Friday 2010-08-13 Dev. update and Discussions

[Oleg Maddox]

Hi,

In air.

[Oleg Maddox]

couple of other views

[drewpee]

OMG that first shot is amazing.

[BP_Tailspin]

Thank you for the update

[PhilHL]

wow, very nice looking trees!!

Thanks for the update, great pics :)

EDIT: The fire is looking much better now. It would look even better if the very bright fire also affects the shading of the parts of the plane which are affected.

[JG27_PapaFly]

:mrgreen: :razz:

[SAFMoby]

OMG picture 1 in post 1 is awesome. Hope we are able to use the gunsight adjustments to their full capability

Keep it up hope the heat is n't getting to you

Moby

[Novotny]

terrific pics, thank you.

[Flyby]

I can put the methadone down now. New screenshots always get me my Friday "fix"! :D
Flyby out

[BadAim]

Now I'll have a cigarette and cook breakfast. ;)

[Abbeville-Boy]

thanks for the update i like the leaf size and the trees look cool :grin:

[touchdown42]

thx for the update,

very nice trees :)

@last pic, first batch - the angle of the gondola MG looks a little bit extreme. Is the MG in thsi shot tracking the figther?
Will the travel of the guns be limited by the 3D framing?

... and apparently nobody dares to ask, so i'll do, is it possible to get a probable release date?

thx in advance

[lbuchele]

First shot makes me fear about my Real Life after this sim is released.
The trees now are showing quality usually seen in FPS games, totally unusual for flight similuation standard.
VERY impressive indeed.
It isn´t the case that we care too much about trees, like someone complains about.
Trees are just a detail in this sim, the problem is: SOW is all about details.
I think that we all are "detail junkies":grin:

[easytarget3]

Thank you oleg and team,i can finally leave for a weekend out, and switch off my computer, nammy stuff, and i see the intention of the last 2 shots with the trees and leaves,the tree debate is over :).

[zauii]

Nice as always, what is the status on the game?
I assume as we all do an 2010 release isn't realistic anymore? (Don't mind if you prove me wrong)

[kestrel79]

Very nice update Oleg and Team!

Is it just me or does this update have some AA applied to the images? They seem less jaggy, or maybe just taken from higher graphics settings than the past few weeks?

Anyways they look great! That cockpit shot is unreal, and I also like how the trees look in the last few shots. Very detailed. It will be so nice to fly low and actually worry about avoiding actual trees or using them in dogfights compared to a flat tree mesh thing. Great job guys!

[DB605]

Awesome pics!

[IFnXI]

Oleg, specify, please, which side planes are blue, and wich - red. On the map is not clear, unfortunately. :(

[Zappatime]

.....looks so immersive and atmospheric, the light and glare on the cockpit glass, wow, fantastic. Hope you had a good holday Oleg, clear of all that smog; are we on the home run to a release now?;)

[Coog]

.....looks so immersive and atmospheric, the light and glare on the cockpit glass, wow, fantastic. Hope you had a good holday Oleg, clear of all that smog; are we on the home run to a release now?;)

I believe the expression that you're searching for here is, "home stretch," vs. home run. :) Having said that, we all hope it's in the home stretch... It looks to be a home run when it comes out!

[Old_Canuck]

The tree debate is over for sure and stick a fork in that flaming Ju-88 -- it's done. Thanks for the great screenshots Oleg.

All the best to you and your family.

[Coog]

Love how the Ju-88 pilot looks to be checking out the Hurricane as it goes past...or maybe he's turning his head to checkout the nightmare that's just developed on his wing! Can't wait for the animations!

[HFC_Dolphin]

Nice!

[Zappatime]

I believe the expression that you're searching for here is, "home stretch," vs. home run. :) Having said that, we all hope it's in the home stretch... It looks to be a home run when it comes out!

Yeah, youre right Coog; lets hope its a short stretch, eh? ;)

[Blackdog_kt]

This gets better and better. I still find it funny that after all those years of near non-stop support, people doubt the capabilities of this team. I mean, it's perfectly ok not to be a total fanboy and have an opinion, or even to come out and say "i don't like this and this, could you do it a bit better?", but saying that they can't do it is a bit off the mark, especially given how they continuously lay everyone's doubts to rest.
Last week everyone was up in arms about the trees, then people posted photos confirming that they are in fact looking realistic, along with an explanation about zooming that messes with their scaling (the two main criticisms). And then, this update comes and i guess nobody will complain about trees anymore. They look so good i was expecting to see birds and squirrels among the branches (maybe i should stop now, before someone picks this up and runs wild with new ideas about excessive wildlife details :-P )

In the shot of the flaming Ju88 i realy like the fact that it looks like there's a high pressure jet on the engine nacelle feeding the fire (the high-temerature bright yellow/white coloured part). Trees are perfect in those shots with the Blenheims. Also, while the map window looks a bit too much like taken straight from the FMB (maybe it's not final), i think the scroll-bars are useful. Not to mention the fact that the map seems to pack an awful lot of detail, registering the shapes of every little forest in the area. Coupled with the improved terrain, it will make navigating really fun.

And of course, the in-cockpit shot. Oh-my-god, excuse me while i look around the floor trying to find and re-attach my jaw to my skull :grin:

First of all, be safe (with the fires and all, although i heard that you finally got some rain and temperatures will drop after a brief heatwave during the weekend) and keep up the good work, we can hardly wait for it. :cool:

P.S. In the shot where the Hurrican overtakes the Ju88, i think the Hurri is streaming some kind of vapor...fuel leak? And look at the amount of detail on the radiators of those Jumo engines, it's just crazy.

[zakkandrachoff]

Oleg, specify, please, which side planes are blue, and wich - red. On the map is not clear, unfortunately. :(

i think the white is the player , the player is the spitfire and they take a screen of the enemy bf110 with F2key.
sure: red for axis, blue for england.

i am more interesting for a real map in the cockpit
http://www.instructables.com/image/FGPAQWFG4D5QM3Z/a-revolving-map-board-for-open-cockpit-
http://oregonkayaking.net/rivers/dean/pilot_map.jpg
will be?

anyway, this sim is just finish i think, maybe november2010?;)

[Avimimus]

Question:
Will there be an option to replace the ingame map with a historical one? Also: will it be possible to have a flight path drawn on the map without the little airplane (like TD is currently implementing for Il-2)

The trees look excellent. For modders it may be important to have the ability to expand the types of foliage.

In some cases it might also be necessary to divide a map to have different types of foliage depending on altitude and other factors such as rainfall. Tthis could probably be done through a 3rd part program using real vegetation maps or rainfall maps - assuming the map system being used is open enough to editing.

This way the forests/plants would only have to be placed once and could then be automatically replaced with more appropriate variations. It would also be good to automatically vary the type of foliage depending on incline and whether the surrounding terrain is concave or convex (assuming the elevation points can be extracted from the terrain).

Anyway, te work is stunning as usual.

[kimosabi]

This game will sooooo pull WoP's pants down, point and laugh. And I mean that in the best possible way. The Hurri-cockpit pic is nothing but impressive!

[PilotError]

Another really impressive update, thanks.:)

The hurricane cockpit shot is amazing. :cool:
Having said that, I think all the cockpit shots we've seen are among the best pictures.

The fire looks great, and scarey, but with fire you will have to see it in motion to get the real picture.

I must say that last weeks trees looked ok to me, but this weeks are outstanding. An FPS would be happy to have them.

It looks to me like this game looks close to finished and should easily be released this year (glass half full thought:grin:), unless some unforseen catastrofic problem arises (glass half empty thought:().

Hope you had a nice holiday Oleg, and hope that everyone got through the Moscow smog ok.

[KaHzModAn]

Nice shots !

nice to see we will have 6DOF ! (i guess... seeing the first shot)

i'm waiting to see fire in motion to really judge it...

one question, i guess you haven't integrated the new clouds yet, when can we expect to see them ?

anyway you've made my day ! :cool:

[352ndBushpilot]

Very, very nice!

My poor pc, it will certainly suffer a major meltdown when it's released!

cheers,

352ndBP

[Baron]

Very nice indeed, the Bleinhem shots are top noch, especially the last one.

[JG52Uther]

Is my perception off? The crew of the Ju88 and Hurricane pilot look too small to me.

[=XIII=Shea]

Great shots again oleg and the team,i hope 2 god to see it out this year

[kashwashwa]

I've gotta say, the shots through the trees look really great... shows how scaleable everything is.

[Pierre@]

The Pitot tube is corrected on the Bf 110 C! Thanks!

[csThor]

Two minor historical errors. :oops:

1.) KG 1 abandoned the old coat of arms badge when the war began and would not reinstate a Geschwaderwappen until 1941 when it took on a simplified version of Paul von Hindenburg's signature. During the BoB only a few individual Staffeln were known to have sported a badge (i.e. 7./KG 1).

2.) I./KG 1 did not use the tactical code of a I. Gruppe until 1941 but continued to use the code of a IV. Gruppe as it had begun its life as IV./KG 255 before it was renamed I./KG 1.

[BG-09]

It seems that all these years of waiting are not gone just for nothing...great job OLEG AND TEAM!

Oleg, I think that the flames have to be proportional to the fuel flow in to the damaged engine.
I can not believe, that Hurricane with eight small machine-guns, with no convergence of the ballistics, with short dispersed burst of 3 seconds, will create enough big hole in to the fuel lines of the Ju-88, thus creating such big flames coming from the engine. There have to be some proportions.

As it seems on the 4-th screenshot, the left engine of the Ju-88 is burning, and this is done by the Hurricane's machine-guns. Such big damage? I can not believe. The flames have to be scaled down. And, in my opinion, the flames have to be shorter in length. And I think that it is impossible, because of the high speed of the air blast, the smoke from the flame, to be in front of the flame. All I mean is: at first place fresh air jet, than bright flame and black smoke.

ONE MORE thing: The HIGHER the air speed - the BRIGHTER /white - yellow/ the flames should be, because of the increased constant OXYGEN supply at the flames. At slow speeds, the flames should be yellow-orange color.

Will there be 3D bomb craters?

<------BG-09------<<<

[swiss]

Oleg, specify, please, which side planes are blue, and wich - red. On the map is not clear, unfortunately. :(

Bro, look, they are red, all of them.

BTT:
Those pics are AWSOME.

Looking forward to actually http://cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/verschiedene/a096.gif



And those trees, man - maybe we should insist on the squirrels, I'm even willing to trade my moles for them. :D

[kendo65]

Some great pics. The cockpit pic is incredible - someone already mentioned that the cockpit pics have been among the best all through these updates and I have to agree.

Flames/smoke for me are looking phenomenally good for a screenshot. Can only imagine how much better it will look in motion.

edit: but hopefully won't have to imagine for much longer ;)

[MikkOwl]

The images look quite nice. The cockpit view with the nicely discoloring glass I like the most. The burning flames from the Junkers look great also. I imagine they must look fantastic when animated.

There is a tiny trail of some sort from the Hurricane in the flaming picture. I don't know what it is. Radiator leak?

