FAQ-QUESTIONS,release date,system specs, for CoD

[nearmiss]

The two most asked question on this forums are:

1. When will BOB SOW be released or or in other words, when can we buy it?
2. What will the system specs be for the BOB SOW?

The answers to these questions are:

1. The release date for BOB SOW is not known at this time.
2. System specifications are not known at this time.

You may ask in this thread for information regarding the release of SOW and system specs.

Make all your requests for information about the release date or system specs in this thread please.

Any new or latest information will be known and discussed here.

All postings dealing with the above two questions will be deleted or moved to this thread, so save everyone some time and post here.

If you see a posting asking either of these two questions... just give them a link to this thread.

Or advise them to look for the sticky thread that starts with QUESTIONS

Or advise them to search on Questions, release date, or system specs

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=16401

Here a couple of links Russian site with alot of developer information.

I used Google translate from Russian to English.

Look in the left most column for Oleg Medox to select from the 2 part article.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spr ead-wings.ru%2Findex.php (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spread-wings.ru%2Findex.php)

Here is a recent article from Simhq.com MaY 2009

http://www.simhq.com/_air11/air_341a.html (http://www.simhq.com/_air11/air_341a.html)

Links to information on this site to information, discussion and questions with Oleg.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2039 (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2039)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=6909 (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=6909)

Here is an interview from Check-Sixe

http://www.checksix-fr.com/articles/Articles_html/inter_Oleg_Foxy/interview_oleg_foxy_EN.html (http://www.checksix-fr.com/articles/Articles_html/inter_Oleg_Foxy/interview_oleg_foxy_EN.html)

Oleg or Luthier post an update almost weekly (on Friday) look in the topmost sticky threads of the forums. The updates always include the date.

There is also a complete list of update thread links on this forums

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=16073 (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=16073)

You can also read through the update threads for additional information. Oleg or Luthier have often answered and had discussions with members about the SOW in those threads.

After you have reviewed all the above information you will be as informed as we all are, apart from the people who are actually involved in the development of the SOW.

[Fafnir_6]

Hello,

Thanks for collecting all the discussions/interviews in one place. I hadn't seen some of the Russian language stuff. Will you be adding to this post as new material becomes available?? That might come in handy for new-comers to the site.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[furbs]

Cheers Nearmiss...good idea...though the first few lines made me spit my coffee, i was laughing so much :)

The two most asked question on this forums are:

1. When will BOB SOW be released or or in other words, when can we buy it.
2. What will the system specs be for the BOB SOW.

The answers to these questions are:

1. The release date for BOB SOW is not known at this time.
2. System specifications are not known at this time. :)

[Oldschool61]

Since we cant ask the secret question, then Oleg how soon do you expect to start working on your next project? And do you think I can run SOW with a Geforce 9800 with 1gb of ram?

[nearmiss]

Cheers Nearmiss...good idea...though the first few lines made me spit my coffee, i was laughing so much :)

The two most asked question on this forums are:

1. When will BOB SOW be released or or in other words, when can we buy it.
2. What will the system specs be for the BOB SOW.

The answers to these questions are:

1. The release date for BOB SOW is not known at this time.
2. System specifications are not known at this time. :)

LOL - I'm glad you picked up on that, hope it inspires the day for you.

[nearmiss]

Since we cant ask the secret question, then Oleg how soon do you expect to start working on your next project? And do you think I can run SOW with a Geforce 9800 with 1gb of ram?

Secret question? What would that be?

I can't imagine any question that hasn't been asked.

[Trumper]

:grin: Instead of asking "when it will be released" can we ask when will Oleg be announcing when it will be released :grin:
Would it be possible to enquire politely if some more video footage could be released please . TA.

[nearmiss]

Trumper - I think you are splitting hairs, but hey it is a variation of the question... when will it be released.

Sure you can ask, as you will in this thread. Obviously, there will be variations of questions regarding release times, etc. The purpose of this thread is to consolidate questions in one place regarding release date and system specs.

Posters can add information that helps others.
Referral links should answer alot of poster questions, which are in this thread.

The purpose of the thread is just to keep the two common questions from continuing to popup all over the forums, which cause off topic discussions.

[pupaxx]

Dear nearmiss,
aproaching the matter from a different angle.....What are actually system specs of an average computer Oleg is using to test and develop SOW?
:grin::grin::grin:
Ciao!

[Fafnir_6]

Dear nearmiss,
aproaching the matter from a different angle.....What are actually system specs of an average computer Oleg is using to test and develop SOW?
:grin::grin::grin:
Ciao!

