably are not seeing what SOW is really capable to show regarding graphics.
We have to wait for the release to see with Dx11 and AF/AA on to really compare with other sims.
My bet SOW will be the winner...

[rakinroll]

Thanks my friend.

[Tree_UK]

Maybe i´m just to easy to convince, but IMO the terrain on the first screenshot looks excellent.
Beside, now we know we will not have "ghost" gunners and copilot on bombers. Long time ago it was said that we would have "ghost" planes for saving resources and because of all the animations required. Now we can see gunners, is a new adition, and only Maddox Games know what else they have in reserve for us.
Thanks for the update.

I agree by far the best screen shot we have seen of the terrain and a nice update, thank you.

[julian265]

The first pic prompts me to ask - will the trees be invisible when viewed from below as in IL-2? I really hope not!

[ChrisDNT]

Sorry, but the landscape still looks cartoonish to me.
I know it's WIP, but the colors are still strange, the trees "so-so" and their implantation on the terrain not very natural.
I would have found these screenshots good four years ago, but not in 2010.

[T}{OR]

Thanks for the update, love the shots. I for one think that they are great, better yet - outstanding, but I won't be saying "wow" on just the graphics update.

When will we see some features and possibly new videos? Graphics are IMO second important here, game play and rock-solid AI is what matters the most in this kind of software. I for one don't care if the graphics are "so 2009." and similar... Give us some proper drooling stuff. :grin:


Hopefully after summer holidays are over so you guys will have more time.

[Abbeville-Boy]

there will always be some who complain no matter what, nature of people. i like the pic's they look great and thanks :-)


Hello everyone,

Some fresh shots for this week. so the skies are briefly peaceful yet again.

[Feuerfalke]

Thanks for the update, love the shots. I for one think that they are great, better yet - outstanding, but I won't be saying "wow" on just the graphics update.

When will we see some features and possibly new videos? Graphics are IMO second important here, game play and rock-solid AI is what matters the most in this kind of software. I for one don't care if the graphics are "so 2009." and similar... Give us some proper drooling stuff. :grin:


Hopefully after summer holidays are over so you guys will have more time.

Interesting. How do you present "drooling-stuff" without using graphics?

[Feuerfalke]

I agree by far the best screen shot we have seen of the terrain and a nice update, thank you.

[grabs red marker and heads to calendar]

[Robert]

[grabs red marker and heads to calendar]


I wet myself laughing. Oh....man.

[Tree_UK]

[grabs red marker and heads to calendar]

lol the beers are on me..... :grin::grin:

[Robert]

Sorry, but the landscape still looks cartoonish to me.
I know it's WIP, but the colors are still strange, the trees "so-so" and their implantation on the terrain not very natural.
I would have found these screenshots good four years ago, but not in 2010.



What are you comparing it to? The only Flight Sims that have been released in that time are Black Shark, and Rise of Flight. (correct me if I'm wrong) If you're considering First Person Shooters, then you don't understand the complexity of flight sims verses FPS.... or any other genre for that matter.


There's only so many CPU cycles to go around. Some not quite perfect looking trees that won't get too much of a notice in the heat of battle GLADLY take a back seat to my airplane's FMs and enemy AI.


I fly RoF, and while I'm very pleased with the terrain and cityscapes the buildings have a tendency to look like paper cut outs. The trees rotate as you fly around them.

IOW. No game will master every detail. For 2010, I think this looks great. Perfect? No. But it's called a WIP for a reason.


I'd like to be a fanboi extrordinaire, but I find I'm only a fanboi fair to middling.

[easytarget3]

What are you comparing it to? The only Flight Sims that have been released in that time are Black Shark, and Rise of Flight. (correct me if I'm wrong) If you're considering First Person Shooters, then you don't understand the complexity of flight sims verses FPS.... or any other genre for that matter.


There's only so many CPU cycles to go around. Some not quite perfect looking trees that won't get too much of a notice in the heat of battle GLADLY take a back seat to my airplane's FMs and enemy AI.


I fly RoF, and while I'm very pleased with the terrain and cityscapes the buildings have a tendency to look like paper cut outs. The trees rotate as you fly around them.

IOW. No game will master every detail. For 2010, I think this looks great. Perfect? No. But it's called a WIP for a reason.


I'd like to be a fanboi extrordinaire, but I find I'm only a fanboi fair to middling.

agree 100%

[Flanker35M]

S!

Cockpit of that He-111 and Blenheim look very nice. Thanks for the update and have a nice weekend.

[Avimimus]

Guys even the lower LoD trees have trunks - they just happen to be realistically thin trunks. There is something of an issue with the tree textures though (I guess this will be like in RoF - stunning graphics except for the trees which look like cut-outs due to having to turn down the settings?)

if anyone of you is going to notice the exact height of the trees during the flight or even fight, I buy him a pint.

It is actually very hard to assess the height of a tree from the ground. Talk to any forester and get them to show you their tools.

I (and most other people) used to be under the rather silly impression that tanks were larger than fighter aircraft. I say - go outside and compare the heights of building to the heights of trees - if your in the desert or on the plains your trees will be short - if your in a wet environment your trees will be four times higher than in a relatively dry one.

I live in a mesic (ie. not dry, but not wet) environment and one tree species (under ideal conditions) can reach 70 metres!

[Derzasi]

Hi Luthier,
some people are complaining about the trees,
well I think their are ok, just the shadows of the trees seems to be of a solid object, some rays of light usually passes thru the leaves and the spots on the ground make the shadows less dark...
Just my 2 cents....
Derzasi

[Blackdog_kt]

Interesting. How do you present "drooling-stuff" without using graphics?

I think he means videos showing off the technical aspects of the simulator. Things like operation of the aircraft, AI command system and the like.

For example, a video where a flight of blenheims is skimming the deck on the way to a low level run against a luftwaffe airfield in occupied France. The gunners call bogies (ie, unidentified contacts), but the player doesn't want to give away his position just yet. The command menu pops up: entire flight->gunners->hold your fire. The enemy interceptors fail to spot the low flying bombers.
A few miles down the road, another flight pops into view and the AI gunners again call bogies. As the contacts move closer the AI gunner screams on the intercom "bandits 6 o'clock high, closing fast", so he's identified them as enemy. Depending on crew experience or a randomized script, he might even identidy the type.

The player keeps on, until the AI gunner cuts in again "bandits on attack run,permission to open fire?". The player pops up the command menu again and selects entire flight->gunners->fire at will. He could order aimed fire, so that gunners only fire when they are sure they'll score hits, but that lets the enemy get closer as well, or he could even order barrage fire, so that the gunners try to deter the enemy from getting closer by spraying up a wall of fire.
On top of that, you could have short/medium/long range fire orders of each of the above modes, or you could instruct each gunner, from the entire formation down to vics, finger fours, elements and individual aircraft to do a different thing. So, there would be 3 different fire modes that could be combined with 3 range modes and a global hold/open fire toggle order. You could have the gunners throw barrage fire at close range, or aimed fire at medium range and you would be able to set you preference in advance and control when they start doing it all by issuing open/hold fire commands.

Personally, i would be drooling quite a bit if i saw something like this :grin:

[maclean525]

Everything I see in these screen shots requires no extra work in my opinion and is more than ready for version 1.0. The terrain especially is very rich looking and I would be more than happy if my retail version of SOW had the terrain looking like that. It goes without saying that the cockpits in SOW are just absolutely incredible.

Nice work guys, and anxiously awaiting the release!

[Old_Canuck]

Tree-whining, this week's flavor of criticism. :-|

:wink: If you didn't say it I would have.

Thanks for the great shots and careful explanations Luthier. Despite the criticisms SoW will be studied and copied by future sim developers IMAO.

[Avimimus]

I guess Luthier will have to remove the trees for next week (just like the effects for this week) ;)

[choctaw111]

Everything is looking better and better.
Thanks for showing us these.

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

I guess Luthier will have to remove the trees for next week (just like the effects for this week) ;)

Criticism needs to become more constructive and I'll let an old Taoist parable explain why:

In the state of Ch'u, a housebreaker became a soldier under the General Tzu-fa, a man known for utilizing the abilities of others to a remarkable degree.

A short while later, Ch'u was attacked by the army of the state of Ch'i. Tzu-fa's men went out to counter the attack, but were driven back three times. The Ch'u strategists exhausted their minds while the enemy forces grew stronger.

At that point, the housebreaker stepped forward and asked for a chance to work for the defense of Ch'u. The General granted his request.

That night, the housebreaker sneaked into the Ch'i camp, entered the general's tent, and removed the curtains from the bed. Tzu-fa sent these back the next morning by special envoy, with a note which explained that they had been found by some men who were out gathering firewood.

The following evening, the housebreaker removed the Ch'i general's pillow. The next morning, it was returned with a message like the first.

On the third night, the housebreaker removed the general's jade hairpin. It was returned the next morning.

That day, the Ch'i general called his officers together. "One more night," he warned them, "and it will be my head!" The troops were ordered to break camp and return home.

So next week, no tree, after that, no more Friday Updates!:cry:

[dali]

Hallo,

concerning the trees I wonder what results could have been achieved if Oleg's team joined their powers with another very experienced (with large landscapes) team most of you know - Bohemia Interactive. Their software known as Linda: http://pro.bistudio.com/index.php/services/linda-tree-generator.html appropriately used and optimised for the purposes of flight simulation might have done intresting things. Speedtree looks too like from coloring book, but it is perhaps only my opinion and the final result is going to be excelent. :cool:

O.

that would work for FPS, but it is utterly too detailed for the flight sim. And to those whining about the trees - have you noticed at all tilled textures and tree lines? Cartoonish? this is by far the best terrain I've ever seen and I've seen many, also professional simulators.

[zakkandrachoff]

The 3 sreens are fantastic. I love that screen take it from the pilot of the he111 regardless i dont like the he111 plane in the reality

And I love too the hurri pic suburban area. The trees are fantastic, and the more important, is good effect the terrain far away close to the horizon. I read in some places that the Germans have, in some bombers, a pair of binoculars. Will be?