The map presentation is crude. I personally don't care much about it since I desire an actual physical map I can put on my lap. But a more polished and maybe realistic rendered map in the cockpit would be my second choice. A simple sound effect and animation where the map 'appears' from below as if being held up in front of the 'camera' would do a lot for immersion. Big bonus if the map was not 100% flat, but a bit bent, with specular lighting and reflections. Then I would not want a real map anymore.

the flames have to be proportional to the fuel flow in to the damaged engine. I can not believe, that Hurricane with eight small machine-guns, with no convergence of the ballistics, with short dispersed burst of 3 seconds, will create enough big hole in to the fuel lines of the Ju-88, thus creating such big flames coming from the engine. There have to be some proportions.
I thought it was the fuel tank that ruptured? The wings have at least one big tank in each.

There are 8 machine guns firing at over 1000rpm each. When striking objects converged, they shred them. Can absolutely tear up structures (bigger holes than just a few small 8mm)

[ChrisDNT]

Are the maps WIP too or will we get maps which will graphically look more like pilots period maps ?

[Skilgannon506]

Looking Fantastic, hopefully a sign that the release date is approaching!!! ;)

[Tree_UK]

The first screenshot is simply stunning. :grin::grin:

[BadAim]

The first screenshot is simply stunning. :grin::grin:

BadAim falls off chair..........:)

[mungee]

Thank you Oleg!
Gee, it's hard to add to the compliments that you've already received, but I feel that I must add my "bit" to the "applause"!
No joking, the first screenshot took my breath away!
The fires are looking 100% as far as I'm concerned - outstanding in fact!

[Hecke]

one question, i guess you haven't integrated the new clouds yet, when can we expect to see them ?





New clouds?

Have they stated that these clouds are only placehoulders?


Nice update though.

[chiefrr73]

thank you oleg and team for the good work, very nice shots!!

[nearmiss]

Looking at the second (2nd) image...

I realize AI must follow waypoints.

Will the player flight have to follow waypoints or will player flight navigate without required waypoint crossovers?

I have always hated having to crossover waypoints on specific path to proceed to the next waypoint. No player likes having to Autopilot to make sure your crossover is precise.

[major_setback]

The fires look realistic for the first time IMO. No burnt-out highlights. Very impressive.
Great quality screenshots. The ribs on the Hurricane stand out with the light shining on then...in fact all lighting is superb.

These screenshots could be used for promotional purposes (advertisment).

It is exiting and encouraging to see the increasing improvement in screenshot quality as the weeks pass.

[Redwan]

The trees look incredible from close !
Great job !

When can we have an estimation of the release date ?

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

BadAim falls off chair..........:)

I agree, it blew me away too! :grin: The trees are looking great now, good job. I always thought they were important, they are a defining characteristic of England, and I should know being that I live here lol. Worries are over now though, they really fit the bill, bravo!:grin:

Would be fun to see some animals in fields etc, didn't Oleg mention there would be some? Cows and sheep I think? This would be great as it makes for more of an immersive, living environment....not sure if I'm imagining he said it or not?

Hope so.:grin:

[BG-09]

I thought it was the fuel tank that ruptured? The wings have at least one big tank in each.

There are 8 machine guns firing at over 1000rpm each. When striking objects converged, they shred them. Can absolutely tear up structures (bigger holes than just a few small 8mm)

MikkOwl,
As it seems on the 4-th screenshot, the left engine of the Ju-88 is burning, and this is done by the Hurricane's machine-guns. Such big damage? I can not believe. The flames have to be scaled down. And, in my opinion, the flames have to be shorter in length. And I think that it is impossible, because of the high speed of the air blast, the smoke from the flame, to be in front of the flame. All I mean is: at first place fresh air jet, than bright flame and black smoke.

ONE MORE thing: The HIGHER the air speed - the BRIGHTER /white - yellow/ the flames should be, because of the increased constant OXYGEN supply at the flames. At slow speeds, the flames should be yellow-orange color.

The first cockpit shot is incredible.

[louisv]

End of discussion about trees !!! :) :)

[Bloblast]

On the 4th picture you are able to see a lot of detail:
the machine guns on the farest JU88,
the tail wheel from the Hurricane is also visible,
the gunsights on machine guns from the closest JU88.

This kind of detail is great to see, absolutely setting a new standard.

[major_setback]

MikkOwl,
As it seems on the 4-th screenshot, the left engine of the Ju-88 is burning, and this is done by the Hurricane's machine-guns. Such big damage? I can not believe. The flames have to be scaled down. And, in my opinion, the flames have to be shorter in length. And I think that it is impossible, because of the high speed of the air blast, the smoke from the flame, to be in front of the flame. All I mean is: at first place fresh air jet, than bright flame and black smoke.

The first cockpit shot is incredible.

As someone else mentioned, this is dependent on whether the fuel tanks rupture or not after being penetrated by those smaller shells.
Does anyone know for sure that this wouldn't happen?

[Ekar]

Really nice shots!

1st and 4th are my favourites in this bunch.

[rakinroll]

Dear Oleg, please marry me. :P Greatest details and moreover... Thanks.

Btw, hope all of you guys are ok.

[choctaw111]

I am so anxious and excited thinking of how pleasurable it will be to fly down low over the countryside and how much this will add to groundpounding.
Thank you for a great update.

[Splitter]

Those images are just too awesome for words! Yes, end of the trees discussion. Maybe the end of the flame discussion?

One thing I would love to see implemented is the ability to zoom in on the instrument panel. For engine management, it is critical and I was spoiled with MSFSX and X-Plane. I can find no way to really do it in IL-2.

The other thing....when? :)

Splitter

[Meusli]

I like the mix of trees that are in the shot, the old trees all looked the same but these shots have many different varietiesin which will look a lot more real. Great pics Oleg.

[tourmaline]

Welcome back Oleg, i hope you had a nice vacation.

The screenshots are really looking awesome!

[jippy13]

The date of September 15, 2010, will mark the 40th anniversary of the Battle of Britain.
At that time, Oleg, can we hope to acquire the best flight and air combat simulation game ? That game, that we expect fervently for too long?

Anyway, great shots Oleg and good luck to all (due the fires around Moscow) !!

[kendo65]

New clouds?

Have they stated that these clouds are only placehoulders?


Nice update though.

Yes. Oleg mentioned a month or two back that they had better clouds which are (or were) being done by their graphics artists. They were not incorporated as yet because it was not deemed the most important task at this time. Will be added nearer the end...:)

[Hecke]

Yes. Oleg mentioned a month or two back that they had better clouds which are (or were) being done by their graphics artists. They were not incorporated as yet because it was not deemed the most important task at this time. Will be added nearer the end...:)


Very nice to hear that. Thx.

[kendo65]

To bring back an earlier topic (.....no, NOT trees!), I think in the cockpit screenshot you can see that the Heinkel's control surfaces have moved - the rudder to me looks turned to the left ?

[Blakduk]

Wow!
The first shot makes me wonder how good the 6dof will be- i hope to be able to zoom in on the instruments better than i can currently in IL2.
The details visible of the He111 are brilliant- cant wait for another video to show how all this is coming together.

[peterwoods@supanet.com]

All agree leaves are great but, I for one will not be looking at leaves if low level at 250 or 300 mph.
Much more interested in map shown in 2nd picture of first set. Headland is clearly Beachy Head but, if waypoint 1 is take off point I know of no wartime airfield that approximates to that location. Beachy Head could be easily confused with Selsey Bill which is 46 miles (73 km) to the west. Then relative T/O point could easily be RAF Tangmere or its satellite Westhampnett. Sadley apart from the Tangmere Museum Tangmere airfield is long gone but Westhampnett is still there, better known these days as Goodwood Racing Circuit, which was formed from the old perimeter track. Goodwood also known as EGHR Chichester.

Perhaps Oleg could clarify.

[SlipBall]

Sweet looking up-date...thanks!:grin:

[Chivas]

All agree leaves are great but, I for one will not be looking at leaves if low level at 250 or 300 mph.
Much more interested in map shown in 2nd picture of first set. Headland is clearly Beachy Head but, if waypoint 1 is take off point I know of no wartime airfield that approximates to that location. Beachy Head could be easily confused with Selsey Bill which is 46 miles (73 km) to the west. Then relative T/O point could easily be RAF Tangmere or its satellite Westhampnett. Sadley apart from the Tangmere Museum Tangmere airfield is long gone but Westhampnett is still there, better known these days as Goodwood Racing Circuit, which was formed from the old perimeter track. Goodwood also known as EGHR Chichester.

Perhaps Oleg could clarify.

Its probably not a takeoff point, but just an airstart location which can be put anywhere.

[Skarphol]

BadAim falls off chair..........:)

What is wrong with you people and Tree_UK?

I can agree that he is repeating himself too much on the "this sim will not be released in quite a while yet"-theme, but he is allways down to earth when it comes to evaluation of the pictures released from Oleg or Luthier. And he has (unfortunately) been correct in most of his predicitons..


End of discussion about trees !!! :) :)

I'm not so sure about that. The SpeedTree trees looks magnificent up close, but might look weird from a distance when the tele lense is used (not that I understand how this actually works) But I'm quite sure that I won't spend many thoughts on the size of leaves when I fly around in my Bf 109 looking for prey..

Skarphol

[hellbomber]

yeah its pretty clear that oleg intentionally cropped the photos so no trees would be seen form the air, the ground shots in no way end the argument as all the fanboi's have wet their pants over, up close speedtree looks great thats not the issue, the issue is how many polygons its reduced to at a distance, i hope theirs an option in game to change the draw distances that polygons are removed at for those of us that have the latest and greatest hardware to take full advantage

also being that were still getting static screen shots and its still WIP, and were not getting a video for the next few weeks clearly, if they cant even show the ground, there's no possible way this will be release on sept 15th they will need at least a month after finishing probably 2 to get it distributed and ready for launch, i think at best you could hope for is Christmas at this point but most likely well be seeing 1st quarter 2010 release, which im in favor of i hope they take as much time and vacations as need be to make the perfect game

[Flying Pencil]

*GASP*!!!

Hurry up! I cannot hold out much longer! :D

[Novotny]

hellbomber darling, I'm sure you intend your comments to seem reasonable - maybe even intelligent.

But if you read them through - try it now - you'll realise they sound like the whinings of an imbecile.

Could you possibly rephrase them? Otherwise, ducky, you're in danger of coming across like a complete twat.

[BadAim]

What is wrong with you people and Tree_UK?

I can agree that he is repeating himself too much on the "this sim will not be released in quite a while yet"-theme, but he is allways down to earth when it comes to evaluation of the pictures released from Oleg or Luthier. And he has (unfortunately) been correct in most of his predicitons..


Skarphol

It's called a joke, and given the double smiley that Tree posted, I assume he was in on it ahead of time. If this is not the case, I offer my sincere apologies. From what I've seen though good ole Tree is pretty thick skinned, so I'm not too worried.