Hello,

I thought I remembered reading somewhere that the testing was done on Core 2 Duo machines (I don't know any other specs). This is very nebulous and of dubious reliability, so don't quote me.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[Hood]

Um until the release date is posted, and system specs details given then this thread is pretty pointless. In any case details like release dates and system specs are always subject to change depending on software testing, late coding and/or publishers' demands.

All it takes is a little patience. It'll happen when it happens and not before. :grin:

Hood

It's human nature to gripe, but I'm going ahead and doing the best I can. Elvis Presley

[bf-110]

I suppose SoW will need a strong machine,just by looking at the SSs.

If Berlin used to lag a bit for me when I had closer look at the buildings,imagine the same concentration of building but with far higher details.

[GOA_Potenz]

If Berlin used to lag a bit for me when I had closer look at the buildings,imagine the same concentration of building but with far higher details.

That's isn't quite right to take as example, you can see big cities at RoF ( the newest sim we can compare) and there's no lag, the problem with berlin is related to Il-2 engine, remember that is a 10 years old engine, with so much
limititation for now days standars, so i'm 100% sure that big cities wouldn't be
a lag problem in SoW, also remember that new softwares take advantages of
multicores, feature that Il-2 doesm't support.

[smokincrater]

Two Weeks

[baronWastelan]

Q: 3. will BOB SOW be released in time for the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain?

A: 3. No

[=XIII=Shea]

I am reconing we will see it released before Xmas:-P

[Hecke]

I am reconing we will see it released before Xmas:-P

I agree. I would say it is possible for Oleg to release before the 31 October (end of battle of britain)

[matsher]

Hi Guys,

Been following the updates for a while now and this weeks is simply ridiculous. It's like eye rape.

Maybe you can answer 2 questions for me.

1. Field Of Vision - In IL-2 the max FOV is 90degrees left/right and with the cockpit taking up much of the up down space makes flying in cockpit a real challenge. Even with a Track IR.

Question/request:- Will there/can there be an option to increase max FOV to say 105 - 110deg? To bring the view closer to human FOV. For me having better situational awareness counts so much toward the enjoyment and gameplay.


2. Full cockpit vs Wonderview:- In IL-2 there is either Full cockpit or gunsight and sky. Nothing inbetween. It would be so good if there was a third option.

Question/request:- Will/can there be a player defined option to set the cockpit at 65% (or so) opacity, so pilots can still have more "sky" but also can have the feeling that they are still flying a beautifully rendered fighter plane?

Not too sure what the technical implications of the second request are but I had to ask anyway.

So 15-20 degrees wider max FOV and cockpit opacity settings (as the new wonderview) are my dream requests... Otherwise I am just going to have to bite the bullet and get a monster rig with 2 more 22" widescreens, which will solve my FOV question... But the cockpit opacity settings would be amazing to have... No longer will we have to choose between dynamic gameplay (Wonderview) and immersion (In cockpit)... We could have both.

Please give me feedback guys, I am interested to know your opinions on these questions/requests.

[Blackdog_kt]

I dislike wonder woman view but it's good for getting true airspeed readings in a hurry when i'm flying a bomber offline :grin:

On the other hand, just because i don't use an option doesn't mean others won't find it useful and i always say that the more options there are, the better each game scales to people's tastes (dependant on development time constraints of course).
I guess that having varying opacity levels would be a good way to gradually ease people from low difficulty to high difficulty settings, which is a good thing.

As for FOV, i think IL2 suffers mainly from lack of widescreen support that messes up the FOV a lot. I am a late comer to LCD monitors and having flown with a trinitron tube CRT up until last year, i can say that the decreased vertical FOV when scaling IL2 to widescreen resolutions is noticeable, but not game-breaking thanks to my using a TrackIR 4 set. Since SoW will have support for widescreen resolutions right out of the box, i guess we'll see a much better implementation and maybe more customization options.

[zapatista]

1. Field Of Vision - In IL-2 the max FOV is 90degrees left/right and with the cockpit taking up much of the up down space makes flying in cockpit a real challenge. Even with a Track IR.

Question/request:- Will there/can there be an option to increase max FOV to say 105 - 110deg? To bring the view closer to human FOV. For me having better situational awareness counts so much toward the enjoyment and gameplay.....................................Not too sure what the technical implications of the second request are but I had to ask anyway.

So 15-20 degrees wider max FOV and cockpit opacity settings (as the new wonderview) are my dream requests... Otherwise I am just going to have to bite the bullet and get a monster rig with 2 more 22" widescreens, which will solve my FOV question... But the cockpit opacity settings would be amazing to have... No longer will we have to choose between dynamic gameplay (Wonderview) and immersion (In cockpit)... We could have both.

