FW-200 fire origin is bizzare

[Flying Pencil]

The new Dev pic of the FW-200 on fire is really bothering me.
Why I will not say it is incorrect is becuase I do not not have detailed info on the 200 to conclusively say it is wrong.

The origin of the fire in this image seems to be directly behind the pilots....
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=3240&d=1284123128

To support such a raging fire needs lots of fuel.
Is there a fuel tank located immediately behind the pilots?

Is there?

I found this model, is it accurate? (even if so, the tank is a more aft then burning image suggests).
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal4/3601-3700/gal3625_FW-200_Silvestre/05.jpg http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal4/3601-3700/gal3625_FW-200_Silvestre/04.jpg http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal4/3601-3700/gal3625_FW-200_Silvestre/08.jpg
(http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal4/3601-3700/gal3625_FW-200_Silvestre/00.shtm)

PS: does it look like the front gunner has TWO guns?


...

[Flying Pencil]

For comparison the He-111 fire:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=3170&d=1283522650

Between the bomb cells and fuselage are oxygen bottles, and between the cells along the catwalk is a hydraulic tank, both of which will provide ample fuel sources (ok ok, 1 is an oxidizer).

There is also some electrical circuits that could short and burn too.

[Skarphol]

PS: does it look like the front gunner has TWO guns?


...

I think it is the gun, and the shadow of the gun.

And I think that the fuselage fuel tanks have been holed, the fuel has poured into the cabin and is now floating forward towards the cockpit while it is burning.

Skarphol

[DB605]

The new Dev pic of the FW-200 on fire is really bothering me.
Why I will not say it is incorrect is becuase I do not not have detailed info on the 200 to conclusively say it is wrong.

The origin of the fire in this image seems to be directly behind the pilots....


To support such a raging fire needs lots of fuel.
Is there a fuel tank located immediately behind the pilots?

Is there?

I found this model, is it accurate? (even if so, the tank is a more aft then burning image suggests).


PS: does it look like the front gunner has TWO guns?


...

This is joke, right? I really hope it is...

[winny]

This is joke, right? I really hope it is...

That's exactly what I was thinking.. Antennagate is now firegate.. ffs.

[JVM]

The flames and transitions flame/smoke are nice, but the brightness of the flames is very low, far too low...This has been an issue from the beginning of SoW screenshots.

Every particle composing the flame is an individual light emitter, so you cannot see anything behind a flame, the brightness difference between the flame and background is too large.
You may or may not see whatever is positioned behind the smoke created by flames like this one...It is possible in case of high temperature/high speed fire (very light smoke, for a while at least) or lower temperature but quite thin (alongside the fuselage in some places, for instance, but not any more behind the aircraft, until the volume of smoke has expended enough to decrease its density)...

Not easy, I must admit!!!

[Flying Pencil]

I think it is the gun, and the shadow of the gun.

And I think that the fuselage fuel tanks have been holed, the fuel has poured into the cabin and is now floating forward towards the cockpit while it is burning.

Skarphol

No, not shadow.
You can see the gun shadows under them, and yes, I see 2 shadows.


and I doubt 1C modeled the fuel to flow from the tanks to other parts, taking into account gravity.

This is joke, right? I really hope it is...

It's serious.

You don't see film of real aircraft spurt fire from wing tips or top of rudder.
Most of those films show the origin right at the tanks and go aft, most times in a direct streak aft, not the red cotton balls you see on this.

[winny]

It's serious.

You don't see film of real aircraft spurt fire from wing tips or top of rudder.
Most of those films show the origin right at the tanks and go aft, most times in a direct streak aft, not the red cotton balls you see on this.

It's not serious it's petty.. There could be over 20 aircraft on fire at the same time in this game.. Once again a screenshot is being taken apart, a WIP screenshot at that. This game has to do so much at any one time that to start getting so picky, over a flat lifeless still from an unfinished computer game, (of which this is probably not even 1% of the work that's been done) is, frankly pointless. (I think that proper historical errors should be pointed out on here because that's important.)
But we've had the colour of the sea is wrong, the colour of the grass is wrong, the fire's wrong, the smoke's wrong, the pilot's wrong, the pilot's hitler... the list goes on. The majority of it seems to be about egos on this forum (I'm fairly new to it, most of my posts are on BoP forum)

Then I'm reduced to reading shit like 'I've lived in England all my life and this grass is too green' posted by someone to justify their opinion, when all they needed to say was I think the grass is too green (the devs are quite clever and if they hadn't already noticed this then he may well have saved the day!)