I like the environment of the pilot in the Bristol Blenheim. Is a Mk IVF, right?
(you miss the girl pic in the instrument panel;))

[MD_Titus]

Too many trees in second shot! Either side of the roads = an avenue and this is ok, but when such built up areas were being built any tree would have flattened and new trees added later. Trees are regulated in the UK regarding distances to houses and the amount of light they prevent entering the dwelling.
Landscape still doesn't look quite right to me, not green enough, lol! Fields look a bit small and repetitive, perhaps for different locations the size could be varied? How are we going to land in those! In the countryside they would have been bigger, but probably tend be smaller between or near towns.
The planes look great and I can't wait to be flying them. All the best!

those regulations are in force now. i doubt they weer in 1940.

also you're thinking of industrialised farming field sizes.

[swiss]

Sorry, but the landscape still looks cartoonish to me.
I know it's WIP, but the colors are still strange, the trees "so-so" and their implantation on the terrain not very natural.
I would have found these screenshots good four years ago, but not in 2010.

You've just outed yourself as being clueless beyond belief.

This sim has been in development for the last 6yrs - of course this is still visible.
If you try to stay up to date during development your product will never be finished.
(Military equipment is such an example, once it's delivered the electronics are already outdated by 3 years - at least)

Plus, if you haven't realized already, this sim is focused on immersion, FM and the like.

If you ever had the chance to examine a professional military simulator you would know they DO NOT focus on fancy graphics - but physics.

Switzerland just finished a $300million tank sim - the graphics are SB PE like - at best.
But then again, they weren't looking for a Playstation game.



http://www.vlist.eu/downloads/cluepon.jpg

[swiss]

The player keeps on, until the AI gunner cuts in again "bandits on attack run,permission to open fire?". The player pops up the command menu again and selects entire flight->gunners->fire at will. He could order aimed fire, so that gunners only fire when they are sure they'll score hits, but that lets the enemy get closer as well, or he could even order barrage fire, so that the gunners try to deter the enemy from getting closer by spraying up a wall of fire.


You got historical records to back that up?

How should the Captain command a gunner 30 yards away?
I would think it was up to the gunner to decide when to open fire on enemy planes.

Maybe s.o. knows how this worked in RL?

[BadAim]

http://www.vlist.eu/downloads/cluepon.jpg

lmao!!!!!!

[ChrisDNT]

@Swiss

Usually, I don't answer to fanboys, as what they say is always totally useless for a dev team.

But just to say that I play IL-2 since day one, that I have sent along the years enough documentation to the dev team for being written in the game credits and that, of course, I still think IL-2 is the best WWII aviation simulation up to now.

So no need for me to be cheaply patronized by some unknown a**licker like you to be taught about what this sim is.

[BadAim]

I've been thinking about the criticisms of some of the forested areas in pic one, and I think I have actually hit on a possible explanation of why they don't quite "look right". Forested areas tend to have bushes weeds and smaller trees filling in their edges, except on the north side where they tend to be more "scruffy", I think this may be a case of something that we see but don't really notice.

Thinking about this and driving around Connecticut (they don't call this place New England for nuthin') really brought this to my attention. I'm not sure this could be helped without punishing the framerates to much though.

[swiss]

fanboy?
me?
lol

sent along the years enough documentation to the dev team for being written in the game credits

So I guess I'll have to address you with "Sir" from now on.


you to be taught about what this sim is

Obviously: You don't. You wouldn't complain if you did.

I still fail to see the relationship of sending in historical documents and basic knowledge of programming.
Oh, and don't forget to move rock back over the hole when crawl back in.

[Avala]

Thanks for another great update!

Also on the third floor but looking trees which goes up to the 8th.

And I think that comments like "Ohh, that tree wasn't there in 1940, it was planted in october of 1942!" are not constructive at all (if not even idiotic).

I believe that we are privileged to see real development screenshots and not "CG trailers" and screenshots with a lots of make up, like most of other developers are showing.

Also this is incomparable with lock on or wings of prey, lock on looks like 2D photograph, and wop are strong just in efects, and thats all. Effects are something that comes on the very end. Anyone can made effects screenshot with photoshop and 5 minutes spare time.

[robtek]

@swiss
for a pilot in command the usual way to communicate his orders to another crew-member
is by using the so called INTERCOM, short for "INTERnal COMmunication".
That is also used by the radio-man to communicate external communications to the pilot in command.

[T}{OR]

Interesting. How do you present "drooling-stuff" without using graphics?

Clever way of playing with words, but I do believe you know what I meant.

In short - special features and a video would "qualify" as the shortest answer. :D

[Blackdog_kt]

You got historical records to back that up?

How should the Captain command a gunner 30 yards away?
I would think it was up to the gunner to decide when to open fire on enemy planes.

Maybe s.o. knows how this worked in RL?

I don't have historical records for all kinds of bombers, i was just giving an example as to what constitutes a "drooling" example of game mechanics that doesn't have to do with graphics. It's just an example of things that people would go "ooh....ahhh....niiiice" if they saw the new engine able to do ;)

What few things i do know about commanding a crew has to do with the B-17. Correct me if i'm wrong but most of the multi-crewed planes like bombers had separate channels for voice communication and i can't imagine a 1940s era bomber without at least an intercomm.
For example, on the B-17 the radio operator would set a frequency to talk with the rest of the flight/bomber group, or anything else the captain ordered him to do (eg, talk to the escort fighter leader, home base and so on).

I think that only the pilots and radio operator could talk on that frequency, or maybe the bombardier too (ie, radioman and officers only). There is a switch in the B-17 cockpit that toggles between intercomm and radio, so that if the pilot wanted his microphone output to be directed to the bomber group he would switch to radio, but if he wanted to talk to the crew he would switch to intercomm.

I guess that gunners couldn't talk to other bombers and they only had intercomm output. As for incoming sound, i don't know for sure. What is almost certain is that the gunners could certainly hear the intercomm of their own plane all of the time, as they used it out to call out contacts and coordinate their defence. For example, a fighter moving from left to right aft of the bomber's wing line...the left waist gunner would call it out and shoot at it, but he would also alert the tail gunner that the fighter is about to enter his field of fire so that he could fire at it too. Maybe they could also hear radio calls from the captains/radiomen of other bombers as well, maybe not, or maybe the radioman could control what the non-officer members of the crew would hear, but intercomm sound was on 100% of the time between all crew members to help them defend their aircraft and coordinate in the mission.

So, in that sense, all it took to command a gunner 30 yards away (for example, if the pilot wanted to talk to the tail gunner), is flicking the switch to intercomm and speaking on the microphone.

[Avimimus]

You got historical records to back that up?

How should the Captain command a gunner 30 yards away?
I would think it was up to the gunner to decide when to open fire on enemy planes.

Maybe s.o. knows how this worked in RL?

I know of at least one case where a frustrated Lancaster pilot dove to attack an anti-aircraft battery and ordered his gunners to start strafing via the intercom.

Similarly, in night-ops it was the gunners who gave the order on when to initiate or halt evasive maneuvers (as it was the gunner who could see the enemy after all).

I suspect that most aircraft had considerably co-ordination between pilot and gunners (and navigators who would spot enemies and keep track of them etc. etc.)

[Jimko]

if anyone of you is going to notice the exact height of the trees during the flight or even fight, I buy him a pint. At 400 mph you notice details only for fraction of the second, the mind is capable of quick focusing in dynamical environment, then the focus is again quickly widened. You would know exactly what I'm talking about if you were a pilot, because distribution of attention is vital in flying, especialy military. I still remember some tiny details from my low-level flights 20 years ago, like man riding a bike, woman walking across the square and such... but generaly, you more sense the ground bellow than actualy "see" it. The lower you go, the further on the horizon one tends to gaze, because visual clues are disapearing too quickly bellow the plane and mind needs at least some stabile visual clues in the distance to keep the situational aweareness.

Screenshots of course capture the moment and you see all the details.

I think it is more important to enable visual clues than give you 30 types of trees. For me it is much more important to have real 3d tree in Bob, compared to quasi 3d trees in Il-2, which were not adding, but substracting from the feeling of depth and height. Judging from the screenshots from Ilya, I can already see, that the low and mid-level flights will be a real joy, since there are enough visual clues to maintain the field of vision depth.

In this sense, Bob has already fulfiled my "dreams" :)

Absolutely agreed!
This is not a ground-based FPS sim, it's a flight sim. If compromises have to be made in the visual eye-candy to protect the overall quality and the delivery of decent frame rates, let them be made in some ground details.

Great work, Luthier and team!

[tourmaline]

how your Team make the trees?

i like this way

a photo from a tree, cut out with Alpha
http://www4.pic-upload.de/thumb/06.08.10/yl4amxdfnaf1.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-6616463/tree3.jpg.html)

two planes (low polygone)
http://www4.pic-upload.de/thumb/06.08.10/krlz517oovkh.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-6616459/tree1.jpg.html)

and the low poly tree look good (ok i make it fast)
http://www4.pic-upload.de/thumb/06.08.10/xu5hp4e4rwm.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-6616461/tree2.jpg.html)

you need tree photos, please call me i make many pictures.

They are using special software that can animate trees and grass, no photoshop textures!

The game is really nicely comming together.

[nearmiss]

Tree-whining, this week's flavor of criticism. :-|

Yep, never fails.

Luthier and Oleg are tough skinned. They'll do with it as they will and we will all love it when it is released.

[kendo65]

I was referring to an apparent 'floating' effect on the trees in the foreground in Pic 1 - viewed on my work pc they look slightly as if they're suspended in mid-air. As no-one else seems to have commented on it , it may be down to viewing it on low-spec machine / screen.

I'll check it later on my LCD at home.

For the record, I've checked out the pics on my home PC monitor (Samsung 2232BW) and the trees in Pic 1 look fine.

Of course, the rest of you already knew that :(

Strange, viewed on 15" bog standard monitor earlier, the foreground trees at bottom of Pic 1 really did look like they were floating 'magic carpet'-like 50 feet above the ground :???:

Very excited about the work being done with crew animations. Can't wait to see the videos.