[daHeld]

All agree leaves are great but, I for one will not be looking at leaves if low level at 250 or 300 mph.
Much more interested in map shown in 2nd picture of first set. Headland is clearly Beachy Head but, if waypoint 1 is take off point I know of no wartime airfield that approximates to that location. Beachy Head could be easily confused with Selsey Bill which is 46 miles (73 km) to the west. Then relative T/O point could easily be RAF Tangmere or its satellite Westhampnett. Sadley apart from the Tangmere Museum Tangmere airfield is long gone but Westhampnett is still there, better known these days as Goodwood Racing Circuit, which was formed from the old perimeter track. Goodwood also known as EGHR Chichester.

Perhaps Oleg could clarify.

I think it is really Beachy Head.
By the way, if you look at google maps, you can still see where Tangmere airfield has been. The perimeter track is still there, so are parts of the concrete runways... Nowadays it's kind of an industrial park.

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

I've consulted my Oleg to English dictionary, the second post seems to translate roughly to "Any more complaints about the trees ***hats?", lol :cool:

[airmalik]

up close speedtree looks great thats not the issue, the issue is how many polygons its reduced to at a distance

I agree. Up close, where you can afford to have detailed objects, the trees look awesome and this was never an issue. It's the LOD scaling when viewed from a distance that appears to be challenging to implement.

For distant trees, Speedtree seems to 'thin out' the foliage using clip maps which doesn't look as nice as the trees shown in older screenshots where the foliage is represented by dense green 'blobs' which look more realistic from a distance.

Not sure if there's a way to combine the two approaches or if they're mutually exclusive and we either have to live with nicer trees up close or more realistic ones farther away.

[Aviar]

Much more interested in map shown in 2nd picture of first set. Headland is clearly Beachy Head but, if waypoint 1 is take off point I know of no wartime airfield that approximates to that location.

Waypoint 1 in the screenshot is an air-start waypoint. A takeoff waypoint is square with a small plane pointing it's nose upward. Just check the briefing map on any mission where you are taking off and you will see what I mean.

Aviar

[zapatista]

Oleg $ Co,

excellent update, thx for he new screenshots :)

trees and leaves up close look very good and is amazing detail for a flightsim, there is no "tree debate there" :) when at airfields, or doing forced landings etc that amount of detail really adds to the immersion and quality of the sim ! the aircraft on fire effect looks good to, cant wait to see a video of it in action.

when can we start giving you our money ? looks like it is very close to release time now, and good to catch the world wide publicity in the media right now about the Battle of Brittan anniversary celebrations to increase sales momentum.

[zapatista]

Is my perception off? The crew of the Ju88 and Hurricane pilot look too small to me.

i noticed that to in the last set of screenshots but wasnt going to mention it. from previous comments from oleg on this it is a compromise they made while resolving a "collision bug" (if the pilot is modeled real proportional size, currently he pokes occasionally through the aircraft cockpit skin "boundaries" when he moves). if having the smaller crew is a short term compromise to get around this at the moment and will be fixed in one of the early patches, then i dont see it as a reason to cause current additional release delays. oleg also stated the 1e person view from the cockpit is visually correct and doesnt reflect having a "shorter" pilot.

[dflion]

Great pics Oleg, the detail is fantastic.
I was particularly interested in the map insert. I got out a very old copy of a USAF map of England and Europe and instantly saw the accuracy of your map depicting the coastline and topographical features around Eastbourne and Hastings.

The bf110's tangling with a flight of Spitfires with an airstart. The map detail is going to make a huge difference when creating accurate missions/campaigns. Throwing in your upgraded weather/wind changes, we will really have something going here.

I would be interested in getting a bit more detail on the in-flight map, particularly if any pilot can change his course while flying? Will orders and requests by pilots that are approved (by radar control or squadron leader), automatically give the pilot permission to amend his map flight bearing. Can the leader change his AI aircraft bearings in flight to take advantage of an unexpected situation? If you are not a leader and your aircraft is badly damaged can you seek permission to amend your map bearings in-flight to find the nearest airfield without being 'yelled at' by the leader?

These are just a few things you cannot do with the current IL-2. I could go on with a lot more questions - it would be very good if you could give us some answers on these questions, if you can! I apologise if some of these questions have been covered on previous forum topics.

DFLion

[Tree_UK]

It's called a joke, and given the double smiley that Tree posted, I assume he was in on it ahead of time. If this is not the case, I offer my sincere apologies. From what I've seen though good ole Tree is pretty thick skinned, so I'm not too worried.

Thanks for the commemts Skarphol, but all is cool here, Badaim is a good sort and no offence was taken by me at all. :grin::grin:

[furbs]

another very nice update!...the first pic is almost photo real. :)

but couple of things i noticed...

fire and esp the smoke looking better but to me the fire does not look like its coming out of a plane moving at 200mph... the fire and smoke should be alot thinner at the start and looking more like a fire being pulled back in a very strong wind.

nice update..things moving along...but to the people who say its looking almost ready...have a think about what we have seen and compare it to what we havent seen...

fantastic looking planes.
the best looking cockpits ever.
average landscape but very WIP(to me)
very WIP effects...smoke, flame.
very nice ground objects.
average clouds(WIP).
fantastic lighting and shadows.

to what we havent seen...

Sqd take off and landings from a working airfield.
Aircraft sound.
Finished landscape seen in full detail and at high res with AA, AF.
Rivers.
Bad weather, overcast sky, night time.
How radar will work.
Working GUI.
SOW website.
System specs.
Any aircraft crashes showing physics model.
Sound of coms between pilots or ground control.
Anything showing how the single player will work.
Anything showing how MP will work.
finished coastlines.
Anything being bombed...or bomb damaged buildings...craters.
Bombsights...and how level bombing in formation will work.
Anything showing how being injured will be shown and how it will affect pilots.
Ground straffing.
Anything showing how the good the AI is.
More than 10 planes in the sky at one time.
Finished clouds.
anything in DX10???...but def nothing in DX11.
Explosions.
Cities(london).


and im sure there are many others...but it shows we still have a long way to go i think...unless Oleg is holding all this stuff back ;)

after thinking about the list...i would guess Q1 of 2011 for a release at the soonest.

[furbs]

smartarse ;)

[ATAG_Dutch]

I think one problem this community may have in critically assessing these screenshots is that many people seem to compare game graphics to cinema graphics and say ‘well that’s not realistic enough’.
Well obviously, cinema graphics are a fixed view and don’t have to move around in infinite ways in a three dimensional virtual environment. Four if you count time.
Personally, I’m still gob smacked by films (movies) made in IL2 when they’re in motion, but take a screenshot of one, without photoshop embellishment, and compare it to these weekly posts. Then try to imagine Storm of War in motion.
I’ve got a feeling that all talk of leaves and flames will look a bit embarrassing when that happens.

On the topic of whether 8 x .303 Brownings could cause that fire, it was calculated by Squadron Leader Ralph Sorley that a two second burst at a convergence of 400 yards (metres) would deliver 6lbs (3Kg) of lead in the same spot. Given that half of this was DeWilde incendiary bullets (actually an improved British copy), have a think.
What would 6lbs of burning lead travelling at the speed of sound do to your car?

[BG-09]

On the topic of whether 8 x .303 Brownings could cause that fire, it was calculated by Squadron Leader Ralph Sorley that a two second burst at a convergence of 400 yards (metres) would deliver 6lbs (3Kg) of lead in the same spot. Given that half of this was DeWilde incendiary bullets (actually an improved British copy), have a think.
What would 6lbs of burning lead travelling at the speed of sound do to your car?

Hmmm...interesting calculations. I agree about the volume and the mass of projectiles from 8 x .303 Brownings fired per second, but: the fuel lines are relatively small object/target/, also the target/aircraft moves, the shooting fighter moves, the machine guns did not shoot at one point all the time, and the projectiles will be more dispersed - not enough to cause total tear off of the fuel lines of Ju-88. That is my point of view. Fire - of course! But not total fuel leaking out of the tanks in just one or five seconds. That is what I mean. Such massive fuel leak have to cause rather explosion, then big flames.

[JVM]

another very nice update!...the first pic is almost photo real. :)

to what we havent seen...



France and Belgium and anything in it...
you know, the other half of BoB...
where the Bleinheim were (trying to) to bomb targets, then barges...
where they were many airfields all these pesky bombers, stukas and fighters were taking off from, and desperately tried to come back to...
where the Germans established railways Kanonen batteries and bombed England...and the Kanal...during BoB (to the great annoyance of the British authorities)

etc etc

JVM

[krz9000]

i hope this game gets steamworks integration as drm. it would give the game phaenomenal international distribution and a solidpirate protection... pls oleg consider it at least

[ATAG_Dutch]

Hi BG,

Yes, I know what you mean, but fire spreads, so if the initial 'hit' is in the fuel tank, the fuel in the tank is on fire due to air in the tank, it leaks and spreads, setting fire to other flammable materials, runs along the outside of the fuel pipes, burns away the fuel pipe from the outside, then there's an explosion that rips a gaping hole in the tank, etc etc.

We've all seen archive footage of engines on fire and saying 8 Brownings couldn't cause it is simply underestimating them.

One incendiary bullet penetrating the induction manifold where there is a pressurised fuel / air mix would probably cause a big enough explosion to rupture the fuel lines / carburettor / injection system in any event. Certainly the fuel / air mix would burn very nicely.

In practice the RAF soon learned to get in much closer than 400yards too. Guns were then harmonised at 250 yards or less. The Poles particularly harmonised their guns to very short range.

[Insuber]

On the topic of whether 8 x .303 Brownings could cause that fire, it was calculated by Squadron Leader Ralph Sorley that a two second burst at a convergence of 400 yards (metres) would deliver 6lbs (3Kg) of lead in the same spot. Given that half of this was DeWilde incendiary bullets (actually an improved British copy), have a think.
What would 6lbs of burning lead travelling at the speed of sound do to your car?

Good point Dutch, we often underestimate the lethality of 8x.303 guns. Just one note, DeWilde *was* British, AFAIK, with a fantasy Belgian name to deceipt Nazi intelligence.

Regards,
Insuber

[Bloblast]

i noticed that to in the last set of screenshots but wasnt going to mention it. from previous comments from oleg on this it is a compromise they made while resolving a "collision bug" (if the pilot is modeled real proportional size, currently he pokes occasionally through the aircraft cockpit skin "boundaries" when he moves). if having the smaller crew is a short term compromise to get around this at the moment and will be fixed in one of the early patches, then i dont see it as a reason to cause current additional release delays. oleg also stated the 1e person view from the cockpit is visually correct and doesnt reflect having a "shorter" pilot.

Well I must say that I personally prefer a pilot with correct size with less movement to prevent a collision bug.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Just one note, DeWilde *was* British, AFAIK, with a fantasy Belgian name to deceipt Nazi intelligence.



Thx Insuber, I think it depends what you read!

'The B. Mk VI 'De Wilde' incendiary (named after the original Belgian inventor but in fact completely redesigned by Major Dixon)'

see http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm

However, we might be in danger of getting off topic!

My opinion is that all development screenshots of flames are looking fantastic, however they were caused!!

[daHeld]

I agree. Up close, where you can afford to have detailed objects, the trees look awesome and this was never an issue. It's the LOD scaling when viewed from a distance that appears to be challenging to implement.