It's a joke.

There's a much bigger picture that we are simply not going to see until we see SoW move... Then you can all start slagging it off proper.

[philip.ed]

What is wrong in someone expressing their views? Why post screenshots and not expect discussion? This is all info that Oleg and the team can take into consideration. if you don't like what's been written, then don't read it again. People can post what they like if it's aviation related.

[winny]

What is wrong in someone expressing their views? Why post screenshots and not expect discussion? This is all info that Oleg and the team can take into consideration. if you don't like what's been written, then don't read it again. People can post what they like if it's aviation related.

I have no problem with people expressing views. You have a point about the grass. I'm not one for censorship either. I'm just pointing out that there are better ways to get your point across. Sorry for singleing you out but I just found it bizarre that you had to justify your opinion by stating that you were an englishman. You're a regular poster and I'm sure that if the devs were not aware of the problem of the grass coulour, that if you'd just said 'I think the grass is too green', they would look and think oh ok. I would never have mentioned it otherwise. I was using it as an example of where this forum is at.

[philip.ed]

Regarding grass colour; being English doesn't matter. It's living in the country and seeing the grass every-day :-P I'd never say I am English in a boastful way ;)

But yes, the tone of the thread may be quite 'in your face', but it's quite an interesting subject that's been raised IMO.

[Meusli]

I have no problem with people expressing views. You have a point about the grass. I'm not one for censorship either. I'm just pointing out that there are better ways to get your point across. Sorry for singleing you out but I just found it bizarre that you had to justify your opinion by stating that you were an englishman. You're a regular poster and I'm sure that if the devs were not aware of the problem of the grass coulour, that if you'd just said 'I think the grass is too green', they would look and think oh ok. I would never have mentioned it otherwise. I was using it as an example of where this forum is at.

I know where you are coming from though so no need to back down on this. It seems that people find issues every week just to spout some assine comment that makes them feel better. The worst ones are the people who repeat whats wrong with colour after Oleg/Luthier said it was WIP and not to worry about it. The best thing to do is ignore these people like Oleg does as if you notice he does reply to good posts but never to this nonsense.

[Sven]

What´s all this fuzz about?? He just wants to point out that the flames seem to be generated by the pilot´s seat, which is of course not the source for so much fire. Looking to the scale model it shows that the fuel tanks are placed some more in the aft of the plane. I´m no expert when it comes to planes on fire, and hopefully will never become, but maybe its intersting to know what sources near the pilot could cause so much fire.. maybe oxygen bottles?

[winny]

What´s all this fuzz about?? He just wants to point out that the flames seem to be generated by the pilot´s seat, which is of course not the source for so much fire. Looking to the scale model it shows that the fuel tanks are placed some more in the aft of the plane. I´m no expert when it comes to planes on fire, and hopefully will never become, but maybe its intersting to know what sources near the pilot could cause so much fire.. maybe oxygen bottles?

If this was a photograph of a real Fw-200 then all of these questions would be valid. However, this is what happens to an FW-200 in SoW when it catches fire, because that's how they've programed it, and, no doubt, the countless other aircraft in the game. the fire has to be able to happen at anytime and any number of times during a game. To expect 100% photorealistic flames on demand, on top of everything else this sofware has to do is stupid. To then take it down to what's flammable and whats not inside the individual aircraft is again a symptom of unrealistic expectations and pointless over-complications that seem the norm.

I can still tell the difference between a million dollar hollywood CGI explosion and a real explosion. Your expectations are too high.

[Baron]

Your expectations are too high.


And then some.



And Oleg? Hes only made a living of of this for decades so what the hell does he know, right?

[bf-110]

Я,indeed,the front gunner seems to have two MGs,but that´s the shadow.

And I know this will surely enrage the community,but I tought the fire in SoW too be too graphic/too artificial.IL2 fire looks more authentic.

[Flying Pencil]

If this was a photograph of a real Fw-200 then all of these questions would be valid. However, this is what happens to an FW-200 in SoW when it catches fire, because that's how they've programed it, and, no doubt, the countless other aircraft in the game. the fire has to be able to happen at anytime and any number of times during a game. To expect 100% photorealistic flames on demand, on top of everything else this sofware has to do is stupid. To then take it down to what's flammable and whats not inside the individual aircraft is again a symptom of unrealistic expectations and pointless over-complications that seem the norm.