Have to respectfully disagree with those who voice the opinion that graphics don't matter too much, or matter less than FM, DM, AI, etc, etc. For me graphics are just as important in creating a realistic and believable experience.

Il2 already does a pretty good job in FM, DM, AI and is being improved again in 4.10 (and beyond). Where it falls down (by 2010 standards) is graphics.

Also - at the risk of reigniting a recent discussion/argument - SOW will not be fulfilling the same function as a military-grade training simulator, where the trainee's appreciation of the environment's graphical quality is not an important issue. Let the die-hards scoff, but I and many others 'play' flight-sims and computer games primarily for enjoyment and relaxation and only secondarily as a 'serious' learning tool, though that is a great aspect of the experience as well.

To release a technically superb but graphically compromised game/sim in 2010 is commercial suicide and a mistake that the developers will not make.

[NSU]

They are using special software that can animate trees and grass, no photoshop textures!

The game is really nicely comming together.

we talk about last LOD3 size 1000 to 10000m
not LOD1 the 3D Tree

i think he will make 3 LODs for the Tree


close LOD1 ca. 100 polygones
medium LOD2 ca. 20 polygones
far LOD3 ca. 4 polygones

for LOD3 i think Storm of War have no more than 4 poly`s, the point is the Texture, it must look like a Big Tree.

sorry for my bad english

[CRO_Adriatic]

In IL-2 I liked a lot how you can feel the ground, mountain, distance...

I'm sure & hape they will find again right way to tune the game for high end optic users, and people like me who dont care about trees. Beatween fps and threes I wil allways chooze fps...

[tourmaline]

For the record, I've checked out the pics on my home PC monitor (Samsung 2232BW) and the trees in Pic 1 look fine.

Of course, the rest of you already knew that :(

Strange, viewed on 15" bog standard monitor earlier, the foreground trees at bottom of Pic 1 really did look like they were floating 'magic carpet'-like 50 feet above the ground :???:

Very excited about the work being done with crew animations. Can't wait to see the videos.

Have to respectfully disagree with those who voice the opinion that graphics don't matter too much, or matter less than FM, DM, AI, etc, etc. For me graphics are just as important in creating a realistic and believable experience.

Il2 already does a pretty good job in FM, DM, AI and is being improved again in 4.10 (and beyond). Where it falls down (by 2010 standards) is graphics.

Also - at the risk of reigniting a recent discussion/argument - SOW will not be fulfilling the same function as a military-grade training simulator, where the trainee's appreciation of the environment's graphical quality is not an important issue. Let the die-hards scoff, but I and many others 'play' flight-sims and computer games primarily for enjoyment and relaxation and only secondarily as a 'serious' learning tool, though that is a great aspect of the experience as well.

To release a technically superb but graphically compromised game/sim in 2010 is commercial suicide and a mistake that the developers will not make.

That's because the trees are casting a shadow, hence they appear to be floating in space...Especially from that height.

[tourmaline]

we talk about last LOD3 size 1000 to 10000m
not LOD1 the 3D Tree

i think he will make 3 LODs for the Tree


close LOD1 ca. 100 polygones
medium LOD2 ca. 20 polygones
far LOD3 ca. 4 polygones

for LOD3 i think Storm of War have no more than 4 poly`s, the point is the Texture, it must look like a Big Tree.

sorry for my bad english

They are using speedtrees for the tree and grass animations, if i recall correctly.

http://www.speedtree.com/

[kendo65]

That's because the trees are casting a shadow, hence they appear to be floating in space...Especially from that height.

Absolutely, yes. It's just that on one screen it looks believable and realistic, while viewed on another it looked really off and bad.

May have hit on a reason for some of the disagreements going on around here - ie people viewing the same shots on different quality monitors

[kendo65]

Have to respectfully disagree with those who voice the opinion that graphics don't matter too much, or matter less than FM, DM, AI, etc, etc. For me graphics are just as important in creating a realistic and believable experience.
...
To release a technically superb but graphically compromised game/sim in 2010 is commercial suicide and a mistake that the developers will not make.

Quoting myself here :rolleyes: , but wanted to make an overlooked point: the people on this forum may not be representative of the average punter who will buy SOW - in fact who will HAVE to buy SOW if it is to be a commercial success.

For many of us enthusiasts - those who actually know (or care about :)) the difference between the E3 and and E4 sub-variants of the 109, or what kind of propellors the Hurricane used, or the precise layout of the instrument panel in a Spitfire Mk 1 - there will be many more (hopefully !) buyers who don't know and don't care (at least initially). They may buy the game because of a general interest in the Battle Of Britain; they may not know or care that it is Part 1 in the new, state of the art flight-sim series.

For these people what will matter is the BOB gameplay experience and graphical quality.

Maybe we overlook the importance of the standalone aspect of this game? I, and I'm sure most here, are firmly fixed on SOW as being PART 1 in the great new flight-sim scheme - we are already casting our eyes excitedly to the North Africa / Korea follow-ups and thinking about the improvements that Oleg will add as it progresses.

An overlooked question? - will SOW:BOB cut it as a standalone gaming experience? Will it recreate the Battle of Britain experience in an exciting, fun way or will it be mainly of interest to diehard, technical afficionados?

[furbs]

Landscape looking better, but and i know its WIP but the colours still look nothing like england to me...too bright, too much yellow and vivid green... to me when you look into the distance in england the colours seem to blur into dark green, brown and purple...here the look all wrong....too light and bright....esp at the horizon.

people have been saying just this about the colours for ages and we keep getting told its WIP dont worry...but ive not seen one pic yet of a english coloured landscape...just hope they will get the colours spot on for release.

planes, cockpits and other details looking fantastic as normal :)

[Tbag]

Are those also speedtree?

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/021.jpg

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

Look like the perfect flight-sim trees if you ask me!

[Tree_UK]

I may be wrong but I dont think they are using these Trees anymore, these were the good tress.

[imaca]

My 2c worth:
The foreground trees in pic 1 look strange because the position of the shadow relative to the tree gives the impression of a flat plane of branches/leaves suspended with a large gap to the ground. (most) Real trees have greenery with a larger vertical aspect than horizontal .
Also the trees at near to medium distance appear to have a dark outline. This makes them look hand outlined and coloured in, giving ,I think, the impression some have of "cartoonishness".
I guess at these distances each tree is only a few pixels, so the complexity of speedtree offers little advantage over a simple 2d shape, for, you have to think, quite a big performance hit.
the Trees look like to hard, make a little transparens so look like softer and better in the landscape.
Exactly.


The trees in the second picture look strange NOT because of their height, but because the size of the leaves (look close to (1/2m2) makes them look scaled up relative to everything else.
if anyone of you is going to notice the exact height of the trees during the flight or even fight, I buy him a pint.
:)
I probably wouldn't notice the height, but definitely would notice the enormous leaves.

Things looked a whole lot better here:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=2393&d=1274690360
Sorry for what seems like a terribly negative post.
Cockpit interiors look fantastic. Everything looks fantastic.
Except the trees.

[swiss]

What few things i do know about commanding a crew has to do with the B-17. Correct me if i'm wrong but most of the multi-crewed planes like bombers had separate channels for voice communication and i can't imagine a 1940s era bomber without at least an intercomm.


Communication is not the problem - the different sight is.

The gunner would have to describe the situation to the captain.
Now Imagine 4+ gunners simultaneously ... :confused:

I hope the captain was female, talk of multitasking.


I'm still referring to the fire at will thing...

[MikkOwl]

Things have a pretty surface but seem to be made out of empty paper..1. 'Floating trees' in the foreground explained.


The sun is shining.
Buildings cast shadows on other buildings.
Trees do not fully cast shadows. They seem to cast something but seems to be the center trunk + something thin.

Ground objects lacking shadows in a sunny environment gives impression that they are not standing anchored on the ground. EDIT: Can see in the other screens posted above that they fully cast shadows, so certainly it is just a graphic setting.

2. The cockpit in the Heinkel and the Beufighter(?).

The reflections on the fancy instrument dials appear to be missing so it is probably a lower graphical setting.


3. Crew animated.

Exciting! Makes a large difference for me in the appeal for flying non-fighter planes. Physics and animations is what is missing more than anything else in 3D games since a very long time ago. Hope to see this sort of effect on the own body rendered in first person view at some point.

[Sutts]

Are those also speedtree?

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/021.jpg

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

Look like the perfect flight-sim trees if you ask me!


>>I may be wrong but I dont think they are using these Trees anymore, these were the good tress.


If that's the case then it's a great shame. The colour and density of these trees is very good indeed.

Great update by the way Luthier. The landscape is looking nicely populated and very interesting...varied patches of woodland and irregular fields etc.
It's great to see trees way off in the distance now. Also notice how the trees border the fields - no random placement here.

In response to the earlier comment regarding field sizes...they're spot on for this period. It was only post war that hedges started to be ripped out on a grand scale to produce the machine friendly large fields we're accustomed to seeing today.

I think this level of ground detail will make ground attack very exciting and real. Just think of the feeling of speed you'll get as all those features zip by. Much easier to gauge height too.

The aircraft of course are absolutely superb in every way. I've got a good feeling about this product. I think we'll be in for a real treat.

Please don't let the whining get in the way of the regular updates. You know we're all addicted to them.:grin:

[GOA_Potenz]

if anyone of you is going to notice the exact height of the trees during the flight or even fight, I buy him a pint.


For a pint, i will fly with a ruler in my cockpit and mesure even the size of the leafs :grin::grin::grin:

[Chivas]

The terrain is becoming very believable, and much better than anything I've seen so far in a combat flight sim. Terrain graphics are very important for my immersion level as its something your looking at 90% of the time your flying. We know the aircraft and cockpits are beautiful. The DM will also be far more complex than IL-2.
The elephant in the room is the AI, and it can't be shown in screenshots. Oleg has suggested that the AI will be much better, and if thats the case, this sim is shaping up just fine.

~Salute~

[Blackdog_kt]

Communication is not the problem - the different sight is.

The gunner would have to describe the situation to the captain.
Now Imagine 4+ gunners simultaneously ... :confused:

I hope the captain was female, talk of multitasking.


I'm still referring to the fire at will thing...