Please give me feedback guys, I am interested to know your opinions on these questions/requests.

you'r asking your question in the wrong location, having it mixed up in the bottom of an "irrelevant BoB question thread" means it is unlikely to get noticed, however...

there is a technical reason why most games in recent years have a max 90 degree FoV when looking at a single display, it has to do with the inherent limitations in how the game is programmed and the physics of the game engine itself. this has been discussed a number of times in several flightsim forums over the years, and that is about what it amounts to.

one very informed poster at the zoo is an astrophysicist and he gave a simplified explanation at the time of why this was the case. there are also good article on this online

for a gaming pc it also only makes sense if you have something like a 30' monitor or larger. the 27' i am currently using only represents a 55' FoV iirc (depending on how close you sit to the display), and setting it any larger forces an artificially wide FoV on a to-small display, hence shrinking all the onscreen objects (making them seem much farther away then they really are). this might be briefly useful for a snap view setting in a dogfight to maintain SA, but since real pilots didnt have that option you are "gaming the game" and one could argue it isnt "simulating the ww2 pilot experience".

in short, you can get a wider then 90 FoV, but you need multiple monitors. if you are using a 22 atm then using 3 of them will give you about 130 degrees of view iirc

[janpitor]

But the real pilots had peripheral vision...I fly with il2 fov changer and it really seems much more natural for me while flying.

[The Kraken]

you'r asking your question in the wrong location, having it mixed up in the bottom of an "irrelevant BoB question thread" means it is unlikely to get noticed, however...

there is a technical reason why most games in recent years have a max 90 degree FoV when looking at a single display, it has to do with the inherent limitations in how the game is programmed and the physics of the game engine itself. this has been discussed a number of times in several flightsim forums over the years, and that is about what it amounts to.

one very informed poster at the zoo is an astrophysicist and he gave a simplified explanation at the time of why this was the case. there are also good article on this online

for a gaming pc it also only makes sense if you have something like a 30' monitor or larger. the 27' i am currently using only represents a 55' FoV iirc (depending on how close you sit to the display), and setting it any larger forces an artificially wide FoV on a to-small display, hence shrinking all the onscreen objects (making them seem much farther away then they really are). this might be briefly useful for a snap view setting in a dogfight to maintain SA, but since real pilots didnt have that option you are "gaming the game" and one could argue it isnt "simulating the ww2 pilot experience".

in short, you can get a wider then 90 FoV, but you need multiple monitors. if you are using a 22 atm then using 3 of them will give you about 130 degrees of view iirc

Not really ;) There's no technical reason that limits the FOV (except that you can't go beyond 180° but by then you're looking at seriously distorted scenery), and the monitor size never comes into play for the code. It's only a question of personal preference whether you like a large FOV on a small screen; obviously a 3 monitor setup is more useful for >90° but that shouldn't keep people from using it on a single screen if they want to.

Myself, I've never used the 90° view of Il2 much so I didn't feel too restricted by the "lack of widescreen support", but again, to each his own. As Blackdog has said, SoW will probably feature higher field of view settings now that widescreens are common, and I expect we'll see 120° or even more as an option.

I also don't think it gives an unrealistic advantage - not everyone has a TrackIR yet and together with the limited resolution, we're still seriously limited when it comes to what we can see compared to a real pilot.

[Blackdog_kt]

I think it's about technical issues and scaling first and foremost. It's not that we get an unrealistic advantage, in fact a lot of people who fly sims and transition to real flying say that a lot of things are actually easier to do in the real aircraft, thanks to peripheral vision and sense of motion that we lack in sims.

I was curious about how much difference it makes, so i asked an old school buddy about it and he said the same. He's an airline pilot that finished his training a couple of years ago, but he also used civilian flight sims to practice IFR procedures at home before taking his checkrides and he still says that the main advantage of flight sims is the refly button, as for the rest it's easier to judge how the aircraft flies in real flight.

So, back on the topic of monitors, i think what people mean by FOV restrictions is not that it's impossible to code, but that there's a physics limit on how much FOV you can get for a given monitor size and resolution without it looking like a fish-eye lens photo to the human eye. I'm not surprised the explanation was given by an astrophysicist on the Ubi forums either. I'm almost at the point of dropping out of uni in favor of more technical oriented education in computers, but i've been in a physics facculty for a few years and my chosen field was astronomy. There is in fact a correlation between distance of objects on a projection surface (like the globe of the night sky or a PC monitor), real distance of said objects in units of length and the distance between observer and projection surface.

In simple terms, what it means is that we can't get the real distances between two parts of the cockpit on a PC monitor without zooming in so much that it destroys our situational awareness and yet, we can't zoom out far enough to keep perfect SA without distorting the picture either. It's sort of a balancing act.