I can still tell the difference between a million dollar hollywood CGI explosion and a real explosion. Your expectations are too high.

And your expectations are too low.

Most of the people in this forum have seen films of REAL aircraft on fire, with the poor souls on board, going down. They have a good idea what it looks like.

Storm of War is a game/sim based on REALITY. To shortcut major effects like a realistic fire effect destroys the simulated reality this game tries to deliver, and what you, me, and everyone else will pay a huge amount for (including price of hardware).

You, winny, are in NO position to make a judgment call on this, nor am I to insist it should be done different. It's completely up to Oleg and team to decide if it's good or needs more polish.

If you disagree with me, make it brief, don't fill out topics with useless chatter wasting everyone time to read it, including Oleg's.

Thank you.

[AndyJWest]

Storm of War is a game/sim based on REALITY.

But are your expectations of it based on reality? Just how often do you expect to be flying an aircraft close enough to a burning bomber to be able to see that the flames are 2m further forward than you'd expect them to be? If minor details are that significant to you, I'd suggest you avoid computer simulations. They don't model reality exactly. They can't. They never will. Some of us have enough imagination to accept this, and enjoy them for what they are.

[DB605]

But are your expectations of it based on reality? Just how often do you expect to be flying an aircraft close enough to a burning bomber to be able to see that the flames are 2m further forward than you'd expect them to be? If minor details are that significant to you, I'd suggest you avoid computer simulations. They don't model reality exactly. They can't. They never will. Some of us have enough imagination to accept this, and enjoy them for what they are.

+1, exactly.

[kendo65]

Between the bomb cells and fuselage are oxygen bottles, and between the cells along the catwalk is a hydraulic tank, both of which will provide ample fuel sources (ok ok, 1 is an oxidizer).

There is also some electrical circuits that could short and burn too.

You wrote the answer to all this here yourself I think. Fuel isn't the only thing that can cause a fire in an aircraft.

Oxygen, ammunition, electrical equipment - all can start fires. Maybe smaller than a full-on fuel conflagration to start with - but small fires can get bigger FAST, and set off oxygen bottles, etc.

Also, I think the flames really are looking fine - it's very hard to judge in a static screenshot how the full in-motion effect will come across.

Plus, despite having seen this in a few updates now I'm STILL blown away by the depiction of fire within the fuselage. Have read many stories about aircrew's terror of the possibility of fire and now for the first time in a flightsim we have something that really gets that across. Fire effects in il2 had a sort of bolted on, 'abstract' quality about them.

But this really gets across that visceral terror thing I think. Raises the question of how it will appear from first person perspective to a crewman inside the plane?!

Also - expect to see cockpit fires in single-seat fighters.

[winny]

And your expectations are too low.

Most of the people in this forum have seen films of REAL aircraft on fire, with the poor souls on board, going down. They have a good idea what it looks like.

Storm of War is a game/sim based on REALITY. To shortcut major effects like a realistic fire effect destroys the simulated reality this game tries to deliver, and what you, me, and everyone else will pay a huge amount for (including price of hardware).

You, winny, are in NO position to make a judgment call on this, nor am I to insist it should be done different. It's completely up to Oleg and team to decide if it's good or needs more polish.

If you disagree with me, make it brief, don't fill out topics with useless chatter wasting everyone time to read it, including Oleg's.

Thank you.

I'm pretty sure the devs also know what fire looks like. Fill out topics with useless chatter!? I've posted less than 10 times on here. I stand by what I said.

[Feuerfalke]

Just one question: Do you really insist that Oleg should move more people from making physics, damage or map-modeling to create more realistic flames, smoke and explosions that render at 80FPS on your medicore PC?

How else would you describe your ... input as constructive criticism?

[philip.ed]

It's Oleg's choice whether the contructive-critiscism is used or not. Whine all you want after every post or every topic where someone posts something that they feel can be tweaked. All you comment does is turn a perfectly acceptable topic/post sour. If you think the person(s) are polluting the topic by saying their knit-picks, then your doing the same by starting the same argument every week.

