Latest issue of PC Gamer.

[SparkofImagination]

It has a picture of Storm of War: Battle of Britain in it, it looks real and gorgeous. Just wondering if this screenshot exist in a larger version ?

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/1822/rcil.jpg

[Korn]

click for full size
http://i35.tinypic.com/30uv52b.jpg (http://i34.tinypic.com/30960ir.jpg)

[SparkofImagination]

click for full size
http://i35.tinypic.com/30uv52b.jpg (http://i34.tinypic.com/30960ir.jpg)

w00t exactly what i was looking for, many thanks :)

[jameson]

Try this perhaps?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQbCIT-aMnY

[hellbomber]

if my plane shakes like that while im flying someone is going to get murderd, thats BS

[airmalik]

And this without the glass reflection in the gauges shown in another screenshot! WOW!

Now if they can only bring the clouds and terrain to the same level ...

[Chivas]

if my plane shakes like that while im flying someone is going to get murderd, thats BS

Its called pulling G's.

[WTE_Galway]

if my plane shakes like that while im flying someone is going to get murderd, thats BS

What do you expect from something effete and pretty like the Spitfire :P

EDIT:

go to 1:30 here and imagine the camera is bouncing around like the pilot:

http://www.youtube.com/v/DiAIyX0l42M

in real life your eyes compensate

[Robotic Pope]

Its called pulling G's.

Actualy I think its called "Pilot Cam". The effect is what you would get from a video camera planted in the middle of the pilots face. Pretty sure no pilot in the Battle of Britain ever had his eyes replaced with video cameras, so it is completly unrealistic BS like he says.

[proton45]

if my plane shakes like that while im flying someone is going to get murderd, thats BS


Yea...lets all get excited (and critical) about a leaked, and pre-beta video clip. LOL!!!

[hellbomber]

What do you expect from something effete and pretty like the Spitfire

EDIT:

go to 1:30 here and imagine the camera is bouncing around like the pilot:

http://www.youtube.com/v/DiAIyX0l42M


yeah the thing is when the plane shakes so do you therefore the effect of the jolting is minimized, in the video the camera is on an imaginary rail and the plane bounces around it, also the video was much smoother and seemed very good, also it didnt sound like their was a ton of bricks in the cockpit getting shakin by a paint mixer, but alas i have faith oleg will fix this issue being it was WIP when released

[Tree_UK]

Looking at the amazing detail of the spitfire cockpit and then comparing it to the more recent cockpit of the heinkel 111 it does appear that the heinkel seems massively inferior in detail, ok I know this is only a WIP but the difference is staggering.

[T}{OR]

Actualy I think its called "Pilot Cam". The effect is what you would get from a video camera planted in the middle of the pilots face. Pretty sure no pilot in the Battle of Britain ever had his eyes replaced with video cameras, so it is completly unrealistic BS like he says.

Since SoW will feature winds, buffeting, wind gusts etc... I advise you to re-think your statement.

Wind changes around around Dover cliffs are something to think about alone. How would you simulate strong wind at your 6 OC and sudden loss of lift? Surely the cockpit wouldn't shake and it would feel as if you were flying on a cloud or should I say pillow. Anyone who has ever experienced landing in bad weather knows what I mean.

And mind you - this is heavy maneuvering featured in the video.

[Blackdog_kt]

Looking at the amazing detail of the spitfire cockpit and then comparing it to the more recent cockpit of the heinkel 111 it does appear that the heinkel seems massively inferior in detail, ok I know this is only a WIP but the difference is staggering.

Actually, if you mean the recent screenshot of the He111 interior where the Spitfire is crossing head on from 10 o'clock, there's not much of the He111 cockpit visible (at least not instruments).

If my memory serves me right, all that is visible is a few of the circuit breaker switches and part of the throttle quadrant. I wouldn't worry to be honest, since we have another recent screenshot to judge progress. The recent Blenheim cockpit shot was right up there with the Spitfire one in terms of cockpit image quality.

[Friendly_flyer]

The video do bring home that aiming while throwing you kite around isn't going to be easy.