On the other hand, increased realism needs more money and not everyone can afford TrackIR or multiple monitors. Which means that after a certain point in flight sim development, balancing for users with different peripherals has to take precedence in order to make sure there's nobody flying at a disadvantage.

In that sense i don't mind wider FOV settings, as long as there are people that will use them and the coding time doesn't get spent for nothing. As i always like to say, extra options are always good :grin:

[LoBiSoMeM]

In that sense i don't mind wider FOV settings, as long as there are people that will use them and the coding time doesn't get spent for nothing. As i always like to say, extra options are always good :grin:

Simple and perfect. I use FOV CHANGER in IL2 because if I use the "90º" default for widescreen fov I lost some up/down screen size in comparsion with a SMALLER 4:3 monitor, and all the "astrophysical" and "advantage" talking are meaningless.

A simple and necessary request for widescreen users: we need improved FOV settings than the vanilla IL2 have in SoW. And we need that in 4.10 too, not just in SoW BoB, by the way: I don't undestand why simple widescreen settings (without editing confi.ini) and large FOV options isn't implemented yet in a regular patch. Widescreen monitor are the standard now, and a FOV larger than 90º is a must in combat flight sim.

I use a maximum FOV in IL2 of 112º, and the distortion using a head tracking device is minimum in terms of "spoil" the immersion, and the distance/size relation of objects issue occurs in ANY FOV, by the way: we are representing a 3D world in a 2D display...

[=XIII=Shea]

why is your ip address need for il2fovchanger?i never installed it is it good?

[LoBiSoMeM]

why is your ip address need for il2fovchanger?i never installed it is it good?

It uses the DeviceLink approach, and is good, but when it lost connection with IL2 you will have a lot of headache during dogfights...

We need a SIMPLE option of larger maximum FOV in common IL2 settings, and in SoW BoB, of course.

I like distorted objects and fish eye vision in my tiny 22' 16:10 monitor:)

[Fafnir_6]

Simple and perfect. I use FOV CHANGER in IL2 because if I use the "90º" default for widescreen fov I lost some up/down screen size in comparsion with a SMALLER 4:3 monitor, and all the "astrophysical" and "advantage" talking are meaningless.

A simple and necessary request for widescreen users: we need improved FOV settings than the vanilla IL2 have in SoW. And we need that in 4.10 too, not just in SoW BoB, by the way: I don't undestand why simple widescreen settings (without editing confi.ini) and large FOV options isn't implemented yet in a regular patch. Widescreen monitor are the standard now, and a FOV larger than 90º is a must in combat flight sim.

I use a maximum FOV in IL2 of 112º, and the distortion using a head tracking device is minimum in terms of "spoil" the immersion, and the distance/size relation of objects issue occurs in ANY FOV, by the way: we are representing a 3D world in a 2D display...

It likely won't be in 4.10 since that patch is already in beta testing (unless DT plans some surprise for us :)). I suggest heading over to their request thread and asking (nicely) for FOV options to be added as part of 4.11 or some later patch.

Cheers and good luck,

Fafnir_6

[LoBiSoMeM]

It likely won't be in 4.10 since that patch is already in beta testing (unless DT plans some surprise for us :)). I suggest heading over to their request thread and asking (nicely) for FOV options to be added as part of 4.11 or some later patch.

Cheers and good luck,

Fafnir_6

Really, I don't have much hope to see this feature in IL2 1946, because is something so easy to do, and not implemented yet. Maybe other factors are involved, I don't know. I'm not making a "request" to DT, just pointing that not implement wider FOV settings and simple widescreen support in IL2 in 2010, with constant patch updating by almost ten years is really frustrating. We need larger FOV in 4.10, but we probably will not have it, for reasons I don't know.

I don't have hope for IL2, but maybe the same mistake isn't made in SoW: we need maximized SA in a combat FS without need to buy 3 monitors and a massive VGA, and we can have it with FOV larger than 90º.

[artjunky]

Um until the release date is posted...
All it takes is a little patience...

So how long should we have "patience?"

1 year? 2 years? 5? After all, they, Oleg started it.

[The Kraken]

So how long should we have "patience?"

Obviously until it's done. Not sure what the big deal is. Or did you invest in the development and are waiting for cash returns?