I think we simply didn't see high-res screenshots of distant trees yet.
We might be positively surprised in a few weeks.
Well, we'll certainly know that release is imminent when we'll finally see a video posted by Oleg himself. ;)

[tourmaline]

I think one problem this community may have in critically assessing these screenshots is that many people seem to compare game graphics to cinema graphics and say ‘well that’s not realistic enough’.
Well obviously, cinema graphics are a fixed view and don’t have to move around in infinite ways in a three dimensional virtual environment. Four if you count time.
Personally, I’m still gob smacked by films (movies) made in IL2 when they’re in motion, but take a screenshot of one, without photoshop embellishment, and compare it to these weekly posts. Then try to imagine Storm of War in motion.
I’ve got a feeling that all talk of leaves and flames will look a bit embarrassing when that happens.

On the topic of whether 8 x .303 Brownings could cause that fire, it was calculated by Squadron Leader Ralph Sorley that a two second burst at a convergence of 400 yards (metres) would deliver 6lbs (3Kg) of lead in the same spot. Given that half of this was DeWilde incendiary bullets (actually an improved British copy), have a think.
What would 6lbs of burning lead travelling at the speed of sound do to your car?

shred it to pieces?!

[zapatista]

Well I must say that I personally prefer a pilot with correct size with less movement to prevent a collision bug.

i suspect it might not be that simple of a choice. it is possible that limiting the figure's movement inside the cockpit, by for ex placing more severe movement range limitations on the limbs, would result in that same figure being more limited in movement in other activities. like when walking around on the ground, or bomber crews moving around while handling heavy guns

all this is just speculation of course

but there comes a time when perpetual bug fixing might delay or delay a project, having lots of requests on minor issues like this to get them fixed instead of just waiting for a later patch might be better imho

i recent looked back at the last 9 months of update reports on foobar's website, and its easy to forget how amazing some of the previous screenshots were, i think no matter what minor issues are unresolved just before release time, we're in for a great new sim. would just hate to see it get bogged down in perpetual fixes that are not critical to initial game play and commercial success.

[nearmiss]

yeah its pretty clear that oleg intentionally cropped the photos so no trees would be seen form the air, the ground shots in no way end the argument as all the fanboi's have wet their pants over, up close speedtree looks great thats not the issue, the issue is how many polygons its reduced to at a distance, i hope theirs an option in game to change the draw distances that polygons are removed at for those of us that have the latest and greatest hardware to take full advantage

also being that were still getting static screen shots and its still WIP, and were not getting a video for the next few weeks clearly, if they cant even show the ground, there's no possible way this will be release on sept 15th they will need at least a month after finishing probably 2 to get it distributed and ready for launch, i think at best you could hope for is Christmas at this point but most likely well be seeing 1st quarter 2010 release, which im in favor of i hope they take as much time and vacations as need be to make the perfect game

What is all this?

Do you realize these screenshots are only to calm the troops?

When videos are released the SOW will be close to release. Videos tell too much to competent viewers (competitors).

Oleg has worked for over 5 years, and most of us have been expectantly waiting. You can be assured the sim will be released in the near future.

Thinik about it....five plus years of payrolls to teams of people, along with all the management, administration and equipment needed to produce an exceptional software like SOW has cost a small fortune.

You can bet SOW investors are anxious and pressuring Oleg for a release as well.

Oleg is being pushed to release SOW. I can tell you he is a lot more anxious to get out from under all the pressure than he is about reading whines and complaints from users on this forums.

The best thing for us to do is lighten up and maintain a positive expectant attitude.

There is plenty going on with IL2. I've found most people that are all over the forums complaining aren't doing anything with IL2 now. IL2 is a long way from being a dead puppy.

The ONLine game IL2 Forgotten Battles on Hyperlobby is busy as a hornet's nest and has a large number of participants.

Take some of that aggression out there. THere are plenty of people that will be glad to hand you your head there, if you aren't very careful.

Not picking on you here, just saying. OK

The screenshots we are getting are awesome, and they seem to get better each week.

The SOW is really coming together now as we are seeing.

[tourmaline]

Good point Dutch, we often underestimate the lethality of 8x.303 guns. Just one note, DeWilde *was* British, AFAIK, with a fantasy Belgian name to deceipt Nazi intelligence.

Regards,
Insuber

No we don't; it's quite clear in the figures of how many Germans were shot down with planes using these guns. Very lethal.

[tourmaline]

What is all this?

Do you realize these screenshots are only to calm the troops?

When videos are released the SOW will be close to release. Videos tell too much to competent viewers (competitors).

Oleg has worked for over 5 years, and most of us have been expectantly waiting. You can be assured the sim will be released in the near future.

Thinik about it....five plus years of payrolls to teams of people, along with all the management, administration and equipment needed to produce an exceptional software like SOW has cost a small fortune.

You can bet SOW investors are anxious and pressuring Oleg for a release as well.

Oleg is being pushed to release SOW. I can tell you he is a lot more anxious to get out from under all the pressure than he is about reading whines and complaints from users on this forums.

The best thing for us to do is lighten up and maintain a positive expectant attitude.

There is plenty going on with IL2. I've found most people that are all over the forums complaining aren't doing anything with IL2 now. IL2 is a long way from being a dead puppy.

The ONLine game IL2 Forgotten Battles on Hyperlobby is busy as a hornet's nest and has a large number of participants.

Take some of that aggression out there. THere are plenty of people that will be glad to hand you your head there, if you aren't very careful.

Not picking on you here, just saying. OK

The screenshots we are getting are awesome, and they seem to get better each week.

The SOW is really coming together now as we are seeing.

That is because of how good il2 actually allready was/is. Give the devolopers some time and space to make the best flightsim available, in the end, like il2, you won't be dissapointed.

There is still plenty of things to do or games to play till the actual release of this fantastic flightsim!

[Daniël]

Very nice pictures, especially the first picture.
Question: In il2 now, when you collide with trees (not all trees), static planes on airfields etc. your plane will explode immediately. Will your plane, in SoW not always immediately explode? (Or is this question already been asked and answered?)

[fireflyerz]

i hope this game gets steamworks integration as drm. it would give the game phaenomenal international distribution and a solidpirate protection... pls oleg consider it at least

WHAT... are you mental:rolleyes:

[BG-09]

Hi BG,

Yes, I know what you mean, but fire spreads, so if the initial 'hit' is in the fuel tank, the fuel in the tank is on fire due to air in the tank, it leaks and spreads, setting fire to other flammable materials, runs along the outside of the fuel pipes, burns away the fuel pipe from the outside, then there's an explosion that rips a gaping hole in the tank, etc etc.

We've all seen archive footage of engines on fire and saying 8 Brownings couldn't cause it is simply underestimating them.

One incendiary bullet penetrating the induction manifold where there is a pressurised fuel / air mix would probably cause a big enough explosion to rupture the fuel lines / carburettor / injection system in any event. Certainly the fuel / air mix would burn very nicely.

In practice the RAF soon learned to get in much closer than 400yards too. Guns were then harmonised at 250 yards or less. The Poles particularly harmonised their guns to very short range.

Fully agree with you Dutch_851. As I remember from my serving in to the army, 7,62 mm machine gun can do a tremendous damage indeed over metal datails. It really shred off steel plate of near 1 cm thick.

[ElAurens]

Very nice pictures, especially the first picture.
Question: In il2 now, when you collide with trees (not all trees), static planes on airfields etc. your plane will explode immediately. Will your plane, in SoW not always immediately explode? (Or is this question already been asked and answered?)

While I have no direct knowledge of it, I suspect that with the much more complex and detailed damage modeling of SoW, that hitting ground objects, or the ground itself (CFIT) will have much more realistic results.

As I recall from some long ago post on UBI, the current instant explode terrain strike was chosen as the best compromise given the computer power of the day, and the limitations of the game engine itself.

[BadAim]

Any speculation about the source of the fire in these screen shots is just that, pure speculation. We have no idea what exactly has been hit, how many passes have been made, or even if the plane has been hit by flack and that Hurri is just flying by.

Still, I'll postulate that a .303 is easily capable of penetrating two or three thin sheets of aluminum at 200 or so yards (the skin and the fuel tank), and that eight 1200 rpm guns could be expected to put 20 or 30 of them in a couple square foot area given a good aim and a bit of luck. The only question is how many 3/8-1/2" holes spraying gasoline vapor do you really need to create a conflagration like we see in the screen shots, and if not how long would it take for the conflagration that does start to burn up enough of the shredded aluminum that there would be a big enough hole to support the one viewed. I speculate damn close on the first question, and not long on the second.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[SlipBall]

Very nice pictures, especially the first picture.
Question: In il2 now, when you collide with trees (not all trees), static planes on airfields etc. your plane will explode immediately. Will your plane, in SoW not always immediately explode? (Or is this question already been asked and answered?)



I asked this question but never got an answer...It would be cool to land between two trees, the wings to absorb the energy of the crash...just like you are taught in flight school:grin:

[BG-09]

Any speculation about the source of the fire in these screen shots is just that, pure speculation. We have no idea what exactly has been hit, how many passes have been made, or even if the plane has been hit by flack and that Hurri is just flying by.

Still, I'll postulate that a .303 is easily capable of penetrating two or three thin sheets of aluminum at 200 or so yards (the skin and the fuel tank), and that eight 1200 rpm guns could be expected to put 20 or 30 of them in a couple square foot area given a good aim and a bit of luck. The only question is how many 3/8-1/2" holes spraying gasoline vapor do you really need to create a conflagration like we see in the screen shots, and if not how long would it take for the conflagration that does start to burn up enough of the shredded aluminum that there would be a big enough hole to support the one viewed. I speculate damn close on the first question, and not long on the second.

And that's all I have to say about that.

I am wondering just about this: Are these a "default" flames, or specially, individually scalable and individually tuned flames.

[katdogfizzow]

Looking great!

[Richie]

Those images are just too awesome for words! Yes, end of the trees discussion. Maybe the end of the flame discussion?

One thing I would love to see implemented is the ability to zoom in on the instrument panel. For engine management, it is critical and I was spoiled with MSFSX and X-Plane. I can find no way to really do it in IL-2.

The other thing....when? :)

Splitter

Hit the Delete key on IL-2. Is that what you mean?

[322Sqn_Dusty]

Very impressive shots. It's getting better by the minute.

...Please...Steam...the horror... As before, if you must stay connected to the internet for validation, it can be a problem for events held.

[Friendly_flyer]

The trees look very nice from down below. Some of these can be identified down to species (I saw a beech and a juniper in there). If they down look as good from the air is of little consequence. The only time I will have the chance to admire the vegetation will be when I am on the ground ayway.

Gents, about the fire: Planes were shot down in flames over Britain during BoB. While not every plane burned, a lot of them did. Clearly, a Hurricane has the ability to set a Ju 88 on fire every now an then.

[AdMan]

I hope the light blue interface is just for development

[BadAim]

I am wondering just about this: Are these a "default" flames, or specially, individually scalable and individually tuned flames.

Given what the "Boys from Moscow" have delivered in the past and from what they've shown us recently, I'd have to speculate the latter, and I'll put money on it. (about $50-$60 bucks I figure it will be) ;)

[Old_Canuck]

I asked this question but never got an answer...It would be cool to land between two trees, the wings to absorb the energy of the crash...just like you are taught in flight school:grin:

This reminds me of a conversation between Young_Canuck and a flight instructor before a first-time cross country solo between Vancouver and Vancouver Island in a Cessna.