In the example i was talking about a blenheim wich has a single gunner. However, even with more gunners it's no different that a squadron of 20 or so fighters that are tuned into the same frequency during a dogfight. They too have this problem of having to know when to talk and that's the reason for brevity codes and teaching radio discipline.

In any case, on youtube you can find clips of both the memphis belle hollywood movie and wartime footage of the real memphis belle crew and hear how they are talking to each other. They are all on the intercomm at the same time. In the movie this is touched upon sometimes when they make a fuss and the captain tells them to keep it short and precise. In the films of the real crew that i saw, they talk like nothing's happening...totally calm and composed, in short precise sentences:

"109 coming in, 9 o'clock...he's moving towards the tail"
Simple stuff like that...the waist gunner is telling the crew he's tracking a bandit and that the tail gunner is about to see him in his field of fire. That's all the information everyone in the crew needs. The rotating top and belly turrets can try to shoot at the 109 and the tail gunner will definitely do so, but nobody is asking "hey, can i shoot him too from the top turret?". It's just the information passed on to the crew and each man knows what to do because they are trained for it. There's no case in such a scenario that the nose or right waist gunners would talk at the same time, they heard that the bandit is not in the quarter they are covering so they don't bother with it, they scan for other threats.



Quoting myself here :rolleyes: , but wanted to make an overlooked point: the people on this forum may not be representative of the average punter who will buy SOW - in fact who will HAVE to buy SOW if it is to be a commercial success.

For many of us enthusiasts - those who actually know (or care about :)) the difference between the E3 and and E4 sub-variants of the 109, or what kind of propellors the Hurricane used, or the precise layout of the instrument panel in a Spitfire Mk 1 - there will be many more (hopefully !) buyers who don't know and don't care (at least initially). They may buy the game because of a general interest in the Battle Of Britain; they may not know or care that it is Part 1 in the new, state of the art flight-sim series.

For these people what will matter is the BOB gameplay experience and graphical quality.

Maybe we overlook the importance of the standalone aspect of this game? I, and I'm sure most here, are firmly fixed on SOW as being PART 1 in the great new flight-sim scheme - we are already casting our eyes excitedly to the North Africa / Korea follow-ups and thinking about the improvements that Oleg will add as it progresses.

An overlooked question? - will SOW:BOB cut it as a standalone gaming experience? Will it recreate the Battle of Britain experience in an exciting, fun way or will it be mainly of interest to diehard, technical afficionados?

No disresspect to the casual crowd, but the right way to make a flight sim is to make it as technically rich as possible and then include difficutly options that the casual players can switch off, this keeps both ends of the potential customer spectrum happy.

If it's done the other way around and the technical details are overlooked, there is no way to please both ends and the game becomes an arcade game with aircraft instead of a flight simulator game.

Maybe i'll be swamped with the new FM and engine management and not use it, or i'll start using it after i buy better peripherals, but that's not a reason to ommit these features. It's evolution and since the game is tailored for a long life, much of the added difficulty and control schemes used to manage it will gradually become a standard during its life.

As an example, how many years have you guys had TrackIR sets? I used to fly with a hat-switch up until 2 years ago and i've been flight simming for 18 years. Just because i didn't have a TrackIR didn't mean that IL2 should cater to me as the lowest common denominator and force automatic padlock views on everyone, don't you think? ;)

In a similar fashion, if time, money and PC processing limits permit it, then flying SoW should be as exerting and mentally straining as flying a real aircraft (well, minus the G loads and detrimental effects from combat i guess). Just because some people won't use the option to fly this way doesn't mean we should deny it to those who will, as long as it's possible to do it of course. It's not a question of wether to include the technical aspect. If the difficult things can be switched off the casual gamers will be able to enjoy it just fine. If they don't exist however, it's only the casual gamers that will, the others will not. I think this is not even a dilemma :grin:

[ElAurens]

The terrain is becoming very believable, and much better than anything I've seen so far in a combat flight sim. Terrain graphics are very important for my immersion level as its something your looking at 90% of the time your flying. We know the aircraft and cockpits are beautiful. The DM will also be far more complex than IL-2.
The elephant in the room is the AI, but that you can't shown in screenshots. Oleg has suggested that the AI will be much better, and if thats the case, this sim is shaping up just fine.

~Salute~

This, many times over.

The shot of the Hurri over the city is simply stunning on my monitor (Samsung PX2370). Not only is it verging on the photoreal, it almost gave me vertigo.

SoW is going to raise the bar much higher than the whiners on this board can possibly conceive of.

Kudos Oleg and Luthier.

[nearmiss]

My system is state of the art. The photos are awesome on 1920x1200 resolution x 24 inch monitor.

Nothing disappointing about them AFAICT.

They can stop now for my part, release the SOW and refine the scenery later.

My opinion of course ;)

[Freycinet]

Thx so much for the update. Nice historical reference in the first image:

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/3274866.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=45B0EB3381F7834DBB2DAB3552AFC8C86E91502D2F70B677 0ACFB0318981C9EF

[Fansadox]

I really like the planes and the detail in them. Cant wait to take a first flight :) But im not happy where you guys are going when it comes to the ground textures and landscape details.

[bf-110]

Oh,the Blenheim cockpit,you beauty!!

[PilotError]

Very nice update.:grin:

I think the terrain is looking great.
Is it perfect ? No. But with the power of current computers there is bound to be limits.
Perhaps in 10 years time when we have 512 core cpu's, multi terrabytes of ram, etc then we can have "perfect" terrain, clouds and trees.:rolleyes: But it looks good enough to me at the moment.

I would love to see a movie of the crew animations though.
This sounds like it will be a real jaw dropper.:cool:

Thanks for the update, and keep up the good work.

[swiss]

My system is state of the art. The photos are awesome on 1920x1200 resolution x 24 inch monitor.

Nothing disappointing about them AFAICT.

They can stop now for my part, release the SOW and refine the scenery later.

My opinion of course ;)

+1

[Fearless_1]

The textures on the houses look kind of blurry and the windows in the red house just look flat out bad. They are too big, and look like headlights.

[proton45]

I think this update looks flat out "fantastic"...

By far, this is looking like it will be the best flight combat sim to date. I'm simply flabbergast at the shear amount of detail in these maps. With all the included citys and villages in this full scale map, it is simply an astonishing feat...I dont think that, some of the, people here understand what an immense undertaking this really project is.

Thank you...

[Chivas]

I think this update looks flat out "fantastic"...

By far, this is looking like it will be the best flight combat sim to date. I'm simply flabbergast at the shear amount of detail in these maps. With all the included citys and villages in this full scale map, it is simply an astonishing feat...I dont think that, some of the, people here understand what an immense undertaking this really project is.

Thank you...

I agree....many of us don't understand just how much work this map is and the corners that have to be cut to allow playable frame rates. This latest update is very impressive. :)

[airmalik]

Look like the perfect flight-sim trees if you ask me!

Agreed. These old trees look a lot better that the current ones at this distance. Perhaps they were too compute intensive or didn't degrade well to lower LODs for longer view distances.

[LukeFF]

The textures on the houses look kind of blurry and the windows in the red house just look flat out bad. They are too big, and look like headlights.

It.

is.

WIP.

Why is that so hard to understand?

[airmalik]

Crew members will move, and how! This was actually the first in the series of screenshots showing him move around, but after I took them I realized that it just doesn't have the same effect on static screenshots. It's just so lifelike to see the guy get thrown about by your maneuvers, almost adds a slightly sadistic elements to the game. Make a pinata out of the navigator! Boom, slam, bang! Uh oh, a flat spin.

Surprised more people haven't picked up on this.

The crew reacting to maneuvers makes me suspect their movements aren't simple canned animations. Fingers crossed that it turns out to be something similar to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi5adyccoKI

Wearing seat belts will be a must. Wonder if sudden negative g's will result in unbelted crew lifting up off their seats.

[airmalik]

It.

is.

WIP.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Please give it a rest. Telling people it's WIP repeatedly is even more annoying.

In this case, I doubt the textures will suddenly become more detailed and less blurry close to release considering that artists create all textures in much higher resolutions than they end up being used in the game. The developers seem to have chosen the level of detail they want in these ground objects to balance rendering speed/resources used. If you recall, the same objects displayed outside of the game engine had higher resolution textures.

[hellbomber]

2x or 4x aa will fix most of the problems, id say about 20% smaller for all trees would be good

i guess the indiscretion is understandable although i do wonder if Olegs team is working inside the Chernobyl with mutant trees
http://lifewithoutbuildings.net/chernobyl.jpg

[Richie]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y1/Skarphol/he111-006sow.jpg



Seem like it looked that way in real life too:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y1/Skarphol/he111-006.jpg

Skarphol



I like that. It doesn't look right just perfectly clear. Even now the 109 windscreens are pretty dirty witch a lot of people have raised a fuss about...not me... so I'm sure this will be looked at.

[slick118]

The trees are all a standard size, inside cities or outside. We can either have tall trees in cities, or tiny regulated runts in the woods. If we had to have different types of trees and check where they grow, we'd lose way too much FPS.

Just adding my two pence, I'd rather see fewer trees in towns and cities than in that second shot. It detracts from the sleepy little village feel that you got (and in fact still get today) when flying over towns and villages the south of England. Reminds me more of Milton Keynes, a new town (or is it a city nowadays...?) just north of London where they seem to have tried to plant one tree for every building there! Whereas the more established towns and villages of England are mainly concentrations of old buildings with parks and avenues etc elsewhere where trees are permitted to grow.

[Endy]

Fantastic screen shots, looking at those pics, just amazing.

I know my old computer would struggle with this, but one day!

[_RAAF_Stupot]

I've been flying sims for a while, and trees are <still> a bonus for me.

Screenshots look great!

[JVM]

I agree....many of us don't understand just how much work this map is and the corners that have to be cut to allow playable frame rates. This latest update is very impressive. :)

And yet we saw nothing from the German side...The undertaking for the French(German) side will be no less immense...the airfields alone are so utterly different from the english ones that I really would like one of those soon...no to mention capes Griz-Nez and Blanc-Nez!!!