Some people feel that constructive crticism is helpful; others don't, and then again other people have different measures for it. We're all different and similar in many ways, so you can't please everyone with every-post. So please, stop slamming others when they write a post. Just leave it out, and you'll find the forum will be a lot friendlier.

Here's an example; if I hadn't told Oleg (and another person I know on this forum told Oleg too) that the RAF flight kit on the pilot was wrong, then it would still be today. Now, it was his decision whether it should be changed or not, but he thought it should be so I sent a load of info for him to use.
There-we go; that's a prime example of how these updates can be used to tweak a product. Even if SoW is released soon and no further changes are made to the released-product, there will be patches. It's all one massive development cycle.

[Meusli]

Has Oleg ever given you guys a reply to your weekly whining? No he hasn't. It makes it pretty clear to me he is ignoring your ridiculous requests and nick picking solutions as he knows it's impossible to please you all. Every week there are pictures posted with WIP explained in the blurb above and some people take that as a green light to buff up there chest and declare that this is wrong and that needs changing.

I can tell when someone with real knowledge suggests something that is correct as Oleg and Luthier always take time to reply to them or fix what was wrong. Take csThor's request this week about the markings, he was replied to in two posts with an answer, have you guys ever gotten an answer?

[RedToo]

Oleg does listen and Oleg does reply - when he has time. I have sent pictures and information to Oleg for BoB SoW and he has a) used the info. and b) replied personally about it.

It is worthwhile posting constructive criticism in a measured way backed up with evidence. Frantishek is picking up on a small point but he is going about it in the right way. I'm with him on this one.

RedToo.

[philip.ed]

I'm sorry, I didn't realise the open forum could read my e-mails....
the answer is this; yes, personal replys have been given by Oleg. recently, I cant say, they are just too busy.

Oleg will reply if he wants to. No-one can explain either way the reasons why he won't. Many aspects of the sim have been changed following on from peoples comments, without any real conversation coming from Oleg. Take the 110 model for example; he exhanged a few posts with Zorin, but nothing really more than that (unless they went into e-mails). Aspects have been changed and probably will be after release if Il-2 is anything to go by. But recently, you may be correct, perhaps they get annoyed; but all they need to do is say so much or have the topic locked with no discussion.

I have yet to see the full RAF pilot to know if Oleg has used my information, but he was thankful for it and it took me a long time to put it together.


Edit-red-too posted before me, but clearly we're on the same song-sheet. ;)

[LukeFF]

IMO the issue is that there are two types of criticisms being leveled here: one about factual, non-subjective issues and another about subjective issues:

-"Factual issues": the issues with the Bf 110 model, German tactical codes, the modeling of the RAF flight vest, etc. Those are all well and good. Back when I was modeling the He 162 cockpit, I had to correct Oleg on a couple of mistakes that were made with the textures, and they were duly fixed. The point is that, with these, it's easy to overlook things or make mistakes, so it's good to see the community point out problems such as these.

-"Subjective Issues" : these are the ones that the community gets bogged down in and, frankly, makes me (and probably the dev team as well) laugh. "The Hurricane pilot is too small" (followed by endless pictures of Hurricane pilots, without any context given); "the terrain is too washed-out; "the aircraft textures are too low-detailed," etc., etc.

Now, if 1C and Oleg were entirely new to the flight sim scene, then maybe I'd see the validity in such criticism. But come on, they've been in this business for how long now? They're not idiots. Oleg is an amateur photographer, and Ilya (Luthier) is no dummy either. They don't need people pointing out to them week after week after week after week the same old things that are obviously WIP.

WIP, as in "Work in Progress." As in, "not finalized, still being altered." Some people have a hard time understanding that, and it's a big reason why other developers like Battlefront hardly put out any WIP images at all.

[philip.ed]

Actually, I agree with you in many sense Luke, but I have noticed some things in terms of the environment here in Britain that are different to other countries.

The first is clouds. Clouds in temperate countries like Britain look quite a lot different than ones, say, in a place like Russia or a hot country like Egypt. Of course some may read this and laugh, as it is quite a specific thing to focus on compared to the wider aspect of the sim, but it can make all the difference.
The other thing is colours. Of course the colours of grass and the way fields are like will be different in England than a foreign country. Grass colour is quite an anal thing to focus on, I know, but the grass does look quite green and seeing as though the BoB went on throughout one of britain's hottest summers, then really I feel that the grass should look drier.

obviously to some gamers these things matter, others don't notice them. Let's say SoW was released before we saw all these updates, we/I would never focus on these details unless it came about the sim could be improved in pactches. The one thing about being able to view these pictures over and over every friday is that we end of scrutinizing them. We can't see how the sim operates, and so we can;t realize what it's like in game. Even if the game were paused and one moved the camera slightly, things would look a lot different and we'd be better able to comment.