[Chivas]

Actualy I think its called "Pilot Cam". The effect is what you would get from a video camera planted in the middle of the pilots face. Pretty sure no pilot in the Battle of Britain ever had his eyes replaced with video cameras, so it is completly unrealistic BS like he says.

Not BS, this is the effect of G's on the airframe, but your eyes will compensate for the shake watching the monitor, just as the pilots eyes did in his shaking airframe. lol

[winny]

Actualy I think its called "Pilot Cam". The effect is what you would get from a video camera planted in the middle of the pilots face. Pretty sure no pilot in the Battle of Britain ever had his eyes replaced with video cameras, so it is completly unrealistic BS like he says.

Unrealistic? Really? It was actually the part of the video that I was most impressed with. It seems like a better solution than having a 'fixed' POV that's (to use your analogy) like having a camera on a tripod. Obviously the game needs a 'camera' otherwise you wouldn't be able to see and having one stuck to the pilots face seems like the best place for it. As for the real BoB pilots not having cameras stuck to thier faces; They didn't need to because they had eyes. Is flyby view therefore not needed as it's unrealistic? And god knows how all those BoB pilots had room in the cockpit to use thier mouse.. Is there a mouse mat in that spit cockpit?

This forum never ceases to amaze me with what people will complain about.

[IceFire]

Unrealistic? Really? It was actually the part of the video that I was most impressed with. It seems like a better solution than having a 'fixed' POV that's (to use your analogy) like having a camera on a tripod. Obviously the game needs a 'camera' otherwise you wouldn't be able to see and having one stuck to the pilots face seems like the best place for it. As for the real BoB pilots not having cameras stuck to thier faces; They didn't need to because they had eyes. Is flyby view therefore not needed as it's unrealistic? And god knows how all those BoB pilots had room in the cockpit to use thier mouse.. Is there a mouse mat in that spit cockpit?

This forum never ceases to amaze me with what people will complain about.

If it's not trees, it's tracers or fire... or video cameras if that is the fashionable thing to discuss :)

Welcome to IL-2 forums. It's been like this since 2001!

[winny]

If it's not trees, it's tracers or fire... or video cameras if that is the fashionable thing to discuss :)

Welcome to IL-2 forums. It's been like this since 2001!

The 'trees' thread is a personal favourite of mine..

Thanks, been lurking for a while and am actually a Birds of Prey (PS3.. don't laugh!) player who's waiting for SOW as an excuse to buy a good PC (come on Oleg!).

I come here specifically for the SoW bashing.. it's funny.

[philip.ed]

Meh, I think the environmental aspects are really important to the game; if you live and have flown over blighty, seeing envronmental pieces that looks wrong can ruin the immersion a bit. But let's not split hairs; one persons meat is anothers poison.

Personally, I don't care about what the camera is like. Either way when flying a sim on the PC you are at a disadvantage to real life where you have periphieral vision. It really makes a big difference.

[Robotic Pope]

Unrealistic? Really? It was actually the part of the video that I was most impressed with. It seems like a better solution than having a 'fixed' POV that's (to use your analogy) like having a camera on a tripod. Obviously the game needs a 'camera' otherwise you wouldn't be able to see and having one stuck to the pilots face seems like the best place for it. As for the real BoB pilots not having cameras stuck to thier faces; They didn't need to because they had eyes. Is flyby view therefore not needed as it's unrealistic? And god knows how all those BoB pilots had room in the cockpit to use thier mouse.. Is there a mouse mat in that spit cockpit?

This forum never ceases to amaze me with what people will complain about.

lol, I'm not complaining winny, I was just saying the guy had a point. The head movement under Gs is fine its the shaking he didn't like.

Also I think you'd be supprised how far some people go to get realism in their flight sims, going as far as to build themselves a cockpit. I'm not one of these people but I believe the sim should cater for everyone. Some people seem to like the effect of flying by camera as if by remote control with all the shaking, other people want to believe they are actually there strapped into the cockpit using their eyes and their moniter/s are just panes of glass infront of them. For this you would want a lot less of the vibration effect. A better way to simulate VERY heavy vibration would be to make it more like a very fast but stable humming movement and a loss of focus, than a big shaking. As someone else once mentioned if the loose objects in the cockpit like the strap above the gunsight moved that would give another visual sign of vibration and G force.