JV

[tourmaline]

Are those also speedtree?

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/021.jpg

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

Look like the perfect flight-sim trees if you ask me!

I think it's not so much a matter of trees, but a matter of lighting...
The trees are the same, but lighting is different...

Remember that the summer of '40 was very hot and thus much lighter then usual...Lots of sun.

[zauii]

Jeez , all this talk about trees like its the main thing of the game...

[engarde]

Jeez , all this talk about trees like its the main thing of the game...

im surprised noone has brought up why cant we see the individual leaves moving in perfect unison with the atmospheric effects?

or perhaps there should be squirrels visible inside the trees, with perfectly reproduced anatomical systems that respond correctly to gunfire?

wait, why dont they model each and every hair on the squirrels!

yeah the sim is absolutely worthless without realistic squirrel hair!

WE WANT PERFECT SQUIRRELS! WAAAAGH SQUIRRELS !

[swiss]

And moles and molehills, you know, after the rain all the meadows are full of them.
Moles are very important to me, they add a lot to the total immersion feeling.

[Tigertooo]

And moles and molehills, you know, after the rain all the meadows are full of them.
Moles are very important to me, they add a lot to the total immersion feeling.


:lol::lol:
and will we be able to see the earth-worms after the rain . Can i be informed on the colour and the size of them please?

To Oleg's team: keep the good work up , you have my 200 % support for whatever you are making
Salute :!:

[daHeld]

As can be seen in these aerial photographs, you normally can't see tree trunks from the air. It's rather the exception than the rule.
So for me, it looks certainly good enough. Did you actually realize how far back to the horizon we are able to see the trees in the sim?

[proton45]

Surprised more people haven't picked up on this.

The crew reacting to maneuvers makes me suspect their movements aren't simple canned animations. Fingers crossed that it turns out to be something similar to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi5adyccoKI

Wearing seat belts will be a must. Wonder if sudden negative g's will result in unbelted crew lifting up off their seats.

Yea...that was an intriguing detail. I wish we could see the screen shots, lol.

[zaelu]

As can be seen in these aerial photographs, you normally can't see tree trunks from the air. It's rather the exception than the rule.
So for me, it looks certainly good enough. Did you actually realize how far back to the horizon we are able to see the trees in the sim?

nor the leaves :grin:

[airmalik]

As can be seen in these aerial photographs, you normally can't see tree trunks from the air. It's rather the exception than the rule.

The old tree pics posted by TBag look at lost closer to these aerial shots than the new trees.

[Foo'bar]

As can be seen in these aerial photographs, you normally can't see tree trunks from the air. It's rather the exception than the rule.
So for me, it looks certainly good enough. Did you actually realize how far back to the horizon we are able to see the trees in the sim?

One can see that the trees are way too high. ;)

[swiss]

Luthier, in case you have a desert map soemwhere - please use that one for the next screenshots....

But then agian, maybe the color of the sand is not like the real desert, or maybe the grain of sand is the wrong size. :rolleyes:

[lbuchele]

It's incredible to see that a lot of trees in England actually have 2 or 3 floor height.
I was wondering why the trees was so high in the second pic...
But I still think that they might be a little shorter,what do you think?

[engarde]

One can see that the trees are way too high. ;)

AND....

whoever modelled those english "countryside" photos a couple of posts back, forgot to put the damn squirrels in.

reality just isnt modelled the way it should be.

there are so many things wrong with the countryside shown in the photos i dont know where to start.

if you know what to look for, the true expert can spot the errors really easy. :cool:

[tourmaline]

As can be seen in these aerial photographs, you normally can't see tree trunks from the air. It's rather the exception than the rule.
So for me, it looks certainly good enough. Did you actually realize how far back to the horizon we are able to see the trees in the sim?

If you look at your pictures, then you can clearly see that a lot of trees are actually taller then most buildings...

Conclusion, nothing wrong with screenshot #2!

[tourmaline]

Yea...that was an intriguing detail. I wish we could see the screen shots, lol. Very human like behavier.:)

[kalimba]

I think that Oleg and Luthier are pulling our legs a bit now....;)

None of the screens they showed us lately had AA, nor was in DX11, nor had a " high resolution"....I also think, IMHO, that they are in fact many steps ahead of what we have been shown every fridays...
They understand how we react better than we think, and they're gonna turn this in their advantage...
They are probably working hard on making a video that will make everyone go " WOW" once and for all...But it takes time...So they tuned down the latest screenies to make the leap even bigger when the video comes up...
So I am very otimistic, as you can see....:rolleyes:

Good job !

[nearmiss]

Very human like behavier.:)

Look just like "Mannequin"

Pretty good I guess, afterall how far do you really have to take it for people to enjoy a game?

[Viking]

We are talking about a simulation here!
Please!

Viking

[nearmiss]

We are talking about a simulation here!
Please!

Viking

Oops! :lol:

[Ekar]

Are those also speedtree?

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

Look like the perfect flight-sim trees if you ask me!

I notice in this shot- apart from the great trees (beautiful!), better texturing on the ground including what appears to be a detail bump map which blends in with the satellite(?) imagery. This is the first time I've seen this shot and if this is an example of SOW at higher graphical settings (AA is also on) then I would be more confident in the graphical abilities of SOW to deliver an impressive and immersive experience.

The recent shots in contrast have sometimes shown very blurry ground textures which sort of look like un-detailed blobs of colour, not very nice... I understand these are WIP shots taken on low settings on an underpowered PC, but I and others can only discuss what we see.

The devs of course have the freedom to release any kind of shots they like- and they can highlight different graphics systems or anything else they feel like sharing. I'm personally interested in mainly wanting to see things in high quality, but if we only get low settings/low quality shots before release then I'm not exactly going to complain. I think any kind of communication about how things are going is great!

[LukeFF]

But I still think that they might be a little shorter,what do you think?

They're fine. :roll:

[Vylsain]

It's so easy to caricature... Almost everybody agrees that the height is fine. We all see outside, some trees 3 or 4 floors high. The proof is that screens posted by Tbag are fine for all despite trees are tall too.

But look at the differences :

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=3007&d=1281087306

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

The difference is not the height but the complexity. Everybody knows that some trees are 20m high but they do not look like little shrubs with tripled volume and do not have leafs with the size of an Opel Blitz...

By the way, the trees in the second screen are really good looking.

I think people are focusing on the scenery because that's what we see the first on screens and also because most of us know that Oleg and his team will provide us an amazing sim on every other sides...
The few problems IL2 had where related to sceney like "flashy green" and scale problems.

Personnaly, I focus my attention on trees and land textures because everything else is almost perfect to me. It should be taken as a compliment... If the most demanding simmers are complaining about trees, it means that Oleg is on the right way, isn't it ?

[koivis]

Personnaly, I focus my attention on trees and land textures because everything else is almost perfect to me. It should be taken as a compliment... If the most demanding simmers are complaining about trees, it means that Oleg is on the right way, isn't it ?

You are 100% right. It is indeed a fact that people always find something to complain about. Now, there is even a real reason to whine about, because the trees shown in the latest screenshots are not really that good, to put it nicely.

I find it interesting that some shots look almost like Il-2 (yes I know!) while some just are jaw-droppingly beautiful... Maybe they're just teasing us?

Or maybe they found some 4-year old shots and posted those just for kicks? Or maybe the game is already finished and they're just postponing the release closer to Xmas? Or maybe there is no game and it's all just a hoax?:rolleyes:

[Targ]

I am sorry but the brass knockers on the buildings are way off.

Forget the tree's, the knockers on those doors is just simply unforgivable. Do you really

expect me to make that leap of faith with crap knockers like that?

This is just another nail in the coffin of SoW...

This is supposed to be a S-I-MU-L-A-T-I-O-N!

Yet you guys cannot even get the knockers correct.

Sad, sad day.

[Vylsain]

And another caricature...

[Freycinet]

The undertaking for the French(German) side will be no less immense...the airfields alone are so utterly different from the english ones that I really would like one of those soon...no to mention capes Griz-Nez and Blanc-Nez!!!
JV

I'm going there for a day visit tomorrow, in ten hours' time! :)

[hellbomber]

so i guess a September release, for the BOB anniversary is obviously scrapped, guess it'll be 2011 now.. and then 2012, and then the world ends

[zaelu]

so i guess a September release, for the BOB anniversary is obviously scrapped, guess it'll be 2011 now.. and then 2012, and then the world ends

I am too afraid that is the case. So much "graphic engine" changes and not having even the SoW BoB site going... plus the IL-2 4.10 delayed like forever... is a good sign 2011 and beyond is the target.

[Tree_UK]

I would imagine this time next year would be more realistic, the ubisoft owned url stormofwar.com runs out in December having reached its 7 year life span so maybe Oleg is waiting for that before he gets the promotional ball rolling.

[ramstein]

so i guess a September release, for the BOB anniversary is obviously scrapped, guess it'll be 2011 now.. and then 2012, and then the world ends

I supose in 10 years Oleg wll tell us the real story of what happened to BOB, whether or not it ever gets released. I bet some bad things happened and it almost fell apart several times.. it's probably spent most of it's time on the back burner and life support..

[engarde]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo-f2x8T7d8&NR=1&feature=fvwp

P-61 Black Widow flight walk through.

Imagine that routine every flight.

I dare any screaming foaming mouthed plane start up fanatic to do this every sortie.

or even remember 20 minutes of detailed startup procedure.

perhaps oleg knows what he's doing.......

[engarde]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSIsoj1QPAc&feature=related

the same thing, this time for the B26.

Not a friendly airplane.

[robtek]

As to the "start-up fanatics" , just remember that the crew or the pilot usually comes to
a pre-flighted, warmed up airplane, not 20 min. say 2 to 3 min. start-up procedure.
And even less in a scramble!!!!

[engarde]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwksKXoDALI&feature=PlayList&p=A4489398B72D07FB

and the P-39.

I figure you get the idea, and the source, by now.

happy viewing.