So really every comment needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. All we can really do is comment on what we see. It's up to Oleg, Luthier and the team to decide whether our comments are beneficial or not.

But yes, I will level with you; it must be annoying to some to see similar comments every week about the same things (terrain, colours etc etc). But until there is a comment by Oleg or Luthier, I know it will continue. WIP is a general term, so we can only presume that it applies to everything. But really our comments are just there to help them tweak the sim. Boblast (I think) posted an excellent colour shot from just after the BoB (from Life magazine) which really shows how the colours could be optimized. I will point out to Oleg, though, that the RAF pilot gear there is post-BoB or either pilot modified :-P

I think we could write and debate all day, and it may be a learning curve for some, but boring for others. Ultimately, we'd all like to see the sim soon just to be able to see what it is really like. A video update just showing the current state of the sim would be a lot of minds at rest ;)

[Avimimus]

Btw. Oleg has incorporated numerous feedback over the years. He is incredibly responsive (given development schedules and funding). Some of my requests were even included.

I'm sure that they are spending too much time checking feedback given that most features must be almost fixed by this point in development (and given that they've been collecting input for it for almost a decade).

It is quite wise of them to use Luthier's weaker machine for screenshots - when they show state of the art screenshots criticism will turn into hype (right before release).

Under promising and over delivering - while still keeping this forum overfed.

[proton45]

I dont see flames coming out of the pilots cabin....

[ElAurens]

Agree with you proton45.

Look at the shots of the model then carefully look at that wonderful screenshot. It certainly looks like the fire is coming from the area of the first fuselage fuel tank and the large oxygen bottle there.

Oleg is correct, as he is more often than not.

Nothing else to see here, move along.

[philip.ed]

..hang on a sec guv


wot 'bout the fire, I says? Ah, I says; that fire right there don' look right. Look at this, says I:

http://www.morethanpoints.com/files/engine_fire.JPG

can ya see the fuselage behind tha flames, I ask? Nah, mate; you can'. Tha' fire in the screenshot looks like a lil' pussy in comparison.

Now, look here says I:

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/shot_20100712_120022-92x92.jpg

Ignore the smoke m'lads; focus on tha' roaring fire. Now, that's wha' I'm talking 'bout.

[Meusli]

Now, look here says I:

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/shot_20100712_120022-92x92.jpg

Ignore the smoke m'lads; focus on tha' roaring fire. Now, that's wha' I'm talking 'bout.

Lol, that's the smallest linked screen shot ever. :)

The thing with fire though is that it's a very changeable beast. This could be at any point in it's life, it could just be getting going and the best is to come.

[philip.ed]

Whoops, I says. Perhaps this will help; me thinks.

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/shot_20100712_120022.jpg

A good point you have, I may add.

[bf-110]

Whoops, I says. Perhaps this will help; me thinks.

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/shot_20100712_120022.jpg

A good point you have, I may add.

This fire looks awesome!I would even say it´s totally different from the FW-200 one.Maybe the problem was the time the SS was taken.

[Romanator21]

Oleg has shown different types of fire for different types of fuels. Compare the FW-200, to the Ju-88s, to the Ju-87.

[proton45]

Their are so many reasons why the "fire" in the screen shot can't be logically picked apart...

1) Comparing the ss to a real photo is imposable...if you know anything about light exposure and film you know that range of contrast becomes distorted when shooting into a bright light source.

2) You are picking apart one frame from from a moving/evolving image...How do you know that the one frame they chose to post isn't a low point between flare ups? And for that matter, I have seen real footage of burning aeroplanes where the intensity of the flames did not remain constant.

3) these ss are a WIP...nuff said.

[SaQSoN]

For those, who has no knowledge about WWII aircraft design, but feels himself knowledgeable enough to comment what can and what can not be in those aircraft:

There are a lots of fuel related controls and instruments in the pilot's cockpit, such as fuel cocks, fuel tank selectors, manual fuel pumps, primer pumps, fuel pressure manometers, etc. All this devices are connected to the aircraft fuel system with numerous fuel lines, which go through wings and fuselage to the cockpit. And all those lines are modeled in the collision model in the game. Any of this lines may be damaged and become the source of fuel leak and fire.