[zapatista]

Not really ;) There's no technical reason that limits the FOV

yes there sure is, and its called "Gnomonic distortion" :)

like all current flight simulator projects i know of (so far) IL-2 uses the Gnomonic projection method, and most likely BoB will do as well, in which case we will meet the same limitations. to explain this phenomena a little further, and the limitations it includes, i'll give some direct quotes by "lurch" at the zoo 4 or 5 yrs ago

IL-2 uses Gnomonic projection for the 1e person view. This is exactly the same as an image produced by a so-called "rectilinear" lens used by architectural photographers. All straight lines are always drawn straight, no matter where they appear in the view. But the main drawback is the severe radial distortion in wide fields of view. To visualize this kind of projection, imagine a transparent globe of the Earth, with a tiny light bulb located in its exact centre. Place a very large, perfectly flat sheet of paper against the globe, say with the contact point of the sheet and the globe at the location of your home town. Now turn on the light, and observe the lines of latitude/longitude and coastlines, etc. as projected onto the paper.

Within relatively close distances of your home, all will look pretty normal. But more distant regions will become progressively enlarged and stretched. In fact, it's impossible to map a full hemisphere (180 degrees) or more of a globe. Any place that's located 90 degrees from the centre of projection (your home town in this example) will appear to be projected infinitely far away on the sheet of paper.

So as you can see, with the Gnomonic projection there is an absolute limit of 180 degrees (a 90 degree radius from the centre of projection) for any projected view. In practice a more realistic limit, after which radial distortion becomes utterly extreme, would be about 120 degrees. But even that looks pretty weird. As I recall, the MS Flight Sim line allows such radically wide FOVs (with the associated distortions on the widest views).

and
A little-appreciated aspect of this is the variation of image scale across a wide angle view generated with the Gnomonic projection. If one were to generate a near-180 degree wide view, the central portions would be in effect infinitesimally small. A plane crossing the field would be a wee point in the central parts of the view, but would expand to a huge, near arrow-like streak as it approached the edge of the view.

so unless a different way is developed to model the 3D world in BoB/il2, we will meet the exact same limitations

I'm sure you've all seen the effects of Gnomonic distortion while playing IL-2. The most readily observable symptoms are the enlarged oval versions of circular objects which appear toward the edges/corners of the screen when using the wider FOV settings, especially the widest.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=3326&stc=1&d=1284951796

so as you can see, there sure is a reason why 90 degree is currently the max FoV, and anything higher brings in significantly further distortions :)

if you have any specific technical information that contradicts this and makes an alternative hypothesis i'd love to hear it :)

note: there are artificial ways you can force much higher FoV's then 90', but they obviously produce MAJOR distortions. some gamers in 1e person shooters use those to artificially increase their peripheral vision and get an advantage over their opponents, but that again is for "gamers gaming the game". for il2/BoB better peripheral vision is obviously needed to equal what a real pilot could see from the cockpit, but there is no real alternative then getting more monitors side by side (with each able to display max 90 FoV you could combine 3 widescreens set at 60 FoV to get your total of 180 FoV)


As Blackdog has said, SoW will probably feature higher field of view settings now that widescreens are common, and I expect we'll see 120° or even more as an option.
programing a game for widescreen resolutions is a completely different issue (from FoV), and hopefully BoB will indeed have those directly available in the settings

[nearmiss]

I can understand the apprehensions, especially about System specs.

In my own situation, my 24" 1920x1200 resolution monitor just went out. I have to replace it.

Everywhere I look I see 1920x1080P resolution monitors and the prices are very reasonable. Also, Oleg's updates appear to be 1920x1080 resolution when you drill down on them.

A monitor needs to be big for me to see. I doubt seriously I am the only person with such a problem.

This time I plan to go up on screen size to see better. I plan to go to a 25.5 or 27" monitor with 1920 x 1200 monitor. At least, this way I will be able to lower my screen size to the 1920x1080 to cover many possible resolutions. The prospects of having black borders at the top and bottom to accomodate the 1920 x 1080 really don't suit my interests.

If that is the way of it, so be it. Then of course the price for 1920 x 1200 resolution monitors is $100-200 USD greater than the same monitor in 1920 x 1080 resolution.

Then of course, if Oleg allows you to push the resolutions out high and wide I'll be in good shape.

[F19_lacrits]

Cheers Nearmiss...good idea...though the first few lines made me spit my coffee, i was laughing so much :)

The two most asked question on this forums are:

1. When will BOB SOW be released or or in other words, when can we buy it.
2. What will the system specs be for the BOB SOW.

The answers to these questions are:

1. The release date for BOB SOW is not known at this time.
2. System specifications are not known at this time. :)

By chance I got the answer to question 1 the other night while I was out driving.. This is the highly confidential release info on SoW; 2055! ;)

http://cid-290c44ae478a541b.office.live.com/embedphoto.aspx/Public/sow-release-year.jpg

[Triggaaar]

I have 2 questiions:
When will BOB SOW be released?
and
What hardware will be required to run it nicely (high settings, though not necessarily perfect)?