[engarde]

As to the "start-up fanatics" , just remember that the crew or the pilot usually comes to
a pre-flighted, warmed up airplane, not 20 min. say 2 to 3 min. start-up procedure.
And even less in a scramble!!!!

so, before every flight in a new aircraft in SoW, set aside 20 - 30 mins then.... if you're a fast learner ;).

and clearly in remote airfields, you have... "all the comforts of home."

yeah.

nice try.

but, no.

[engarde]

and, by second visit, you're telling me pilots dont pre-flight aircraft before every flight?

they just run up and fly away as per the movies?

without EVER... let me say that again... EVER... checking their mounts?

no.

just no.

[LukeFF]

Where in the world was aircraft staring procedures a topic of this week's development update? :confused:

[engarde]

Where in the world was aircraft staring procedures a topic of this week's development update? :confused:

it wasn't.

i thought it might offset the detail fanatics who look for anything, however minor, to criticise.

as in, no computers, it takes time to start an old warbird?

[engarde]

sadly, i thought i might be lauded for posting real world, irrefutable, actual information that might contribute to the genre.

how naive of me.

;)

[Abbeville-Boy]

i think you just want attention so hello

[engarde]

i think you just want attention so hello

no.

i dont.

anything worthwhile to add?

[Abbeville-Boy]

ok i really like the idea of chimney smoking and i will enjoy making a winter time mission :grin:

[engarde]

ok i really like the idea of chimney smoking and i will enjoy making a winter time mission :grin:

haaaa hahaha smoke that chimney abbe boy.

;)

[Blackdog_kt]

and, by second visit, you're telling me pilots dont pre-flight aircraft before every flight?

they just run up and fly away as per the movies?

without EVER... let me say that again... EVER... checking their mounts?

no.

just no.

Well, that's why the "detail fanatics" want things like realistic systems management in their simulators, because the real pilots had to do it as well. If one doesn't want to, then one should feel free to drop their realism settings a bit, instead of trying to enforce their preference for a lack of increased fidelity in modelling an aircraft, which by the way is the reason we buy all that expensive hardware every few months ;)

I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. You like padlock? Fly with padlock. You like spending 30 seconds on each mission warming up your engine? Spend those seconds looking at your oil pressure and temp dials. No harm done.

The difference is, that if these things are included in a simulator then it's up to the player to decide if he's going to use them or not. But if there's no padlock feature coded into the sim, you simply can't choose wether to use one or not.

Ideally, SoW at 70% difficulty settings should be equal to IL-2 at 100% difficulty settings. Why? Because PCs grow stronger, sims evolve thanks to that processing power and developers can model the aircraft in much higher detail. Just the improved FM/DM and systems modelled could easily cover that much of a difference in difficulty.

However, i'm starting to get the idea that people are obsessed with keeping the title of full switch virtual pilot because they like thinking to themselves that they could operate a real aircraft: "man, i'm flying full switch, it's full real". No, it's not.

Full switch means nothing if it's not what happens in the real bird, it just means "the maximum amount of complexity our engine and your PC can take without making it all a slideshow".

Case in point, i can fly the classic Dynamix sims of the 90s like Aces of the Pacific all day long at full switch and claim whatever i want, but in the end it would be the equivalent of flying IL2 with most of the FM realism options turned off. It's just flying the sim at its maximum complexity, but that doesn't alleviate the fact that aces of the pacific at full complexity is still light years away from IL2 at maybe 20% difficulty, not to mention the way a real aircraft truly operates. In that sense, SoW should surpass IL-2 as well, funds and development time permitting of course.

Long story short, let's tick the appropriate boxes in the realism options when SoW is released and fly at our preferred settings, instead of trying to drop the difficulty level for everyone, even those who would want it increased, just so we can cling to our precious title of pretend-pilots. :rolleyes:

Choice people, choice...it's a good thing ;)

[robtek]

1+ Blackdog_kt

and preflighting is the job of the ground-crew who lend THEIR plane to the pilot!
I have a ppl and the preflight of a C152 or Pa28 takes about 5 to 10 min., without crew.

[tourmaline]

It's so easy to caricature... Almost everybody agrees that the height is fine. We all see outside, some trees 3 or 4 floors high. The proof is that screens posted by Tbag are fine for all despite trees are tall too.

But look at the differences :

The difference is not the height but the complexity. Everybody knows that some trees are 20m high but they do not look like little shrubs with tripled volume and do not have leafs with the size of an Opel Blitz...

By the way, the trees in the second screen are really good looking.

I think people are focusing on the scenery because that's what we see the first on screens and also because most of us know that Oleg and his team will provide us an amazing sim on every other sides...
The few problems IL2 had where related to sceney like "flashy green" and scale problems.

Personnaly, I focus my attention on trees and land textures because everything else is almost perfect to me. It should be taken as a compliment... If the most demanding simmers are complaining about trees, it means that Oleg is on the right way, isn't it ?

There might be a reason why these trees look a bit simpler...First of all, there's way much more trees and buildings in the SOW screen, this means a lot more stress for cpu and videocard!

How detailed do you want it to be?! Do you want to fly at least 30-60fps or do you want to watch your plane moving every second or so...

Sacrifices have to be made for playabilty, for a flightsim trees are just a bonus. And this looks more then good enough.

I cannot imagine that everyone wants to buy a new super computer to be able to run just a flightsim. Please return to the real world.

Planes' look and feel and behavier are the most important thing for a flightsim...

If you guys are just bickering about some trees, then this might be the evidence that everything else is allready on a high level...

[tourmaline]

Well, that's why the "detail fanatics" want things like realistic systems management in their simulators, because the real pilots had to do it as well. If one doesn't want to, then one should feel free to drop their realism settings a bit, instead of trying to enforce their preference for a lack of increased fidelity in modelling an aircraft, which by the way is the reason we buy all that expensive hardware every few months ;)

I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. You like padlock? Fly with padlock. You like spending 30 seconds on each mission warming up your engine? Spend those seconds looking at your oil pressure and temp dials. No harm done.

The difference is, that if these things are included in a simulator then it's up to the player to decide if he's going to use them or not. But if there's no padlock feature coded into the sim, you simply can't choose wether to use one or not.

Ideally, SoW at 70% difficulty settings should be equal to IL-2 at 100% difficulty settings. Why? Because PCs grow stronger, sims evolve thanks to that processing power and developers can model the aircraft in much higher detail. Just the improved FM/DM and systems modelled could easily cover that much of a difference in difficulty.

However, i'm starting to get the idea that people are obsessed with keeping the title of full switch virtual pilot because they like thinking to themselves that they could operate a real aircraft: "man, i'm flying full switch, it's full real". No, it's not.

Full switch means nothing if it's not what happens in the real bird, it just means "the maximum amount of complexity our engine and your PC can take without making it all a slideshow".

Case in point, i can fly the classic Dynamix sims of the 90s like Aces of the Pacific all day long at full switch and claim whatever i want, but in the end it would be the equivalent of flying IL2 with most of the FM realism options turned off. It's just flying the sim at its maximum complexity, but that doesn't alleviate the fact that aces of the pacific at full complexity is still light years away from IL2 at maybe 20% difficulty, not to mention the way a real aircraft truly operates. In that sense, SoW should surpass IL-2 as well, funds and development time permitting of course.

Long story short, let's tick the appropriate boxes in the realism options when SoW is released and fly at our preferred settings, instead of trying to drop the difficulty level for everyone, even those who would want it increased, just so we can cling to our precious title of pretend-pilots. :rolleyes:

Choice people, choice...it's a good thing ;)

Flightsim is never gonna be real if you don't have the same movements, and the same g-pulling experience...

[Xilon_x]

all peoples in this forum have age 20-28-30-35-60 age old and have experience from FSX F16 FALCON X-PLANE LOCK ON ecc.ec.
now we whait SoW simulator.
and we want SUPER SIMULATOR OF WW2 not arcade game ONE STANDARD SIMULATION IN ALL WORLD.
i loock OPS operation flash point and ARMA2 is good but very good product is a STANDART in all WORLD.
FSX is a stadart in all world.
BUT NOW WE WANT A NEW GENERATION OF SIMULATOR NEW TECNOLOGY NEW PHYSIC AND GOOD REAL SIMULATION not a simple game.

[zauii]

all peoples in this forum have age 20-28-30-35-60 age old and have experience from FSX F16 FALCON X-PLANE LOCK ON ecc.ec.
now we whait SoW simulator.
and we want SUPER SIMULATOR OF WW2 not arcade game ONE STANDARD SIMULATION IN ALL WORLD.
i loock OPS operation flash point and ARMA2 is good but very good product is a STANDART in all WORLD.
FSX is a stadart in all world.
BUT NOW WE WANT A NEW GENERATION OF SIMULATOR NEW TECNOLOGY NEW PHYSIC AND GOOD REAL SIMULATION not a simple game.

Omg, we already have an yber simulation for the public and it's called DCS series. Not even SoW will top it , DCS is more than 90% accurate to flying the real thing, reason why no one will top it is simple.. they focus 110% on one aircraft at the time. No we won't have one gigant super simulator, that's just wishful thinking, it's not even practical, fun or doable on a large scale if you're to create a 1:1 living world with Infantry, Tanks, Aircrafts.. i could list 1000+ issues with that
here and now.

Arma 2 isn't meant as a hardcore sim within any specific genre, its a Combat-simulator, simulating warfare overall in a realistic manner. By the way , check your spelling sometimes?

[TheGrunch]

sadly, i thought i might be lauded for posting real world, irrefutable, actual information that might contribute to the genre.

how naive of me.

;)
It was a fair point, engarde, but you did pick two of the most complicated aircraft of the Second World War systems-wise and the videos contained a lot of lengthy explanation that an experienced pilot would not need.
For the single-engined fighters like the Spitfire, Hurricane and 109s that the game simulates we're talking more like 3-5 minutes tops. From the Pilot's Notes for the Spitfire Mk II:

http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/2255h4vkao2r39m/images/18-96bd306470/000.jpg

http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/2255h4vkao2r39m/images/19-f1865ae618/000.jpg

The Spitfire particularly was prone to overheating on the ground - as the Pilot's Notes above state "Warming up should not be unduly prolonged, as the temperature rises quickly, and some margin must be kept in hand for taxying. If it is 150 degrees before the aircraft taxies out, it will become excessive if there is any distance to taxy downwind."