Again, I'm not complaining. I know this is all WIP stuff, as I'm sure do most people here.

[katdogfizzow]

yeah the thing is when the plane shakes so do you therefore the effect of the jolting is minimized, in the video the camera is on an imaginary rail and the plane bounces around it, also the video was much smoother and seemed very good, also it didnt sound like their was a ton of bricks in the cockpit getting shakin by a paint mixer, but alas i have faith oleg will fix this issue being it was WIP when released


:rolleyes:

[jameson]

If the plane was shaking it's down to Ilya. He was driving IIRC. If you have a force feedback stick you can feel the shaking in IL2 when you pull hard and get near the stall, but visually the effect is not as pronounced.

[winny]

lol, I'm not complaining winny, I was just saying the guy had a point. The head movement under Gs is fine its the shaking he didn't like.

Also I think you'd be supprised how far some people go to get realism in their flight sims, going as far as to build themselves a cockpit. I'm not one of these people but I believe the sim should cater for everyone. Some people seem to like the effect of flying by camera as if by remote control with all the shaking, other people want to believe they are actually there strapped into the cockpit using their eyes and their moniter/s are just panes of glass infront of them. For this you would want a lot less of the vibration effect. A better way to simulate VERY heavy vibration would be to make it more like a very fast but stable humming movement and a loss of focus, than a big shaking. As someone else once mentioned if the loose objects in the cockpit like the strap above the gunsight moved that would give another visual sign of vibration and G force.

Again, I'm not complaining. I know this is all WIP stuff, as I'm sure do most people here.

Fair point. So let's have an option for it then? I don't like the whole I don't want this, I don't want that argument.. these people should be asking for an option to turn it off. Then when this game finally appears you can sit in a lobbyfull of people who agree 100% with you about how the game should be played.


If Da Vinci had had a load of people standing over his shoulder whilst he was painting the mona lisa, all moaning and saying change this and change that then that painting would have been sh*t.
I've seen how personally Oleg takes SoW and when you're working on your masterpiece there's only you who knows where the final brush stroke is, when is your masterpiece finished.. Cut the guy some slack and trust him to produce the best sim that he can.

Sorry got carried away.

[julian265]

If you've flown through turbulence in a small plane, or left the bitumen and driven on slightly rough road... you wouldn't be complaining about the higher-frequency shake in that clip, IMO. My eyes/brain do not correct for the shake in these circumstances - far off objects are fine, but not near objects like the cockpit.

I won't be murdering anyone, but I'd be pretty disappointed if SoW BoB had as smooth a pilot's perspective as IL-2 does. The stillness of air (or lack of it) makes a huge difference to air combat with guns, and immersion.

[Hunden]

if my plane shakes like that while im flying someone is going to get murderd, thats BS

I needed a good laugh!!! LMAO

[hellbomber]

If you've flown through turbulence in a small plane, or left the bitumen and driven on slightly rough road... you wouldn't be complaining about the higher-frequency shake in that clip, IMO. My eyes/brain do not correct for the shake in these circumstances - far off objects are fine, but not near objects like the cockpit.

ohh yeah were really believing your a certified RL spitfire pilot, freaking il2 pilot fanbois start to think their real aces, probably be telling their grand kids stories about their ww2 heroics, and their K/D ratios

you guys are a bunch of little wussie fanbois, all claiming to have flown through rough turbulence.. well i got news for you fanboigots, when the last time you through threw that turbulence with clear skies and big white puffy cumulus clouds, yeah i didnt think so, now pack your BS up and exit right off the fourm as you were just humiliated so bad you shall never show your face again

[Robotic Pope]

If you've flown through turbulence in a small plane, or left the bitumen and driven on slightly rough road... you wouldn't be complaining about the higher-frequency shake in that clip, IMO. My eyes/brain do not correct for the shake in these circumstances - far off objects are fine, but not near objects like the cockpit.

I won't be murdering anyone, but I'd be pretty disappointed if SoW BoB had as smooth a pilot's perspective as IL-2 does. The stillness of air (or lack of it) makes a huge difference to air combat with guns, and immersion.