The two most asked question on this forums are:

1. When will BOB SOW be released or or in other words, when can we buy it?
2. What will the system specs be for the BOB SOW?
Damn, I hate being so predictable.

These 2 questions are the most asked for a reason. The rest of the forum is all good fun, but in all honesty, right now, the only 2 things anyone cares about is these 2 questions (obviously it needs to be a decent game, but we know it will be).

Obviously the development team can't say, because they don't know for sure, and guessing incorrectly doesn't do them any favours.

So we're left with guessing. Out of those who aren't sworn to secrecy, who is best placed to guess when it will be released, and what is their guess?
By xmas 2010
1st quarter 2011
By xmas 2011

Thanks

[LoBiSoMeM]

so as you can see, there sure is a reason why 90 degree is currently the max FoV, and anything higher brings in significantly further distortions :)

if you have any specific technical information that contradicts this and makes an alternative hypothesis i'd love to hear it :)

You posted the specific technical information that contradicts this:

"In practice a more realistic limit, after which radial distortion becomes utterly extreme, would be about 120 degrees. But even that looks pretty weird."

I use 112º and the distortion is acceptable by my standards. The "looks pretty weird" is TOTTALY SUBJECTIVE, not some kind of technical limit. We can have larger FOVs than 90º, even 90º have some distortion, it's the life.

And one simple point: if you are using some kind of head tracking, the distortion is easily overcomed, because you can focus in the object of interest. I know it's BETTER for me to have more than 90º of FOV using the actual projection system, and I know that isn't any "technical" issue in use 112º of FOV, because I use it.

It's simple a matter of taste. If you don't like the "utterly extreme" distortion, use 90º as maximum FOV. I like tu use 112º. And have this option available will be nice and NEVER can be stated as "gaming the game", because my vision inside a real cockpit have a larger FOV than 90º...

People with 3 monitor are "gaming the game"?!?!?! People with HT devices are "gaming the game"?!?!?!! I don't get this point...

[Flying Pencil]

Since this is the place to ask, I ask!

Can SoW make use of these goodies?
I read something about "device link", is that the software hook?

Switch panel
http://www.saitek.com/uk/prod/switch.html
http://www.saitek.com/uk/imgs/product/switchpan_product.png


Instrument display (Of course any small display configured as the instrument panel display may be better!)
http://www.saitek.com/uk/prod/fip.html
http://www.saitek.com/uk/imgs/product/fip_product.png


Well, since I mentioned:
7" wide screen LCD, just big enough to display key part of instrument panel, I think uses USB connection (just adequate enough):
http://www.nextag.com/DoubleSight-Displays-DS-70U-683427341/prices-html
http://img01.static-nextag.com/image/Doublesight-Displays-DS-70U/1/000/006/838/196/683819624.jpg

[nearmiss]

Now would be the absolute best time for SOW release, since Britain is nationally celebrating the Battle of Britain. The press coverage and television promotion is and will continue to be amazing.

BBC is doing some great stuff.

It would be a shame to miss this historical celebration with a product that visually and interactively lets users engage with the Battle of Britain.

I hope Oleg gets it final enough for release during the period of the Battle of Britain.

[dduff442]

I can understand the apprehensions, especially about System specs.

In my own situation, my 24" 1920x1200 resolution monitor just went out. I have to replace it.

Everywhere I look I see 1920x1080P resolution monitors and the prices are very reasonable. Also, Oleg's updates appear to be 1920x1080 resolution when you drill down on them.

A monitor needs to be big for me to see. I doubt seriously I am the only person with such a problem.

This time I plan to go up on screen size to see better. I plan to go to a 25.5 or 27" monitor with 1920 x 1200 monitor. At least, this way I will be able to lower my screen size to the 1920x1080 to cover many possible resolutions. The prospects of having black borders at the top and bottom to accomodate the 1920 x 1080 really don't suit my interests.

If that is the way of it, so be it. Then of course the price for 1920 x 1200 resolution monitors is $100-200 USD greater than the same monitor in 1920 x 1080 resolution.

Then of course, if Oleg allows you to push the resolutions out high and wide I'll be in good shape.

I got an ASUS VW266H earlier this year and I have to say it's an outstanding gaming monitor for the price.

Max resolution is 1900x1200 but it will support any lower resolution when configured appropriately -- very handy for future-proofing a system. If you really like anti-aliasing but your graphics card is struggling with FPS on a given game, you can just drop to a lower resolution. You won't get the full screen area but neither will the monitor distort the image (even for 4:3, say) or resort to dithering. Whatever monitor you buy, I'd recommend picking one with a similar feature (usually called aspect control).

dduff

[nearmiss]

I ordered the same monitor this morning right after I posted. I"d say you were ESP me. LOL

Amazon for $277 - $30 Asus rebate + 26.00 shipping = $273

It is for sale at Frys $319 plus 8.25% sales tax. I saved $72.32 w Amazon.