As for the Luftwaffe twins, the BR.20 and the Blenheim, of course you're right, there's a lot more mucking about to do. The thing is, most of the things you'll notice on the checklist are not things we as sim pilots need to be overly concerned about. We fly pristine aircraft that don't suffer from mechanical failures without pilot error or enemy action. Things like checking the tires for bruising and slip or checking for the correct oil pressure after engine startup are things we can take for granted, and that means that we're not really talking about "realistic startup" (which DOES take a long time), we really mean, "pressing all the authentic buttons to make stuff happen". ;) In fact, since we're assuming that everything on the checklist before stepping into the cockpit the final time before takeoff has already being done, you can knock about half of the startup time off each of those videos anyway.

[ElAurens]

I have no problem with fully realistic proceedures as long as like every other aspect of the sim, they are scalable. For offliners it will be a very important part of their experience, so go for it.

For online, where folks have much more limited time to fly even very long, complicated missions, some compromise between the ultra complex and arcade start up proceedure will end up being used.

If an online campaign has only 3 hours to run it's mission, and you might be able to do 3 sorties in complex twins, I will virtually guarantee that the majority of players will not want to spend half that time sitting on the ramp clicking buttons.

The object is to fly and fight, not fight the game mechanics just to be able to play.

Thankfully Oleg understands this.

We should all be able to have our fun, whatever we think "fun" is.

[Ekar]

There might be a reason why these trees look a bit simpler...First of all, there's way much more trees and buildings in the SOW screen, this means a lot more stress for cpu and videocard!


As far as I'm aware they are both screens from SOW. As to scene complexity, I can't speak for SOW, but other modern games have been able to do great things with object instancing whereby you can have a great many of the same or similar object and suffer minimal impact on system resources. Maybe this has to do with certain features in later versions of Direct X, or maybe it's just good programming on the developer side. I'm no programmer, I just know it's possible.


How detailed do you want it to be?! Do you want to fly at least 30-60fps or do you want to watch your plane moving every second or so...

Scalable to current, future, and past hardware seems best. There's no reason not to work towards accomodating GPU/CPU power that may be a year or two away from now, especially if SOW is not going to be released for awhile yet. The latest DX11 cards from Nvidia and ATI are super quick, and some of the budget cards in these new lineups are very reasonably priced.

Sacrifices have to be made for playabilty, for a flightsim trees are just a bonus. And this looks more then good enough.

You're entitled to your opinion. I'd imagine for a 2010/2011 flight sim, trees would be de rigueur by now. For a flight sim that's aiming to be a revolution and new standard setter for perhaps years to come, well... ;)

I cannot imagine that everyone wants to buy a new super computer to be able to run just a flightsim. Please return to the real world.


It seems plenty of people following the development of SOW are preparing to upgrade their systems when the time is right. It's certainly been mentioned time and time again by people throughout these threads. Though I'm sure any computer up to fairly modern standards will be able to handle SOW- the devs have indicated they are taking precautions here.

Planes' look and feel and behavier are the most important thing for a flightsim...


Yup.

If you guys are just bickering about some trees, then this might be the evidence that everything else is allready on a high level...


There really isn't much else to talk about in static shots. There's just simply an absence of evidence (distinct from any evidence of absence ;))

[zaelu]

For start up procedures a mixt between DCS BS and current IL-2 would be OK. That is 3 options:

1. Quick start up... like in Il2
2. Auto start up... like in DCS where all the switches are pressed in correct order by the computer... having an animated pilot inside would be a plus...
3. Manual start up... like in DCS... you press the switches to bring the beast to life.

[Antoninus]

Omg, we already have an yber simulation for the public and it's called DCS series. Not even SoW will top it , DCS is more than 90% accurate to flying the real thing, reason why no one will top it is simple.. they focus 110% on one aircraft at the time. ?

Remember that SOW will be open to 3rd party add ons. Some have done wonders with FSX and made significantly more complex add ons than MS stock planes. WW2 fighters are not nearly as complicated as the modern stuff modeled in DCS. Thus we might very see similarly detailed simulation of certain aircraft in SOW.

[daHeld]

If you look at your pictures, then you can clearly see that a lot of trees are actually taller then most buildings...

Conclusion, nothing wrong with screenshot #2!

Exactely what I wanted to say! :)

[nearmiss]

Mods have received continual complaints from members about OFF TOPIC discussions on the STICKY THREADS.

The sticky threads are for ON TOPIC discussions not personal complaints, bickering and other nonsense.

Mods don't have time to sort out all the persistent junk talk. Either you clean up your act or we take action.

The 1C company was generous enough to allow more open discussions on air combat and flight simulation in the non-sticky threads.

The sticky threads are to provide developers and users with competent information and constructive feedback discussions.

This thread will be locked for a few days so that everyone reads this message... then it will be re-opened.

If there is no respect from posters they will be banned on an individual basis for a week or more.

I repeat, the only intent of this is to preserve the integrity of sticky threads to be valuable to our community for constructive conversations between developers and members.

If you don't comply with this request, it will be clear you are only interested to be a disruptive influence on this forums

[JG52Krupi]

Wow awesome update, thanks for showing us the landscape its really coming along nicely.

I can't wait to see some more.

[334th_Gazoo]

Hello everyone,

Some fresh shots for this week. Keeping it very brief because I had very little time to work on these. Just like last week, we're not showing any WIP effects, so the skies are briefly peaceful yet again.

The Cockpit detail is amazing !!

Thank you 1C :grin:
I'm going to be able to fly the best Game on the Planet:grin:.

[IceFire]

That first picture with the Spitfire as seen from the cockpit of the Heinkel looks just like a couple of scenes from The Battle of Britain. Such an incredible shot (and a great movie - everyone here should watch it!).

[nearmiss]

That first picture with the Spitfire as seen from the cockpit of the Heinkel looks just like a couple of scenes from The Battle of Britain. Such an incredible shot (and a great movie - everyone here should watch it!).

The coolest part - We are going to be reliving the battle of britain very soon, and we will be right in the thick of it.

The SOW will be beyond our expectations.

Also, did you notice the pictures are 1920 x 1080 resolution w/no distortion or stretch

[AdMan]

the houses still look like lego land

[PhilHL]

the houses still look like lego land

I have the same impression ... honestly I am always like this..."wow this looks great..the moving shadows in the pit...the detail." and just a second later "uhhh those ugly looking puffy clouds again, and the like plastic looking planes"

Its like when you love a girls nice tits, awesome butt, sexy body overall and nice and sweet character but you can't stop looking at her horse nose!!!



Some times I think I am not going to look at those pics in the future again. I want to wait just for the final result.

But honestly stock SoW? Mods make it final perfekt. I can't image how great it will be with the new options SoW will offer. Thank you very much Oleg Maddox and team! :) You made me buy IL-2 four times and I guess I will spend at least the same money for SoW. You just deserve it!

[Foo'bar]

Also, did you notice the pictures are 1920 x 1080 resolution w/no distortion or stretch

Of course we did, well at least me ;) SoW in Full HD!

[Fred0209]

Hey all,

Been checking the updates every week for quite some time now, but 1st post here.

I was wondering if the new (and from what we can see excellent) physics engine of SoW would allow the devs to publish other "versions" of the game, like for example WWI planes simulation with the same engine ?
I know modding discussion is not allowed here, so that's why I'm asking about devs, not modders.

The limitation I see would be in terms of maps, as, if I understand correctly, the map in SoW will be of course limited to the Battle of Britain area.


PS : keep up the good work, and thanks for creating the fix for WWII planes simulation junkies ! Please be sure that many people are like me : checking and enjoying updates, but maybe not posting.

[nearmiss]

the houses still look like lego land

The FPS hit from high quality houses in large numbers may be too much for most people. The cost of a the system may be out of reach of most users.

I certainly wouldn't be disappointed with this quality of renderings, because most of the time you are not at those low altitudes. The Battle of Britain was an air war, and the initial engagements were at pretty high altitudes.

One thing I like. It appears that the SOW will have largely populated cities, busy docks and such pre-configured in the application. This will save a great deal of work, not having to place the objects through the FMB.

I know I could enjoy what I see right now very much. I can wait for the addons that follow, which can include further graphic improvements. The open architecture of the SOW should allow for some real nice 3rd party addons, including maps.

I didn't mention it before, but the 1920 x 1080 is a standard resolution for HDTV, just for some readers who don't know it. We will be able to hook up to out big screen tvs with SOW and have a full screen blast. This is good, hopefully Oleg has planned for even more improved video screen resolutions that will be released over time.

[Hecke]

Is that actually meant to be today's update that the thread is unlocked again?
Just wondering...

Thx,

Hecke

[Tree_UK]

Far too many Trees in this shot, it reminds me of 'Life After People' 400 years on.

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/2664/shot20100805211127.jpg (http://img534.imageshack.us/i/shot20100805211127.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[KaHzModAn]

Far too many Trees in this shot, it reminds me of 'Life After People' 400 years on.


this is a photo taken last week by Rodolphe, posted on Check-Six forum
its from Garston, Hertfordshire
http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Watford.jpg

[Drum_tastic]

Yeah, I am with Tree on this one.

Unless SOW has a completely accurate tree count from 1940 then I am afraid for me it will be a complete immersion killer.

To be honest the aerial combat is almost a sideshow to accurate foliage.

Cheers!

[Freycinet]

this is a photo taken last week by Rodolphe, posted on Check-Six forum
its from Garston, Hertfordshire


Touché!

[N2O]

Where today's apdeyt? :( I am already very hungry :roll:

[hellbomber]

ok where is the next friday update? i am not happy

[airmalik]

Yeah, I am with Tree on this one.

Unless SOW has a completely accurate tree count from 1940 then I am afraid for me it will be a complete immersion killer.

To be honest the aerial combat is almost a sideshow to accurate foliage.

Cheers!