[Romanator21]

How can you be sure that those systems have hit-boxes in the DM? Or are you part of the development team and know something we all don't? :grin:

[Blackdog_kt]

He's absolutely right about the way it is in real aircraft. Now, as far as the simulator goes i think he's in some way connected to the dev team, if not directly a part of it.

That of course makes me real glad to hear the explanation...if the fuel controls in the cockpit have a DM, then they probably also function just like the real ones :grin:

[philip.ed]

Aye, I says. Proton has a good point there. Wiv these static screens, we can't half get the true picture.
But; can ya' see through fire in that way?

[JVM]

No I do not think so. Even in a small fire or an evolving fire, the flame is always much brighter than the background and "hides" it effectively.
Do not forget than from this brightness standpoint the (fuel related like in the Fw, presumably) Wellington flames are spot on.
On th eother hand shapes and smoke transitions are very good on the Fw...I am pretty sure tha Luthier is simply showing a lot of possibilities and they have a pretty good idea of what is right!
Generally speaking, all airborne flames are too bright to see behind; they maybe of different sizes or colors depending of what is burning, in which quantity, and what are the aircraft speed and altitude (the latter ones are very important, but probably not yet simulated in SoW, and probably not before long...).
The smoke is another matter entirely.

JV

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Or are you part of the development team

He is indeed.

[ElAurens]

Yes indeed. When SaQSoN speaks it's time for you guys to stand down and actually listen for a change.

And if you all had been paying any kind of attention to what has been written about SOW, and not just glomming on to every screen capture like a flock of crows pecking at a carcass you would know that individual systems in the aircraft will all have their own discreet damage models.

But carry on with your dog and pony show of screen shot debauchery, it's actually fairly entertaining.

[T}{OR]

Yes indeed. When SaQSoN speaks it's time for you guys to stand down and actually listen for a change.

And if you all had been paying any kind of attention to what has been written about SOW, and not just glomming on to every screen capture like a flock of crows pecking at a carcass you would know that individual systems in the aircraft will all have their own discreet damage models.

But carry on with your dog and pony show of screen shot debauchery, it's actually fairly entertaining.


Well said.

[philip.ed]

It still doesn't answer the question of the transparent fire. Is this shot just showing the fire starting or what? I'm only asking, as I've yet to see an aircraft on fire and be able to see though the flames to the fuselage section.

[Flying Pencil]

I'm pretty sure the devs also know what fire looks like. Fill out topics with useless chatter!? I've posted less than 10 times on here. I stand by what I said.

Your first post in this thread is:
"That's exactly what I was thinking.. Antennagate is now firegate.. ffs. "

Since you said you do not post useless chatter, then it must be serious.
So, Oleg and team reads this apparently serious statement,... what are you trying to say?

Just one question: Do you really insist that Oleg should move more people from making physics, damage or map-modeling to create more realistic flames, smoke and explosions that render at 80FPS on your medicore PC?

How else would you describe your ... input as constructive criticism?

I never said Oleg/1C do anything more then take a look at what I am saying and the detail provided.

It is up to Oleg to decide if it's worth modifying, and if so the priority and effort decided to expend on it.

Oleg does listen and Oleg does reply - when he has time. I have sent pictures and information to Oleg for BoB SoW and he has a) used the info. and b) replied personally about it.

It is worthwhile posting constructive criticism in a measured way backed up with evidence. Frantishek is picking up on a small point but he is going about it in the right way. I'm with him on this one.

RedToo.

Thank you.

To rest:
Oleg has demanded an unprecedented amount of detail in SoW, it is sure to be the Sim to compare with for years, maybe decades.
Details is what Oleg is looking at, and this is a detail.

I present him an opinion, an explanation, and historical documents best as I can provide. Rest is Oleg. (This is not the first game I beta tested!)