Yes, but thats not the point. When you are flying or driving offroad your brain knows that you are being bumped around inside the vehicle and the dash in front of you is relatively stable. What the effect in the video gives is the impression of the plane being bumped around you while you sit in comfy chair unaffected thus giving a disconnected feel.

It is something that just cannot be simulated properly with just visuals. Some people like the attempt, other people find it just wrong. So a choice between the two would be good.

[WTE_Galway]

when the last time you through threw that turbulence with clear skies and big white puffy cumulus clouds,

Well I was always taught to try and stay above those "big white puffy cumulus clouds" because pretty as they may look, their was usually turbulence below them.

Regardless, in that leaked video clip it is not meant to be turbulence. The cockpit view is shaking at roughly the same points I get stick shake in IL2 on my FFB, the edge of stall and high speed dives.

personally to me it does not look that that different to the effect I get on my bike at speeds over about 220kmh. The mirrors become useless and the whole fairing shakes and vibrates.

[julian265]

ohh yeah were really believing your a certified RL spitfire pilot, freaking il2 pilot fanbois start to think their real aces, probably be telling their grand kids stories about their ww2 heroics, and their K/D ratios

you guys are a bunch of little wussie fanbois, all claiming to have flown through rough turbulence.. well i got news for you fanboigots, when the last time you through threw that turbulence with clear skies and big white puffy cumulus clouds, yeah i didnt think so, now pack your BS up and exit right off the fourm as you were just humiliated so bad you shall never show your face again

You have some problems, troll.

[julian265]

Yes, but thats not the point. When you are flying or driving offroad your brain knows that you are being bumped around inside the vehicle and the dash in front of you is relatively stable. What the effect in the video gives is the impression of the plane being bumped around you while you sit in comfy chair unaffected thus giving a disconnected feel.

It is something that just cannot be simulated properly with just visuals. Some people like the attempt, other people find it just wrong. So a choice between the two would be good.

Agreed, choice is good, unless it cancels out the effects of (server enabled) turbulence / wake when you're online.

However, the dash is certainly not stable for me (or stabilised by eyes/brain) whenever I'm off-road. Hell, it's not even stable coming up my driveway (which is pretty much off-road ;) )

I can see what you're saying about the head position seeming to remain stable, whilst the plane bumps around (that is indeed true of sitting in front of a screen!). However, whether it's your head that is moving, or the plane that is moving, the relative movement is still the same - so it gets back to your statement about needing more than visuals to convince.

[WTE_Galway]

I can see what you're saying about the head position seeming to remain stable, whilst the plane bumps around (that is indeed true of sitting in front of a screen!). However, whether it's your head that is moving, or the plane that is moving, the relative movement is still the same - so it gets back to your statement about needing more than visuals to convince.

A better effect would be if the terrain moved around slightly but not as much as the air frame.

Turning the effects off is an essential option, as it was with the FFB gun shake, and stall flutter in IL2 which a lot of online players disable. Realistic or not is beside the point, some people simply will not put up with anything that interferes with shooting.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Maybe if we get one of those butt-kicker devices and strap it on our heads we'ld get a realistic vibration and our brains and eyes canh filter it our for us!

[T}{OR]

Turning the effects off is an essential option, as it was with the FFB gun shake, and stall flutter in IL2 which a lot of online players disable. Realistic or not is beside the point, some people simply will not put up with anything that interferes with shooting.

Real pilots didn't have an option to turn it off, and 'glued to the seat' really isn't something I'd like or want to see in IL2.

Reserve it for servers with easiest settings where newcomers fly.

[julian265]

ohh sure resort to name calling.. thats what he wants

Or is it what you want?

[BadAim]

The ignore list is a wonderful tool.