Young_Canuck: "How do you ditch a high wing aircraft in the ocean?"
Instructor: "Don't ditch the aircraft."
"No seriously, how do you ditch a high wing aircraft in the ocean?"
"Don't ditch the aircraft."

[AndyJWest]

hahahahaha funny joke yeah hes under so much pressure that he take 6-10 weeks of vacation a year, must be nice to be under that kind of pressure, i get 0 weeks of vacation a year and work most weekends, now thats presure
If you are working for somebody else, that's exploitation. If you are self-employed, I'd look to change your priorities. The measure of how useful work is isn't how much you do, but what the results are.

For people doing anything creative, 'time off' isn't a luxury, but a necessity - actually, it is for everyone else too, though the consequences are often less immediately apparent.

[Splitter]

Hit the Delete key on IL-2. Is that what you mean?

Thank you, I know that one though :). It's different in X-Plane. You just pan down and the instruments are there and legible. In a 3D cockpit, the zoom in scalable (plus you can flip all the switches with the mouse lol).

It's just more functional, but the instruments are a bit more important in those flight sims I guess.

Splitter

[BG-09]

Given what the "Boys from Moscow" have delivered in the past and from what they've shown us recently, I'd have to speculate the latter, and I'll put money on it. (about $50-$60 bucks I figure it will be) ;)

Definitely! Oleg is a perfectionist. I have no doubts!

[SlipBall]

This reminds me of a conversation between Young_Canuck and a flight instructor before a first-time cross country solo between Vancouver and Vancouver Island in a Cessna.

Young_Canuck: "How do you ditch a high wing aircraft in the ocean?"
Instructor: "Don't ditch the aircraft."
"No seriously, how do you ditch a high wing aircraft in the ocean?"
"Don't ditch the aircraft."



That is very funny, I can almost see the expression on the faces. I suppose that we will see just how well the damage model is done, when a wing strikes an object.:grin:

[Blackdog_kt]

i hope this game gets steamworks integration as drm. it would give the game phaenomenal international distribution and a solidpirate protection... pls oleg consider it at least

I hope this game doesn't get any DRM at all. People who don't want to pay can't be forced to pay anyway (if pirates can't get a game for free they don't buy it, they just don't play it at all) so why should the rest of us, the paying customers, have to suffer the drawbacks of DRM?

A cd-check, a serial, maybe even a one-time online activation (one that you can activate and deactivate at will, so that you can reinstall your game after a system upgrade or format) will be enough to dissuade casual piracy. This is the kind of piracy worth battling, because it's the preventable kind. Hardcore piracy can't be controlled and if they can't get it for free they'll simply bypass it altogether. So, why not focus on making money by keeping the real customers happy, spenting the time and funds on things they will want to buy, instead of on setting up DRM infrastructure or paying royalties to 3rd party publishing platforms? ;)




On the topic of instruments now...

Thank you, I know that one though :). It's different in X-Plane. You just pan down and the instruments are there and legible. In a 3D cockpit, the zoom in scalable (plus you can flip all the switches with the mouse lol).

It's just more functional, but the instruments are a bit more important in those flight sims I guess.

Splitter

I think the main reason for better instrument visibility in civilian sims is the increased resolution. I don't know about X-plane but i fly FSX on a friend's PC every now and then and it's the same deal. You can easily make out the instruments even from a wide angle view. I fly with the 3d-cockpit and TrackIR 99% of the time and the only 2-d overlay panels i use are individual instruments that i want to keep track off continuously (eg, a VOR gauge that lies to the right of the cockpit, i might pop up the 2d-panel for that so that i don't have to strain my neck looking at it with TrackIR all the time).

If you couple this with 6-DOF capability to zoom in/out (even without a trackIR) and the possibility of saving snap-views individually for each plane, you can keep track of everything just fine. The only question that remains is whether we will be able to save our own snap-views for each aircraft, a la RoF. Just like some FSX add-ons have separate cameras of the 3-d cockpit from different viewing angles (for example, a camera looking below the control yoke so you can see the electrical switches), in RoF you can move the camera where you want it and "memorize" its position by assigning it to a certain key. This is done individually for each aircraft.

If this is implemented in SoW it will be a big help for people who lack head tracking software. For example, you could memorize a set of keypad commands and say that "ok, i want keypad 0 to always give me a view of the engine instruments, regardless of aircrat". Of course, the position of these instrments relative to the player's "head" camera center position are different for each plane. However, if SoW could "memorize" different snap-views for each aircraft it would be no problem. You would just have to look at the instruments once and assign a keypad key to that camera angle, to be pressed whenever you wanted a quick glance at your engine parameters.

Judging from the in-cockpit shots we've seen of SoW, i think the resolution is high enough. Heck, there are 3rd party high resolution cockpits in IL2 that are perfectly legible from the wide angle view, so i have no doubt that official SoW cockpits will be even better. We also know it will have 6-DOF head panninng, so i guess we'll be able to manage just fine.

Just look at that Blenheim cockpit shot posted in one of the previous updates, the instruments look so crisp and detailed that i got "cockpit and switch mania" and got a sudden urge to go fly something with clickable cockpits :grin:

[engarde]

some great looking tree shots. Lets hope the Friends of the Virtual Tree Action Front find some satisfaction.

Or is the The Peoples Front of the Tree.

Or the Tree Peoples Front?

Anyway, that first pic is brilliant.

looking forward to the finished product, seriously appreciate the updates. Merci beaucoup.

[HundertneunGustav]

blenheim and leaves shot....

wooooow
need a new mobo and GC

[engarde]

Just look at that Blenheim cockpit shot posted in one of the previous updates, the instruments look so crisp and detailed that i got "cockpit and switch mania" and got a sudden urge to go fly something with clickable cockpits :grin:

Lets hope trackIR will someday allow us via head movement of a hi-vis dot, activated by a quick double blink, to activate live cockpit functions.

[Blackdog_kt]

You mean like a cursor that can be moved via TrackIR instead of mouse? That would be very nice.

Another thing i had in mind...having a cursor that is bound to the cockpit's 3d coordinates instead of the screen's coordinates. For example, that would enable us to place the cursor on the gunsight controls and it would stay there regardless of where we looked. The cursor might be out of view but unless the mouse (or mouse emulating hotas hat) moved, it would stay there. It would be like having a virtual hand instead of having to always look at what we want to manipulate, quite useful for setting up things in advance.

For example, i might be looking over my shoulder but still adjusting my gunsight brightness or range by moving that mouse wheel. Or, i could be expecting one of my fuel tanks to run dry, so i could place the cursor on the fuel tank switch 5 minutes ahead of time...just as the engine begins to cough and sputter, a click of the mouse or roll of the mouse wheel and the next fuel tank is selected.

I guess this would be more useful for twin engined aircraft or bombers, ie flyables with increased amount of controls. Clickable pits or not, i doubt anyone would want to click the gun triggers or other important controls like flaps, throttles, etc, but it works quite nicely for less important controls that are used less than often in the duration of the entire mission, as it minimizes the amount of needed keyboard shortcuts to map and memorize.

I'll stop here, before we derail this from a "WiP discussion and screenshots" to "ideas about the interface of SoW" :grin:

[zapatista]

I asked this question but never got an answer...It would be cool to land between two trees, the wings to absorb the energy of the crash...just like you are taught in flight school:grin:

interesting comment, i never thought that might be a good way to reduce energy of a "crash in progress" :)

[airmalik]

Lets hope trackIR will someday allow us via head movement of a hi-vis dot, activated by a quick double blink, to activate live cockpit functions.

Don't know if I'd want to blink to activate switches. I'd prefer voice activated switches or something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLkfx6QxLfg

He's using a Wii remote to activate switches by touching them on the screen.

[Dano]

Lets hope trackIR will someday allow us via head movement of a hi-vis dot, activated by a quick double blink, to activate live cockpit functions.

Well that is pretty much exactly what TrackIR was developed for, the version we have is the offshoot of technology designed to allow people with disabilities to interact with computers so I'm sure that with a little prompting NP would add the feature in, as it stands my older V2 TIR unit allows me to use mouse emulation, has that feature been removed from the later software releases?

[engarde]

Well that is pretty much exactly what TrackIR was developed for, the version we have is the offshoot of technology designed to allow people with disabilities to interact with computers so I'm sure that with a little prompting NP would add the feature in, as it stands my older V2 TIR unit allows me to use mouse emulation, has that feature been removed from the later software releases?

My earlier post was pure fantasy.

I meant no disrespect.

I wish they would add my suggested, but in no way unique, feature.

TrackIR dev should add a hi-vis dot, enabled over the panel-like areas, to allow for blink triggered panel control..... ;)

[philip.ed]

Certainly is looking really awesome; the tree effects close up are just amazing!

But I have one nit-pick about the trees. From flying over England on my holiday, I noticed that the tree trunks just can't be seen (apart from on the odd trees you see in gardens) and the trees look really dense. From the screens posted so far, the trees better match those that I've seen in warmer climates. It may sound really anal of me, but I think it makes a lot of difference to the overall effect. I also noticed how all the fields seem to be really boxed in, and I was amazed at how I could still see traffic from thosands of feet up...food for thought for the sim :D

[tourmaline]

interesting comment, i never thought that might be a good way to reduce energy of a "crash in progress" :)

They do, the wings hit the trees and absorb most of the energy and fall or rip off, the rest of the fuselage will stop quite quickely...

it's much better then actually hitting the tree with the fuselage, LOL.:grin:;):cool:

[tourmaline]

Very impressive shots. It's getting better by the minute.

...Please...Steam...the horror... As before, if you must stay connected to the internet for validation, it can be a problem for events held.

Exactly my concern. There have been horror stories of people loosing connection because of their provider and then you can't play a game...Not a really good idea!People should be able to play the game offline, although it sounds a bit contradictive for multiplayer, LOL.:cool:

My concerns are also about the implementation of some kind of drm...

[tourmaline]

Don't know if I'd want to blink to activate switches. I'd prefer voice activated switches or something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLkfx6QxLfg

He's using a Wii remote to activate switches by touching them on the screen.

Voice activation will have some problems, first of all, wich language will you use and if your language is not the native one used for the game, if you don't pronounce it well, then it won't recognize the commands. This is also the case with some dictate software; if you have a cold, it's going mad allready...

Not the best solution for international games.

A cursor that moves via a hat keyswitch on your hotas would be a much better option!

[tourmaline]

Well that is pretty much exactly what TrackIR was developed for, the version we have is the offshoot of technology designed to allow people with disabilities to interact with computers so I'm sure that with a little prompting NP would add the feature in, as it stands my older V2 TIR unit allows me to use mouse emulation, has that feature been removed from the later software releases?

IR tracking is in flightsims mostly used for head tracking for looking around you in the virtual world!

[airmalik]

Voice activation will have some problems, first of all, wich language will you use and if your language is not the native one used for the game, if you don't pronounce it well, then it won't recognize the commands.