It is very good to hear a good review on it from you.

Thanks

[bf-110]

Oh yes.

Someone here said there will be some ground vehicles that player will be able to control.
What about AAs?It would be awesome to engage a wave of fighters strafing your AA.

[winny]

Oh yes.

Someone here said there will be some ground vehicles that player will be able to control.
What about AAs?It would be awesome to engage a wave of fighters strafing your AA.

I think I read somewhere that AA was controlable..

http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb///GamesRadar/us/Games/S/Storm%20of%20War%20Battle%20of%20Britain/Bulk%20Viewers/PC/2007-01-26/PCG171.scoop_bob.gen3--screenshot_small.jpg

[Jaguar]

Thanks for the information that you put in the thread. The thread topic with a thumbs up I have to say BOOOOOO! I was really happy and now back to the same ol feeling again.
It was a let down.

[Tree_UK]

Once we see a dedicated website then we will know that we are within 6-12 months of a release, until then I guess we just wait.

[Hood]

The order was made in 2006!

Thank you for your recent Play.com order for IL2: Storm Of War - Battle Of Britain

We have recently been informed by the manufacturer of this product that the release date has been changed to 25-Feb-2011. We have updated this information on site and will endeavour to process your order in readiness to arrive with you on the release date.

Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused to you in this matter and thank you for your patience and valued custom.

Kind Regards,

Customer Support Team

Play.com

[pupaxx]

Thank you for your recent Play.com order for IL2: Storm Of War - Battle Of Britain

We have recently been informed by the manufacturer of this product that the release date has been changed to 25-Feb-2011. We have updated this information on site and will endeavour to process your order in readiness to arrive with you on the release date.

Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused to you in this matter and thank you for your patience and valued custom.

Kind Regards,

Customer Support Team

Play.com


:shock::shock::shock::shock:

[Eugene1St]

Wow, awesome.
@ Hood, thats a huge find.

Is 1C publishing, or someone like Ubi again??

[nearmiss]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpripwOz2is&feature=related

[#402FOX]

The order was made in 2006!

Thank you for your recent Play.com order for IL2: Storm Of War - Battle Of Britain

We have recently been informed by the manufacturer of this product that the release date has been changed to 25-Feb-2011. We have updated this information on site and will endeavour to process your order in readiness to arrive with you on the release date.

Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused to you in this matter and thank you for your patience and valued custom.

Kind Regards,

Customer Support Team

Play.com

I got the same email and i also pre-ordered in 2006, fingers crossed :-P

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

The order was made in 2006!

Thank you for your recent Play.com order for IL2: Storm Of War - Battle Of Britain

We have recently been informed by the manufacturer of this product that the release date has been changed to 25-Feb-2011. We have updated this information on site and will endeavour to process your order in readiness to arrive with you on the release date.

Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused to you in this matter and thank you for your patience and valued custom.

Kind Regards,

Customer Support Team

Play.com

Wow, awesome.
@ Hood, thats a huge find.

Is 1C publishing, or someone like Ubi again??

I got the same email and i also pre-ordered in 2006, fingers crossed :-P

Guys, these sites have NO IDEA, they are literally guessing. They have no information from any publisher or developer for SoW. There have been sites like this that have had pre-orders up for SoW for years and they keep changing the release date based on their best guess, which is only based on the same info that we have, forum posts and interviews.

[lbuchele]

Yes, just like the end of the world,it´s beeing predicted for hundreds of years.
When 2012 reach us and nothing happens again, like 2000, people will have another date.
So,we can have more hollywood films.

[peterwoods@supanet.com]

Also ordered in 2006.
Received the same e-mail from Play.com today.
They were wrong the last time!!!!!

[LukeFF]

Guys, these sites have NO IDEA, they are literally guessing. They have no information from any publisher or developer for SoW. There have been sites like this that have had pre-orders up for SoW for years and they keep changing the release date based on their best guess, which is only based on the same info that we have, forum posts and interviews.

+1

[Hood]

Overall I think the most fun to be gleaned from these forums is from the posts of those who say "Release dates are a guess", "Who knows when it'll be released" etc. I think they're saying that in an attempt to appear wise and mature but the reality is that they're just trying to spoil the fun. After all, they don't have to post anything do they?