[erco]

ohh yeah were really believing your a certified RL spitfire pilot, freaking il2 pilot fanbois start to think their real aces, probably be telling their grand kids stories about their ww2 heroics, and their K/D ratios

you guys are a bunch of little wussie fanbois, all claiming to have flown through rough turbulence.. well i got news for you fanboigots, when the last time you through threw that turbulence with clear skies and big white puffy cumulus clouds, yeah i didnt think so, now pack your BS up and exit right off the fourm as you were just humiliated so bad you shall never show your face again


Got about 9,000 hours here, in everything from Stearmans to Pitts to DC-3s to T-34s to Lears to Hawkers to PA38s to Barons to 1900s to (are you getting the picture yet?) and when you're getting a real good shaking, you sure as hell can't compensate enough to read the panel- it's just a blur. Some of that shaking was in some beautifully clear air, and some in some mighty dark clouds, and just every so often, it was because I tried to do something the airplane didn't like. When, and if, I have the chance to fly the Spit, I'll be sure to fly into the buffet and get back to you on the accuracy of the SOW buffet/shake.

[jameson]

Got about 9,000 hours here, in everything from Stearmans to Pitts to DC-3s to T-34s to Lears to Hawkers to PA38s to Barons to 1900s to (are you getting the picture yet?) and when you're getting a real good shaking, you sure as hell can't compensate enough to read the panel- it's just a blur. Some of that shaking was in some beautifully clear air, and some in some mighty dark clouds, and just every so often, it was because I tried to do something the airplane didn't like. When, and if, I have the chance to fly the Spit, I'll be sure to fly into the buffet and get back to you on the accuracy of the SOW buffet/shake.

I quite sure 10mins of "Ace in a day" on Hellbomber's Xbox must top that. He'll shortly be complaining there's no P51 in SOW. We'll just have to face up to the fact that when SOW comes out, this level of debate (ok, I'm stretching the point!) will be the norm as the unwashed short trouser brigade wade in with their "I saw it on tv once, so it must be true" mentality.
Regards

[BigC208]

Looks to me that the vibration was just weather/turbulence related. Try shooting at a bomber while flying thru propwash and wingtip vortices. Now ad thermals and nasty convective weather and it will become a choir just to keep the plane right side up. At Erco, acording to the FAA you're supposed to keep those "mighty dark clouds 20 miles to your left or right....(hehe,8000hr freight dog here). If they're going to model the weather like that I hope they give us a sailplane at some point.

[Hunden]

ohh yeah were really believing your a certified RL spitfire pilot, freaking il2 pilot fanbois start to think their real aces, probably be telling their grand kids stories about their ww2 heroics, and their K/D ratios

you guys are a bunch of little wussie fanbois, all claiming to have flown through rough turbulence.. well i got news for you fanboigots, when the last time you through threw that turbulence with clear skies and big white puffy cumulus clouds, yeah i didnt think so, now pack your BS up and exit right off the fourm as you were just humiliated so bad you shall never show your face again

LMAO again!!! and im not sure why.

[erco]

Looks to me that the vibration was just weather/turbulence related. Try shooting at a bomber while flying thru propwash and wingtip vortices. Now ad thermals and nasty convective weather and it will become a choir just to keep the plane right side up. At Erco, acording to the FAA you're supposed to keep those "mighty dark clouds 20 miles to your left or right....(hehe,8000hr freight dog here). If they're going to model the weather like that I hope they give us a sailplane at some point.

Good post (& +1 on the sailplanes)!

Lol, BigC208, I hear ya buddy, I hear ya...

[Splitter]

Got about 9,000 hours here, in everything from Stearmans to Pitts to DC-3s to T-34s to Lears to Hawkers to PA38s to Barons to 1900s to (are you getting the picture yet?) and when you're getting a real good shaking, you sure as hell can't compensate enough to read the panel- it's just a blur. Some of that shaking was in some beautifully clear air, and some in some mighty dark clouds, and just every so often, it was because I tried to do something the airplane didn't like. When, and if, I have the chance to fly the Spit, I'll be sure to fly into the buffet and get back to you on the accuracy of the SOW buffet/shake.

Not a pilot here but have flown through plenty of rough weather in small aircraft. As a passenger, I get the opportunity to look out at the wings and make sure they are still attached :). Looking at the instruments (right seat) was not easy because the head was always behind the "shake" of the plane, if that makes sense. It's a matter of inertia and neck muscles. I don't think the pilots had it any different as they were "outside" of the plane and not very focused on the instruments in those scary situations.

BTW...if a shaking plane doesn't create just a bit of pucker factor for a pilot or passenger then they are either very brave or very stupid.

Splitter