I was thinking of the free software shoot (http://clans.gameclubcentral.com/shoot/) . This allows you to record commands in your OWN voice and will issue the desired keystroke to the game. Because it's your own voice, there's no issue with recognition. When I used to play IL2, I had common voice commands like 'gear', 'flaps up', 'nav lights', 'fire extinguisher', 'smoke' set up and it was pretty cool to have the plane react to them. Felt like I had a copilot flying with me, performing what I asked him to do.

Before 'shoot' I spent a lot of time configuring my Saitek stick and throttle with modifiers keys etc. but couldn't always remember what button combo to press for a command. Shoot made it so much easier especially for the less commonly used commands.

[Dano]

IR tracking is in flightsims mostly used for head tracking for looking around you in the virtual world!

Not quite sure what you are responding to in my post?

[Hoverbug]

interesting comment, i never thought that might be a good way to reduce energy of a "crash in progress" :)

I've done it for real and wouldn't want to do it again, though I got out without a scratch (the 150 was a total loss though). Wing spars are pretty tough, so when they flex they can absorb a considerable amount of energy. The real trick is picking two trees that don't have another tree right behind them...

[proton45]

another beautiful update....thanks to the team

[Splitter]

I hope this game doesn't get any DRM at all. People who don't want to pay can't be forced to pay anyway (if pirates can't get a game for free they don't buy it, they just don't play it at all) so why should the rest of us, the paying customers, have to suffer the drawbacks of DRM?

A cd-check, a serial, maybe even a one-time online activation (one that you can activate and deactivate at will, so that you can reinstall your game after a system upgrade or format) will be enough to dissuade casual piracy. This is the kind of piracy worth battling, because it's the preventable kind. Hardcore piracy can't be controlled and if they can't get it for free they'll simply bypass it altogether. So, why not focus on making money by keeping the real customers happy, spenting the time and funds on things they will want to buy, instead of on setting up DRM infrastructure or paying royalties to 3rd party publishing platforms? ;)




On the topic of instruments now...



I think the main reason for better instrument visibility in civilian sims is the increased resolution. I don't know about X-plane but i fly FSX on a friend's PC every now and then and it's the same deal. You can easily make out the instruments even from a wide angle view. I fly with the 3d-cockpit and TrackIR 99% of the time and the only 2-d overlay panels i use are individual instruments that i want to keep track off continuously (eg, a VOR gauge that lies to the right of the cockpit, i might pop up the 2d-panel for that so that i don't have to strain my neck looking at it with TrackIR all the time).

If you couple this with 6-DOF capability to zoom in/out (even without a trackIR) and the possibility of saving snap-views individually for each plane, you can keep track of everything just fine. The only question that remains is whether we will be able to save our own snap-views for each aircraft, a la RoF. Just like some FSX add-ons have separate cameras of the 3-d cockpit from different viewing angles (for example, a camera looking below the control yoke so you can see the electrical switches), in RoF you can move the camera where you want it and "memorize" its position by assigning it to a certain key. This is done individually for each aircraft.

If this is implemented in SoW it will be a big help for people who lack head tracking software. For example, you could memorize a set of keypad commands and say that "ok, i want keypad 0 to always give me a view of the engine instruments, regardless of aircrat". Of course, the position of these instrments relative to the player's "head" camera center position are different for each plane. However, if SoW could "memorize" different snap-views for each aircraft it would be no problem. You would just have to look at the instruments once and assign a keypad key to that camera angle, to be pressed whenever you wanted a quick glance at your engine parameters.

Judging from the in-cockpit shots we've seen of SoW, i think the resolution is high enough. Heck, there are 3rd party high resolution cockpits in IL2 that are perfectly legible from the wide angle view, so i have no doubt that official SoW cockpits will be even better. We also know it will have 6-DOF head panninng, so i guess we'll be able to manage just fine.

Just look at that Blenheim cockpit shot posted in one of the previous updates, the instruments look so crisp and detailed that i got "cockpit and switch mania" and got a sudden urge to go fly something with clickable cockpits :grin:

Great points!

In X-Plane, one can use the arrow keys (default) to move your "head position" in 3D. So the down arrow makes you "slouch" and the up arrow lets you sit up tall to see more landscape and less instrument panel. It is VERY helpful when flying on instruments such as in bad weather.

The problem with these 3D feature is that they are resource hogs and can cost a major hit to fps. Many times people just use the 2D panels for that reason (amoug others).

One of the current "problems" with IL-2 is an inability to move one's head around the the virtual world. You can look in any direction, but you really cannot lean to the side to see around the cowling a bit while taxiing.

It's just me, but I am much more interested in such functional feature than I am in leaf sizes and whether tree trunks are visible from the air. Most people will have to tone down the really neat visual effects anyway to maintain 30fps or more.

Ideally, I would like a sim that fulfills the dual roles of combat flight and flight sim. I know that is wanting too much but all I have to do is fly a vintage WWII aircraft in X-Plane and then in IL-2 to feel the difference in flight model and functionality. I'd rather have better functionality than visuals IF I had to choose.

Splitter

[BigPickle]

wow the change for colour of the bullet resistant glass and the rest of the cockpit is great attention to detail.
Any word on possible solid release date yet? , I've heard they are aiming for Sep 2010 to coincide with Battle of Britain day, but from how they are speaking about the screens mentioning place holders and things it doesn't seem quite ready for that date.

[slm]

One of the current "problems" with IL-2 is an inability to move one's head around the the virtual world. You can look in any direction, but you really cannot lean to the side to see around the cowling a bit while taxiing.

It's just me, but I am much more interested in such functional feature than I am in leaf sizes and whether tree trunks are visible from the air.

This moving pilot's head has been possible in some other sims for quite a while - since TrackIR SW made it possible. I've tried it in MS Flight Simulator and it is quite useful during taxiing, landing etc. This feature also minimizes need for discussions about pilot position inside the cockpit, like in FW-190s. If you can't see well from one position, just move your head.

Although I must say that it would be quite useful if you could enable/disable this head movement. In other words, you could change head position to some place, then press a key to "lock" it and after that head would stay in place. You could still turn the head up/down and left/right. If you wanted to move head position, press a key to "unlock" it and you'd have 6DOF head movement again.

[zauii]

This moving pilot's head has been possible in some other sims for quite a while - since TrackIR SW made it possible. I've tried it in MS Flight Simulator and it is quite useful during taxiing, landing etc. This feature also minimizes need for discussions about pilot position inside the cockpit, like in FW-190s. If you can't see well from one position, just move your head.

Although I must say that it would be quite useful if you could enable/disable this head movement. In other words, you could change head position to some place, then press a key to "lock" it and after that head would stay in place. You could still turn the head up/down and left/right. If you wanted to move head position, press a key to "unlock" it and you'd have 6DOF head movement again.

Depends on were you can lock it, it would be wierd if you could lock your position when your leaning halfway up, since thats not a position you'd sit in for many seconds.

[slm]

In TrackIR SW you can toggle the whole head tracking on/off. This can be useful for example when you're approaching ground target and want to concentrate on that. Just switch off trackIR. Then you don't have to think about head movements. Similar situation when you're aiming an enemy plane. Switching off TrackIR for a moment can make aiming easier.

So my wish to lock head position is similar to this.

[lbuchele]

For some reason I prefer to aim with TrackIR on, just to deal with the extra difficulty of mantaining my head steady like a real pilot would.

[Sutts]

Thanks Oleg, another great update. That first shot is truly amazing. Trees look great up close too. I'm so looking forward to seeing the aircrew animations....they'll really highlight the human dimension of combat and could quite possibly stir the emotions. No longer are we shooting at just a simple lump of metal.

In terms of the map, will it be possible in SoW to zoom smoothly in and out of the map instead of the fixed zoom levels we have in IL2? I never really liked the interface in IL2 where you have to cycle through the zoom levels with the mouse click. Just a minor detail though.

Cheers:grin:

[SlipBall]

I've done it for real and wouldn't want to do it again, though I got out without a scratch (the 150 was a total loss though). Wing spars are pretty tough, so when they flex they can absorb a considerable amount of energy. The real trick is picking two trees that don't have another tree right behind them...



Wow, happy to hear that you were untouched. That must have been a very violent experience, good that you used your wits. Care to share the details that lead to the forced ditch?:grin:

[tourmaline]

I was thinking of the free software shoot (http://clans.gameclubcentral.com/shoot/) . This allows you to record commands in your OWN voice and will issue the desired keystroke to the game. Because it's your own voice, there's no issue with recognition. When I used to play IL2, I had common voice commands like 'gear', 'flaps up', 'nav lights', 'fire extinguisher', 'smoke' set up and it was pretty cool to have the plane react to them. Felt like I had a copilot flying with me, performing what I asked him to do.

Before 'shoot' I spent a lot of time configuring my Saitek stick and throttle with modifiers keys etc. but couldn't always remember what button combo to press for a command. Shoot made it so much easier especially for the less commonly used commands.

Oh yes, if you have a severe cold, shoot might have a problem recognizing your commands since your voice sounds quite different. This has always been the case with voice activated software.

I prefer a hotas system anytime over shoot. You can record loads of keystrokes under a button. In real world situations it also doesn't work with voice command. Maybe some ultra modern airplanes might have it, but not the ones used in wow: BOB.;):cool:

[Hoverbug]

Wow, happy to hear that you were untouched. That must have been a very violent experience, good that you used your wits. Care to share the details that lead to the forced ditch?:grin:

Carb icing leading to a forced landing. I actually aimed for a gap between trees hoping to miss them both, but clipped one wing, losing 18" of wing and snapping the aileron cables (and ripping off half the aileron). The plane rolled with the damaged wing striking the ground and absorbing most of the energy. It could easily have been much worse or much better (having not hit the one tree at all).

[airmalik]

In real world situations it also doesn't work with voice command. Maybe some ultra modern airplanes might have it, but not the ones used in wow: BOB.;):cool:

It's up to you what you want to use the voice commands for. For instance, in the absence of hand signals, issuing commands to your wingman may be more realistic when voice activated rather than via keyboard/hotas button.

Being entirely optional, you don't have to use it if it doesn't work for you.

[zapatista]

Great points!

..... to move your "head position" in 3D....... the down arrow makes you "slouch" and the up arrow lets you sit up tall to see more landscape and less instrument panel. It is VERY helpful when flying on instruments such as in bad weather....................