Give the guy a break! Have you noticed his nickname? He can't help but obsess about trees :)

[major_setback]

this is a photo taken last week by Rodolphe, posted on Check-Six forum
its from Garston, Hertfordshire
http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Watford.jpg

Agreed.
There aren't too many trees.
The foliage is out of scale (as a WiP) which makes them look massive.
The area looks like it could be suburban, or in a small town. Lots of trees occur in these areas.

There is a foreshortening due to the use of tele-lens effect. They are certainly not so closely spaced as they appear. Likewise with the houses.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/album%202/Clipboard02-5.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/album%202/Clipboard01-4.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/album%202/Clipboard03-4.jpg

[hellbomber]

wait didnt luthier say the screen shots are done zoomed in so background objects appear zoomed in closer than they would otherwise appear, could it be were just seeing a zoomed in picture, so in normal flight they would be farther away and the reduced model detail wouldn't be as noticeable?

[easytarget3]

Agreed.
There aren't too many trees.
The foliage is out of scale (as a WiP) which makes them look massive.
The area looks like it could be suburban, or in a small town. Lots of trees occur in these areas.

There is a foreshortening due to the use of tele-lens effect. They are certainly not so closely spaced as they appear. Likewise with the houses.

http://quintinlake.photoshelter.com/img/pixel.gif

http://quintinlake.photoshelter.com/img/pixel.gif

exactly!agree 100%

[Jumperado]

Good shots Luthier.

1. Aren't the trees in picture 2 maybe a bit too high?



Lol, much higher than a 3 floor building. Its really out of scale.

I missed some anti-alias.

For a hurry beta image is pretty fine. Congratz for the good work.

[lbuchele]

Ok, this photo showed by KaHzModan reminds me to shut my mouth next time.
Luthier said that the trees was OK regarding height and amount and I thougt that he was probably wrong.
I was really wrong,instead.
They know what they are doing, I will just accept that.

[KG26_Alpha]

I live in the London suburbs and the trees v houses proportions looks absolutely correct from a telephoto perspective, bearing in mind it is still WIP.

Even in wide angle from the top of a church steeple these pictures at Rye East Sussex shows trees close to houses and over roof tops.

Excuse the poor quality pictures.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/alpha1/DSCN0562.jpg?t=1281704394
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/alpha1/DSCN0565.jpg?t=1281704530

[engarde]

has anyone stopped to think that the devs may well have modelled the tree info off period photos?

has anyone asked how exactly they arrived at the current tree situation? This may have happened and I havent found it.

including the trade off between (*cough* squirrel hair) FPS, dev time and the fact this is a combat flight sim and not a damn tree modelling exercise?

current tree photos are, frankly, useless.

60 years too late. Has nobody thought about this??????????????????????

I dont actually care about trees in a flight sim, there i said it, but I despair that devs waste time on this stupid tree situation when air to air or aircraft system details are better worked on.

[nearmiss]

has anyone stopped to think that the devs may well have modelled the tree info off period photos?

has anyone asked how exactly they arrived at the current tree situation? This may have happened and I havent found it.

including the trade off between (*cough* squirrel hair) FPS, dev time and the fact this is a combat flight sim and not a damn tree modelling exercise?

current tree photos are, frankly, useless.

60 years too late. Has nobody thought about this??????????????????????

I dont actually care about trees in a flight sim, there i said it, but I despair that devs waste time on this stupid tree situation when air to air or aircraft system details are better worked on.

1+

[IceFire]

Lol, much higher than a 3 floor building. Its really out of scale.

I missed some anti-alias.

For a hurry beta image is pretty fine. Congratz for the good work.

You must have short trees. Here in Southern Ontario I'm staring out the window at trees that are several meters taller than a reasonably sized two floor home. These are not unusual trees...

[KG26_Alpha]

I dont actually care about trees in a flight sim, there i said it, but I despair that devs waste time on this stupid tree situation when air to air or aircraft system details are better worked on.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=3042&d=1281706478


So you only care about what ?

Flying around in a DF server with no terrain and clear cloudless skies Pwning your way around amassing as many points as you can to look cool........

I want immersion if the terrain adds to that then they can spend as long as they like getting it right, as I spend my time online in Coop and campaign missions I want everything they have to make my time spent flying more than a mere shootem up.

If you want something else apart from immersion then fly something else, a desert flight sim probaly Suit You Sir !!

Oh BTW you need to read about how trees grow :) : http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/INFD-626LBY

[kendo65]

So you only care about what ?

Flying around in a DF server with no terrain and clear cloudless skies Pwning your way around amassing as many points as you can to look cool........

I want immersion if the terrain adds to that then they can spend as long as they like getting it right, as I spend my time online in Coop and campaign missions I want everything they have to make my time spent flying more than a mere shootem up.

If you want something else apart from immersion then fly something else, a desert flight sim probaly Suit You Sir !!

Oh BTW you need to read about how trees grow :) : http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/INFD-626LBY
+1


has anyone stopped to think that the devs may well have modelled the tree info off period photos?
... ...
current tree photos are, frankly, useless.

60 years too late. Has nobody thought about this??????????????????????
Are you suggesting that trees have genetically mutated in the last 60 years?! ;)

(edit: BTW, I thought the trees looked fine height-wise and number-wise)

I dont actually care about trees in a flight sim, there i said it,
A flight SIMulator has to simulate the ground; the ground has trees; therefore....

And if they're going to do them they may as well do them well (not perfect, mind, but to a standard in keeping with the rest of this excellent game)

...but I despair that devs waste time on this stupid tree situation when air to air or aircraft system details are better worked on.
the old 'either..or' situation again. Who says they can't do both?! Also the current state of air/aircraft pics suggest they're pretty well on the ball. The tree-landscape situation was/is at a less advanced stage. It's right that attention was/is paid to improving them.

Anyway, this whole thing is getting pretty tired now.

[nearmiss]

http://picsdigger.com/image/bb1bba63/http://i683.photobucket.com/albums/vv191/Beckybert/Smileys/laughingsmiley.gif

This has become a tree thread, and pages of the thread are on trees.

Maybe Luthier are Oleg can add something to this discussion, but either way you look at it. The trees are a huge improvement over IL2 and it has been great.

Sure we want all the graphics, but remember we have to allow for a minimum system requirement to meet sales goals. If the system requirements are too high it will eliminate purchasers.

So, I like the old system of making changes within the config file for the level of detail.

Also, remember we did get updates over the years from IL2 that were graphic improvements.

[Flutter]

Hi Luthier, Hi Oleg,
Seeing the quality of the latest screenshots, I cannot help but wonder:
Will screenshots taken with a machine with a higher end GPU show buildings with specular and parallax mapping?

With the overall quality of everything else, the lack of recessed and shiny windows seems to stick out to me.

I am fairly sure other objects in the sim are already using more advanced materials, and hope that applying them to houses will not hog too much GPU resources.

If this issue has been discussed and answered before, then please accept my apologies for not having read all the latest 12.438 postings.

Flutter

[kendo65]

This has become a tree thread, and pages of the thread are on trees.

Maybe Luthier are Oleg can add something to this discussion, but either way you look at it. The trees are a huge improvement over IL2 and it has been great.

Sure we want all the graphics, but remember we have to allow for a minimum system requirement to meet sales goals. If the system requirements are too high it will eliminate purchasers.

So, I like the old system of making changes within the config file for the level of detail.

Also, remember we did get updates over the years from IL2 that were graphic improvements.
Agreed. The debate unfortunately got polarised ...again (has happened on virtually every topic covered ..and will happen a few times more I'm sure before this is over)

I'll just point out though that the debate fixes on whatever Oleg and Co decide to show us, this time it's trees. A few weeks back it was smoke and flames.

Time to move on.

[Flying Pencil]

hello everyone,

some fresh shots for this week. Keeping it very brief because i had very little time to work on these. Just like last week, we're not showing any wip effects, so the skies are briefly peaceful yet again.

omg!!!!

[Novotny]

What I want to know is when are they going to show some trees? I've already had to cancel my pre-order twice on account of the lies about the trees.

[zapatista]

one potentially major problem with the "tree issue", is that i seem to remember Oleg recently mentioning (or luthier ?) that landscape tree's of medium and far viewing distances all would be one uniform size to maximise frame rates (this was in a fairly recent post)

if that is the case we might have a problem

in order to correctly create the immersive "sensation of speed" when flying low (and medium alt VFR flights), we largely depend on seeing the real life "objects of different sizes" in their right proportions and sizes, that is exactly what creates this correct sensation of speed. hope i misread oleg's earlier statement, or that for nearby objects this is not going to be the case (hard to judge by the recent "town with trees" shots, because you dont have a clear view of a countryside area)

[robtek]

As i have understood luthiers comment it says that the trees in the towns are as big as the trees in the country and to calculate different tree sizes according to their location is by far to much processor activity.

[BadAim]

I really hate to add to the "tree debate" but I have noted that a town looks quite different from above than from the "street". I have a c 1,000 foot cliff directly adjacent to my town and whenever I get up there I'm always amazed at how green the town is from above. Given that I always find photos of Southern England strikingly similar to New England (a lot of the foliage here [Connecticut] was brought from England and Europe, all of the 'old growth' having been cut down [and the climate is nearly the same]) I think the recent screenies look great given the limitations of a flight Sim.

[BadAim]

what i want to know is when are they going to show some trees? I've already had to cancel my pre-order twice on account of the lies about the trees.

lol!

[engarde]

""Flying around in a DF server with no terrain and clear cloudless skies Pwning your way around amassing as many points as you can to look cool........""

""If you want something else apart from immersion then fly something else, a desert flight sim probaly Suit You Sir !!""

-Flying around in a DF server with no terrain and clear cloudless skies Pwning your way around amassing as many points as you can to look cool-

You dont know me. Pwn? Look to your son. Not me.

-If you want something else apart from immersion then fly something else, a desert flight sim probaly Suit You Sir-

I would much rather pay for regularly experienced game engine refinments, than rarely exploited environment niches.

I look for air combat, simply.

I dont know it, I just want to be able to reproduce it the best i can.

[zapatista]

As i have understood luthiers comment it says that the trees in the towns are as big as the trees in the country and to calculate different tree sizes according to their location is by far to much processor activity.

that would be good news :)