Someone said who will notice? Others will. It will not happen often, but their will be times when players will be in positions to see a flaming aircraft for a few seconds, and will see those details.
Such as this one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Douglas_A-20J-10-DO_050606-F-1234P-024_USAF.jpg

[Romanator21]

There are a lots of fuel related controls and instruments in the pilot's cockpit, such as fuel cocks, fuel tank selectors, manual fuel pumps, primer pumps, fuel pressure manometers, etc. All this devices are connected to the aircraft fuel system with numerous fuel lines, which go through wings and fuselage to the cockpit. And all those lines are modeled in the collision model in the game. Any of this lines may be damaged and become the source of fuel leak and fire.

And if you all had been paying any kind of attention to what has been written about SOW, and not just glomming on to every screen capture like a flock of crows pecking at a carcass you would know that individual systems in the aircraft will all have their own discreet damage models.

Well, my apologies for offending anyone...It was just surprising - It has been said of course that the DM would be more detailed, but I don't think it has been said explicitly to what degree.

Modeling cylinders and prop-governors is a little different that modeling a thin fuel line, and structuring flames to erupt from the exact point that the little line is hit. It seemed too good to be true, not to say that Oleg&Co aren't programming miracle workers.


Anyway, I thought I'd repost this:

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/collisionmodeldm2.jpg

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/dm3.jpg

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/dm4.jpg

It's a little old (2005) so a lot could have changed, bit it's not totally obvious from this that fuel lines are modeled. Likely, I don't fully understand what is going on in these illustrations. This was the cause of my "skepticism" of such fine detail.

However, one can see how this surpasses Il-2 in all counts. You can clearly see the spars, control lines, hinges/attachment points for control surfaces, firewalls, bulkheads, armor plates/glass, radiators, governors, engine block, supercharger, oil reservoir, guns, ammo bins, radio, battery, etc.

[Romanator21]

Such as this one:

You have to be careful when using wartime photography, or any photography for that matter. The camera captures things a little differently than the human eye, especially with regard to points of light, like flames.

[Flying Pencil]

Btw. Oleg has incorporated numerous feedback over the years. He is incredibly responsive (given development schedules and funding). Some of my requests were even included.

I'm sure that they are spending too much time checking feedback given that most features must be almost fixed by this point in development (and given that they've been collecting input for it for almost a decade).


Yes.

Luke and Pillip.ed are also right.

What will help everyone is make the initial comment as detailed as possible and move on, except if more info is discovered. Its up to the pros @ 1C to go with it.

[Flying Pencil]

Anyway, I thought I'd repost this:

(cutaway images)

It's a little old (2005) so a lot could have changed, bit it's not totally obvious from this that fuel lines are modeled. Likely, I don't fully understand what is going on in these illustrations. This was the cause of my "skepticism" of such fine detail.

However, one can see how this surpasses Il-2 in all counts. You can clearly see the spars, control lines, hinges/attachment points for control surfaces, firewalls, bulkheads, armor plates/glass, radiators, governors, engine block, supercharger, oil reservoir, guns, ammo bins, radio, battery, etc.

Thanks for posting!

I have seen cutaways of other SoW aircraft, but I do not think ever the damage model.
It has an amazing amount of detail, including numerous spar structures, which likely means more fidelity on structural damage till break.

[Romanator21]

Phillip, the photo you posted of the American Airlines is a fake. Now you definitely can't use that as reference, lol. :-)

http://morethanpoints.com/files/engine_fire.JPG

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/taste_jones/777-AA-orginal.jpg

[JVM]

Yes, but there are many others which are not fakes...like this one (of 2 P38 having had a severe brush-up) I find interesting: very limited fire speed = 0...and no transparency of flame....
You can also have a look to this too well known one:

http://photos.signonsandiego.com/080920PSA/PSACrash25Sep1978

This is still for me one of the most tragic images I have ever seen and I prefer not to post it here, but it does make a point fire-wise.

JV

[winny]

There are some shots of aircraft fires in this video.

Some of them are huge. All of them are pretty humbling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oav6I0DcfY&NR=1

This is very quick but still shows fire quite well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkc9ErXm83s

[philip.ed]

Phillip, the photo you posted of the American Airlines is a fake. Now you definitely can't use that as reference, lol. :-)

http://morethanpoints.com/files/engine_fire.JPG

http://graphics2.snopes.com/photos/airplane/graphics/fire2_small.jpg


Should I cry? It's just a demonstration. If some photoshop idiot can get it right, then why can't a group that's been working with flight-sims for years? A simple answer on how fire can possibly look like that would be great (obviously Oleg isn't entitled to answer!). I mean, obviously it might be the way the shot has been taken (or when it was taken) but I'v never seen this in all the guncam clips I've seen or even in real-life images.