It's just me, but I am much more interested in such functional feature than I am in leaf sizes and whether tree trunks are visible from the air. Most people will have to tone down the really neat visual effects anyway to maintain 30fps or more.

the point about including the potential for very high detailed scenery (and drivable ground vehicles, controllable ships, etc..) is that if this is built in from the start of SoW-BoB then it makes the sim engine scalable for the future as hardware increases, and then you end up with BOTH aspects (the best of both worlds so to speak). if you dont include those improved scenery and expandable aspects of the sim while you build it, like oleg is currently doing, then in 2 years it is looking very out of date again and you have to start all over again

Ideally, I would like a sim that fulfills the dual roles of combat flight and flight sim.

i have repeatedly asked questions to Oleg and Co allong those lines over the years, but i dont think the idea has received much traction, and i am not sure oleg entirely got my point either.
1) for your idea of having a "pure" civilian flightsim using the SoW-BoB engine i think is probably already possible at release time. "all you need" is for 3e party to build some civilian aircraft for you to fly, turn off all hostile aircraft and AA etc.., and you can VFR fly around peacefully at your hearts content. and as long as the 3e party civilian planes dont use instruments more complex then ww2 era (or the single russian modern day test plane we get included with BoB), then any civilian plane can be built for BoB imo.
2) what i am hoping/wanting more of however is to have many non-combat elements and other war related features possible in BoB, and have included many more other aviation elements that were part of ww2 aviation in a "wartime environment". eg:
- be able to fly supply missions (and ask for fighter escorts if required), do parachutists drops, fly photo reconnaissance missions, fly VIP's to certain locations (mission being to get them safely to their destination with hostile elements posibly being encountered),
- fly in supplies and replacement aircraft parts to airbases and troops under siege to keep that airbase or troop formation functional,
- be able to use real life tactics to reduce fighting ability of the enemy by damaging their supply convoys and bridges and fuel storage etc.
- have non combat missions like lying new replacement aircraft from the factories to specific airfields using VFR, maybe even fly some civilian liners or transport mission (inside the same active combat zone that is taking place on the dynamic server), fly red cross evac missions in and out of combat area's, rescue downed pilots from behind enemy lines (having to land for ex in a specific field at a partic rendezvous time, rescue pilots from the sea, etc..

none of those aspects would require much time or programing to add, all work with the already existing elements and just need a few different minor elements added. it would open up the sim to a whole additional series of potential customers, and adds a new area of interest for current il2 users.


I know that is wanting too much but all I have to do is fly a vintage WWII aircraft in X-Plane and then in IL-2 to feel the difference in flight model and functionality. I'd rather have better functionality than visuals IF I had to choose.
a better and more future proof BoB-SoW sim does not exclude having improved functionality and features like you listed. you just need to make a strong argument to oleg about what exactly to be included, because imho he might not have thought of it or even seen it as something that might be needed to make his new sim more complete

[AndyJWest]

what i am hoping/wanting more of however is to have many non-combat elements and other war related features possible in BoB
...
none of those aspects would require much time or programing to add, all work with the already existing elements and just need a few different minor elements added...

Have you ever done any computer programming, Zapatista?

[Romanator21]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG52Uther View Post
Is my perception off? The crew of the Ju88 and Hurricane pilot look too small to me.

i noticed that to in the last set of screenshots but wasnt going to mention it. from previous comments from oleg on this it is a compromise they made while resolving a "collision bug" (if the pilot is modeled real proportional size, currently he pokes occasionally through the aircraft cockpit skin "boundaries" when he moves). if having the smaller crew is a short term compromise to get around this at the moment and will be fixed in one of the early patches, then i dont see it as a reason to cause current additional release delays. oleg also stated the 1e person view from the cockpit is visually correct and doesnt reflect having a "shorter" pilot.

The pilots here seem to be to scale.

In Il-2 they are a little large. In fact, there are two types of pilots in Il-2: One who sits in the plane, and one who falls through the sky and opens a chute. They happen to be different sizes (and wear different colored uniforms) for some reason, but the latter is more to scale.

As for collision bugs: Oleg stated that this was regarding crew animations. You cannot make the same animation for a Ju-87 pilot who uses a stick, and a Ju-88 pilot who has a yoke.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Nice update.

[zapatista]

The pilots here seem to be to scale.

the pilots seen in some of the most recent WiP screenshots from Oleg are NOT to the correct scale ! this is very obvious by looking for ex at the 109 where he seems to be about 25% to small, previous posts by other observers have already explained why


As for collision bugs: Oleg stated that this was regarding crew animations. You cannot make the same animation for a Ju-87 pilot who uses a stick, and a Ju-88 pilot who has a yoke.

thats a very confusing way to look at it.

instead maybe perceive it as "whatever the crew/pilot figure is doing in the sim, is physically represented by an animated articulated skeletal figure"

afaik the main problem right now is that with full sized pilots in very small confined spaces (like a 109 pit), the pilot "normal" movements are causing his limbs to poke out through the aircraft structure, and there is no limitation in his movements caused by colliding with the modeled aircraft skin. one short term interim solution for this is to shrink the figure down and hence give him more room to move in

edit: one oddity in all this "crew size" debate is that when viewed from inside an aircraft, the front most crew member in the brittish bomber we saw last week (inside cockpit view) showed his head almost touching the ceiling. so that crew member was roughly the correct size. maybe the "collision bug" is only present on outside views ? (oleg already confirmed the temporary use of smaller crew figures doesnt affect the 1e person views)

[Richie]

I wonder if we'll be able to give a wave in the cockpit like here..4:30 on the time slide



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wpcHlDWHNU

[Oleg Maddox]

Well I must say that I personally prefer a pilot with correct size with less movement to prevent a collision bug.

We have perfectly correct size of crew. Everything in right scale.
Crew is 175 cm.

[Hecke]

We have perfectly correct size of crew. Everything in right scale.
Crew is 175 cm.



Thx for clearing up.
We were just a bit confused about what Luthier told us about pilot size.

Two things I want to ask:

1. Will different cockpit sizes effect on the movement ability of the pilot, for exemple in bf 109 cockpit you can't move as much as in other planes?
2. (Watched some older screens and realised that the cockpit skins show outwarn textures.) Will there also be the planes with "out-of-the-factory" cockpit skins?

[No601_Swallow]

the point about including the potential for very high detailed scenery (and drivable ground vehicles, controllable ships, etc..) is that if this is built in from the start of SoW-BoB then it makes the sim engine scalable for the future as hardware increases, and then you end up with BOTH aspects (the best of both worlds so to speak)......



i have repeatedly asked questions to Oleg and Co allong those lines over the years, but i dont think the idea has received much traction, and i am not sure oleg entirely got my point either.

My own understanding was that after ACES studio was erased from the face of this planet, Oleg did indeed see the potential in making a play for the MSFS niche - the overarching flightsim framework that might support a multitude of 3rd party addons and sceneries. I think the quote was "a vibrant 3rd party eco-system" or some such.

I see no reason why not, given the sophistication of what Oleg is trying to do and the beautiful CURVED Earth that we saw in the WIP pictures a couple of weeks ago. I was a little surprised noone seemed to comment on them from that perspective then. Indeed, I'd be quite certain that Oleg is building in a SOW equivalent of FSUIPC or simconnect.

My own dream would be for MSFS developers (or similar) to step in very quickly to perhaps offer a payware (or even better freeware!) fully functioning Biggin, say, or (my Squadron's heart:) Tangmere, with ground vehicles, textures, triggers, surrounding structures,etc, even for the original (Vanilla) BOB map, in much the same way as FSDT or Flytampa or Aerosoft publish airports and expansions for FSX/98. This is apart from offering new aircraft, new areas of the world, new eras...

(Personally, I'd love a set of early airliners, the DH Comet, the Caravel, the Constellation... These might appear in a SOW-engine-equipped addon, perhaps even able to use the same maps, perhaps not... Possibilities, possibililities...)

[Stukadriver]

Beautiful screen shots. Very nice, indeed and I applaud your work. Genius.
Some time ago, a question of what could be suggested to make the simulation more realistic in terms of events. You clearly have the image quality in hand. I was wondering if having the mission scrubbed and called back due to weather changes would add to the realism. Engine issues could come up for the player and/or his wingman. Losing elements of a flight due to engine problems or your AI wingmen becoming too scared to fly could make missions more precarious if a player decided to carry on with the mission without all the flight's units.

[philip.ed]

Oleg, any input into the trees? I ask as the trees shown recently look excellent, but in England these trees look more like garden ones. The main types of trees are a lot rounder and denser foliage wise. ;) excellent work

[Novotny]

^^ Either you are a master troll or incredibly stupid. Could be both, mind.

[Splitter]

This moving pilot's head has been possible in some other sims for quite a while - since TrackIR SW made it possible. I've tried it in MS Flight Simulator and it is quite useful during taxiing, landing etc. This feature also minimizes need for discussions about pilot position inside the cockpit, like in FW-190s. If you can't see well from one position, just move your head.

Although I must say that it would be quite useful if you could enable/disable this head movement. In other words, you could change head position to some place, then press a key to "lock" it and after that head would stay in place. You could still turn the head up/down and left/right. If you wanted to move head position, press a key to "unlock" it and you'd have 6DOF head movement again.

Sorry I was not clear. I have not flown X-Plane or MSFS with anything like TrackIR. What I was talking about was "in game" functionality where you could move your perspective around the cockipit using only the arrow keys. Heck, you can even move your perspective (head) outside the cockpit in this manner and leave it there lol. While the latter is not realistic, it is very useful to be able to change one's perspective inside the cockpit and "leave it there" for a while.

Even though I was unclear, your points are well taken. Some sort of head tracking software adds something to a sim.

I just recently downloaded Facetracknoir which uses face tracking software to achieve a similar effect to TrackIR (except it is free lol). I have only tried it with IL-2 and only in "free flight" training missions while working out the kinks. But WOW, what a difference in experience. While it does not (as far as I can tell) let you tilt your head or move along the X,Y,or Z axis for a change in perspective, it does track your face as a substitute for the HAT switch...you can look up, down, left or right "automatically".

Now I have to try it while shooting down enemies :). I do know one key turns it on or off while flying so that probably helps for people that want to get stable for shooting.

I do hope Oleg and Crew look at some of the other functionality items listed recently in this thread. "Volunteering" for specialized missions such as recon, rescue, and such would add a lot to the game. I love me some marksmanship practice, but dodging 109's by ducking into clouds while on a recon mission has appeal.

I wish (there is that word again) that we could get functionality updates like we get graphics updates, but that information is probably too sensitive from the competitive perspective.

Splitter

[SimHq Tom Cofield]

Very nice looking indeed.

[Blackdog_kt]

Splitter, there was a large debate about this a few months ago, when some of us were asking about clickable cockpits. The reason people were interested was simple: there are not enough keyboard shortcuts to properly simulate the amount of controls a real pilot operates, or more accurately, we just can't remember them all :grin:
Imagine for example, if you wanted to finetune your intercoolers to control your carburetor temperature and you had to remember keybindings like ctrl+shift+H+[ to lower it and ctrl+shift+H+] to raise it.
Naturally, this brought about the question of wheter so much realism was needed in a combat sim, with good points made either way, but no official word on the matter.

Sometime later however, the guys from the French check-six simulation community arranged a visit to Moscow to interview Mr. Maddox and see some of the work done. That's where the answers came from. If you read the interview, you'll notice that a lot of these things did in fact make it in the feature list. If i remember correctly, in one case a Ju87 was climbing and as it went higher the canopy fogged up, until the person flying turned on the defoggers and it cleared again, insanely realistic stuff like that.

As for photo recon missions, agent drops and the like, it's a matter of mission building triggers. I think that even if they are not included upon release, the engine will still be capable of them. If the IL-2 mission builder can be upgraded to use triggers by team daidalos, i doubt that the next generation sim will lack them.