I mean, if this is fuel related the flames should be fierce. Puny flames like this would surely be extinguished easily by the airflow?

[Romanator21]

Umm, thanks for editing my post? What was the point in that replacing an aircraft image with that green thing? So I look more antagonizing? Get a life.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/taste_jones/777-AA-orginal.jpg

If some photoshop idiot can get it right, then why can't a group that's been working with flight-sims for years?

How can you say he/she got it right? Just because it looks cool?

You seem to think that making flame effects is bone-headedly easy. If it is, why don't you show us some examples of your own work?

Puny flames like this would surely be extinguished easily by the airflow?

A flame (though fake) totally surrounding an engine is not puny. Flowing air can actually fan the flames and make them stronger. Dripping fuel can hit the air and "vaporize" in a trailing cloud like you see in Il-2 and ignite at any moment.

[winny]

Another (very famous) aircraft on fire.

The tragic concorde fuel tank rupture.

http://yenisafak.com.tr/resim/site/concorde02c0821802a3930eby.jpg

[philip.ed]

Umm, thanks for editing my post? What was the point in that replacing an aircraft image with that green thing? So I look more antagonizing? Get a life.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/taste_jones/777-AA-orginal.jpg



How can you say he/she got it right? Just because it looks cool?

You seem to think that making flame effects is bone-headedly easy. If it is, why don't you show us some examples of your own work?



A flame (though fake) totally surrounding an engine is not puny. Flowing air can actually fan the flames and make them stronger. Dripping fuel can hit the air and "vaporize" in a trailing cloud like you see in Il-2 and ignite at any moment.

I didn't edit it......i thought you were doing that to antagonize me :rolleyes: Ask Nearmiss if you don't believe me. it was in your post when I quoted you.

Regarding flames, calm down! I am basing all my knowledge on countless amounts of guncam videos I've seen. When I have fires in my fireplace, i can't see the bricks behind the flames, yet clearly here the flames are on such a small level one can. Now, there may be more scientific reasons (such as the fact that some flames on the hottest heat burn blue and are partly see-through, ie a bunsen burner) but I don't know. I've searched for pictures that match this one, and I can't find any.
My point is that this photoshop job does look realistic; a lot more than in this screenshot.
As I said, factors can affect this (like the movement in the game that will affect the screenshot) but I don't know.
All I've been trying to say is there is not a lot of historical evidence to support the flame-effect. Various factors may make it completely plausible but it's easier to go on what you know than 'maybe's'.

EDIT-did you deliberately want me to quote you and then change the picture to make me look like a prick? You edited your post after you posted this one! So you did insert that picture...or did it just appear there?

[Romanator21]

I fixed my post so it would be like I ORIGINALLY posted it. I don't know how that green face got in there. If it wasn't you, then I apologize, but now I wonder who did it.

[The Kraken]

I fixed my post so it would be like I ORIGINALLY posted it. I don't know how that green face got in there. If it wasn't you, then I apologize, but now I wonder who did it.

You were hotlinking to a site that doesn't like hotlinking - when you check the image properties of the smiley image, it still says

http://graphics2.snopes.com/photos/airplane/graphics/fire2_small.jpg

which is the image you wanted to post. Your post probably looked fine to you because the image was still in the browser cache. Everyone else however saw the simley.

No harm done :)

[philip.ed]

OK, thanks for that. And Romanator; I apologies mate; I should not have jumped to those conclusions and gone off like that. So sorry for that.

Man, Oleg and Luthier do a good job of creating internal tensions here :grin: lol

[ElAurens]

Man, Oleg and Luthier do a good job of creating internal tensions here :grin: lol


Oleg and Luthier have nothing to do with it. :grin:

[philip.ed]

No, i meant in terms of publicising the update. Obviously there are people who favor criticism and other who just think; 'hell yeah this is awesome!' :D
I think the latter with every update, but obviously in the anti-social form of internet conversation, it's extremely hard to get that view across all the time if I ever say a comment that involves criticism :D
I don't even feel that there's much to criticise. There's just general aspects of some screenshots that makes one want to ask a question about what's going on etc. Scrutinizing them, clearly, only serves to highlight tiny (maybe unnoticeable?) things that we wouldn't see in-flight.
But this is life :D