In case you missed it, here's the interview from the check-six website:
http://www.checksix-fr.com/articles/Articles_html/inter_Oleg_Foxy/interview_oleg_foxy_EN.html

[swiss]

Oh yes, if you have a severe cold, shoot might have a problem recognizing your commands since your voice sounds quite different. This has always been the case with voice activated software.

I prefer a hotas system anytime over shoot. You can record loads of keystrokes under a button. In real world situations it also doesn't work with voice command. Maybe some ultra modern airplanes might have it, but not the ones used in wow: BOB.;):cool:


Bingo - if you want total immersion: build a cockpit.
It's fairly easy to build, only problem could be space - and the fact that everybody who knows about it thinks your're nuts.

[major_setback]

I think one of the nicest updates we have seen. There was a hard edge on some of the explosion/fire textures earlier. It has totally disappeared now. Well done dev' team!

Before:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=2889&d=1279883030

After:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/album%202/shot_20100812_095500b.jpg


Also - it is nice to see the (subtle) reflections from the sky on the wings/airframe. It was slightly overdone previously, but now it looks perfectly natural. Really very good!!

The same goes for the reflections from below. The earlier screenshot of a group of Heinkels looks perfect to me...here:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=2945&d=1280475978

And also it is nice to see that the light reflections from matt surfaces aren't as strong as before...and that panel lines etc. don't reflect light.

Everything has improved a lot in just a couple of weeks!!

[BadAim]

I use VAC (Voice Activated Command) for IL2 and find it to be very reliable. I use it only for controlling the AI however, and I use a trigger switch to avoid mistaken commands. I should think If something like this could be built into the game it would be able to interface with the AI much better, nearly to the point where you can have a conversation with your flight/crew.

[Bloblast]

We have perfectly correct size of crew. Everything in right scale.
Crew is 175 cm.

Ilya stated that there was to do concession not to get pilot out of cockpit during movement of pilot, but 175 cm is okay I would say.

[Oldschool61]

Splitter, there was a large debate about this a few months ago, when some of us were asking about clickable cockpits. The reason people were interested was simple: there are not enough keyboard shortcuts to properly simulate the amount of controls a real pilot operates, or more accurately, we just can't remember them all :grin:
Imagine for example, if you wanted to finetune your intercoolers to control your carburetor temperature and you had to remember keybindings like ctrl+shift+H+[ to lower it and ctrl+shift+H+] to raise it.
Naturally, this brought about the question of wheter so much realism was needed in a combat sim, with good points made either way, but no official word on the matter.

Sometime later however, the guys from the French check-six simulation community arranged a visit to Moscow to interview Mr. Maddox and see some of the work done. That's where the answers came from. If you read the interview, you'll notice that a lot of these things did in fact make it in the feature list. If i remember correctly, in one case a Ju87 was climbing and as it went higher the canopy fogged up, until the person flying turned on the defoggers and it cleared again, insanely realistic stuff like that.

As for photo recon missions, agent drops and the like, it's a matter of mission building triggers. I think that even if they are not included upon release, the engine will still be capable of them. If the IL-2 mission builder can be upgraded to use triggers by team daidalos, i doubt that the next generation sim will lack them.

In case you missed it, here's the interview from the check-six website:
http://www.checksix-fr.com/articles/Articles_html/inter_Oleg_Foxy/interview_oleg_foxy_EN.html


Clickable cockpits should be a given seeing as this is 2010. Touch screen would be nice. As long as this game has been in development it should read your mind and know what you want to do.

[nearmiss]

Clickable cockpits should be a given seeing as this is 2010. Touch screen would be nice. As long as this game has been in development it should read your mind and know what you want to do.

Touch screen?

It is difficult enough keeping the screen clean enough to see those tiny little blips that will be shooting at you in about 10 seconds, much less having your grubby fingerprints all over the screen.

[philip.ed]

^^ Either you are a master troll or incredibly stupid. Could be both, mind.

What the hell? I wasn't writing from an anal point of view but fly over blighty and the trees look nothing like what's been shown recently from above . Up close, maybe (as up-close the trees look great here) but otherwise it isn't how the trees look in England when grouped. I have posted pics before to demonstrate, and so have others.
Don't talk out of your arse; I'm not a troll, I just wrote a comment. :-P

[Novotny]

'The main types of trees are a lot rounder and denser foliage wise'

Look, at some point a concession must be made. No singular aspect of this software - or any other title, for that matter - is going to be perfect, regardless of the development time expended on the perfecting of any graphical representation therein concerning vegetation.

Simply put: Oleg could put SoW back another year and fully concentrate on developing your trees. Nevertheless, you would still be able to nitpick faults if you tried hard enough or felt inclined to do so. And to what end? Just how important are these trees to the big picture?

This obsession with finding faults and loudly proclaiming them is extremely tiresome and I've already proposed bans for unconstructive criticism.

'fly over blighty and the trees look nothing like what's been shown recently': you don't even understand that this is both very rude and completely unhelpful. If it were up to me I'd ban you.

You admit to nitpicking. A definition of which follows:

When used as a verb:
1. to be excessively concerned with or critical of inconsequential details, or
2. to criticize by focusing on inconsequential details.
When used as a noun, refers to:
3. a carping, petty criticism.

Why not just leave it?

[philip.ed]

Honestly, I thought the whole idea of discussion is to post your opinions? I have lived in England all my life, and this aspect is so easy to get right that I wonder why it couldn't be? early shots from last year show trees looking like how I describe, which shows that it is possible. Rise of Flight did it, so I am sure that SoW can too. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with what has been shown recently, these trees can easily be found in England, but then again from an aerial viewpoint the perspectives look different here. It's hard to explain. I'm not some tree nut :-P But it's just something I noticed from flying over the country that I thought made a world of difference to how the terrain looks ;)

[Meusli]

Honestly, I thought the whole idea of discussion is to post your opinions? I have lived in England all my life, and this aspect is so easy to get right that I wonder why it couldn't be? early shots from last year show trees looking like how I describe, which shows that it is possible. Rise of Flight did it, so I am sure that SoW can too. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with what has been shown recently, these trees can easily be found in England, but then again from an aerial viewpoint the perspectives look different here. It's hard to explain. I'm not some tree nut :-P But it's just something I noticed from flying over the country that I thought made a world of difference to how the terrain looks ;)

The trees we have now are more varied as they come from Speetree, the old tree types that were made by Oleg and his team only show a couple of different types. The variety of tree types makes it more important to use Speedtree trees than the ones that Oleg could build, which would take away resources from other things. Also as a naturally grown phenomenon all trees are different and come in various shapes and sizes and to say that one type of tree is wrong and your type is correct is being a bit disingenuous.
I live in England also and I have no problems with the trees for this flight Sim, but if you want perfection of graphics then I suggest you buy yourself a spitfire and fly around in the real world pretending your there.

[nearmiss]

I live in England also and I have no problems with the trees for this flight Sim, but if you want perfection of graphics then I suggest you buy yourself a spitfire and fly around in the real world pretending your there.

That could work

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK6uNQoBAGY


oh yeah....

[philip.ed]

Meusi, I agree with what you say. By no means do these trees not look like any in this country, but when I was in Egypt and flying over, the trees looked a lot like these do from above. Using this software which you mention gives hope to the fact that multiple tree types can appear which'd be great :D

[Richie]

Or maybe you like 109s..sorry had to.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a_TETqe1Cg

[Richie]

Clickable cockpits should be a given seeing as this is 2010. Touch screen would be nice. As long as this game has been in development it should read your mind and know what you want to do.


What interview is it where the German sound guys mouth is hanging open when he hears what the game sounds like?

[NLS61]

Or maybe you like 109s..sorry had to.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a_TETqe1Cg

I tought Swastika's where forbidden and her is one on a real 109 ???
I'm not asking for them in the game, or want to start that discussion again.
Yust wondering.

[Tempest123]

Only in certain countries is it banned (germany for example)

[major_setback]

....
I live in England also and I have no problems with the trees for this flight Sim, but if you want perfection of graphics then I suggest you buy yourself a spitfire and fly around in the real world pretending your there.

Yes, but it's really not going to work is it ? Sooner or later you will realize the futility of the pretence: with no AI, the wrong era, a low risk of being attacked. Really there is no substitute for a real sim.
Much better to pretend that the pretend trees are real, that the luminous fluffy clouds are genuine, and to accept that the sim may have a few reservations regarding the flight model and visuals. Otherwise you are stuck in reality: a reality where you command full control of your situation but where there is no escape; and escape is the name of the game...and after all it is mostly that - just a game.
:-)
Mostly.

[sorak]

man this game looks so amazing. I can not wait.. Orginal IL2 is still so great.. I just cant imagine the new Il2...

"re-packs the bowl"...

[themink]

Or maybe you like 109s..sorry had to.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a_TETqe1Cg

<IRONY>Why is this still using placeholder clouds, and while we are here, the trees are still unconvincing.

This is clearly a low res SOW video, I will retain comment until we can see a high res version with real sound (This appears to be from the origional IL2) </IRONY>

On a slightly more serious note, I noticed the exhaust line in this video, it has never ocured to me that we have been missing it all this time. In the screenie of the Hurricane underflying, there appeared to be fuel leaking, but was it actually exhaust? Hmm we shall have to see.

If it is not in, it will not affect me at all. I will be flying this as a game/sim with friends and it will blow our socks off when it arrives.

[WTE_Galway]

On a slightly more serious note, I noticed the exhaust line in this video, it has never ocured to me that we have been missing it all this time.

No its not, in IL2 1946 fly any manual mixture aircraft on an over-rich setting and you get smoke.

The aircraft in the video is probably smoking because low altitude airshow display aircraft are sometimes run full rich for safety.

[wannabetheace]

Guys look at the trees....

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

[Rodolphe]

...


Nice video of Lausanne (Ouchy) and the Chillon Castel.


Need some Swiss conifers essences in South of the "U" Kingdom forest ? :grin:




http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Chillon2.jpg

Blink and you really do miss it.



...

[Wiskey-Charlie]

I know that Oleg takes a lot of pride in his work and IL2 in its time was above and beyond all other flight sims especially in the graphics department. By looking at the screen shots as of late I would say that BOB/SOW will continue to be above and beyond all current flight simulation software that is out there when it comes to graphics!

But what about devicelink when it comes to third parties linking their hardware devices? IL2's devicelink has fallen behind other flight simulators in this category. Formula One uses thousands of sensors on their racing cars and the data is raw, real world, data. Also, X-Plane spits out better and more data than does IL2.

Has Oleg addressed this issue? Is it possible for a third party programmer to be linked with Oleg or someone on his team to discuss the known short comings of the old devicelink? Is there a way for a third party programmer currently writing software to communicate with Olegs team without having to post on a public forum?

I am thinking that Oleg takes a lot of pride in his simulation and that he will want to have it above and beyond in every catagory?

[BadAim]

I couldn't tell you where it is, but I'm quite sure that Oleg has already said that there will be a much improved devicelink (or whatever it will be called). His original concern was that devicelink might be used to cheat online, but the problem never materialized.

[steppie]

its looking good and I'm itch to get my hands on the game, keep up the good work