As for Nearmiss's post, well that's just pathetic. Nearmiss created a thread that by its nature was going to attract conjecture and supposition, hasn't moderated it, then posts a childish response to a simple post providing confrmation that a major e-tailer has received an update from the publisher giving a certain release date. Disappointing really.

The release date - who knows? It'll be done when it's done and speaking personally I want it released when Oleg is happy with it and not before. A bit longer would suit me so I can save some more pennies to buy a new rig. I quite like the guessing game (and being a bit childish myself) so to the naysayers I point at you and say...

thhhhhhhhfffffffffpppppppppppppppttttttttttttttttt ttttttttt

Hood

[Snuff_Pidgeon]

:)

[Eugene1St]

Lolz

[zauii]

omfg, you still have you orders since 2006 lol.

[Thunderbolt56]

omfg, you still have you orders since 2006 lol.


$40 in 2006 is like $65 in today's dollars. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v687/Thunderbolt56/Smilies/blink.gif

[zauii]

$40 in 2006 is like $65 in today's dollars. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v687/Thunderbolt56/Smilies/blink.gif

Wiee... almost as pre-ordering Duke Nukem Forever back in 1998 in the hope of a release.., bet that gives some value for the money if the stores are still around which you preorderd from..

[swiss]

$65 still sounds like a bargain - think of SB Pro PE...

[Thunderbolt56]

$65 still sounds like a bargain - think of SB Pro PE...


Obviously, $65 is a gross exaggeration, and I hope everyone that pre-ordered gets their copy first at the very least for their efforts, but the fact 1:C has absolutely no control over the retailers in this regard (either in taking pre-orders or distributing on a first come, first served basis upon release), I hope people don't hold them responsible in the event they are still sitting and staring out the window waiting for the mailman while the rest of us are in week two of our SoW experience.

If it's released at $65, I'll say it's a bargain too, but if it's released at $40 (or whatever anyone paid for their pre-order over 4 years ago), "bargain" wouldn't be the word I'd use.

I'd really like to see a law passed preventing companies or individuals from taking pre-orders and money until said software is at least gone gold.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v687/Thunderbolt56/Smilies/02cents.gif

[Jaguar]

Most companies that I have pre-ordered from do not charge you until the item is shipped. I hope people have updated their card info so they do not get an unable to process order e-mail.

[Hood]

When I ordered it was £17, so about $25. Thankfully I have updated my account details!

Hood

[matsher]

[QUOTE=zapatista;182287]you'r asking your question in the wrong location, having it mixed up in the bottom of an "irrelevant BoB question thread" means it is unlikely to get noticed, however...

there is a technical reason why most games in recent years have a max 90 degree FoV when looking at a single display, it has to do with the inherent limitations in how the game is programmed and the physics of the game engine itself. this has been discussed a number of times in several flightsim forums over the years, and that is about what it amounts to.


Thanks Zapat, Where would you suggest I put this post to see if I can get some proper answers. The FOV question is not the most NB one for me, cause that is certainly achievable and is already possible in IL2.

My real interest is in the in cockpit vs wonderview question. As I think that it is a fundamentally new concept in balancing playablility and immersion.

Please redirect me if you know, thanks
Mat

[matsher]

But the real pilots had peripheral vision...I fly with il2 fov changer and it really seems much more natural for me while flying.


I totally agree - if you dont go crazy on the angles, it gives you such an amazing perspective... You realise just how big the sky really is... Its so much more.. um... well ... MORE. Its great.

Not to mention the benefits to your situational awareness and spacial orientation.

[DD_crash]

Will http://www.d-box.com/gaming/en/products/ this be supported?

[matsher]

Holy Crap DD_ , you're totally geeking out on us...
way to go ... How the hell do the hydrolics work on those
tricked out puppies???

[DD_crash]

Holy Crap DD_ , you're totally geeking out on us...
way to go ... How the hell do the hydrolics work on those
tricked out puppies???
Its on my to buy list when I win the Lotto :)

[Insuber]

In character with this non-informative thread, I've had the following exchange with Ubi Soft:

_______________
30/09/2010 12:29
Bonjour,

Je possède Il2 1946, je voudrais connaître la date de sortie de la suite, SoW:BOB, produit toujours par 1:C Oleg Maddox et annoncé il y à longtemps par UbiSoft.

Cordialement
___________________
Bonjour Monsieur,

Nous ne disposons pas à l'heure actuelle d'information sur une éventuelle suite au jeu IL2 1946.

Cordialement,
Le Service Clients Ubisoft
_____________________

That means that Ubisoft doesn't have for the time being any information about a successor to Il2 1946.

Cheers,
Insuber

[zapatista]

you'r asking your question in the wrong location, having it mixed up in the bottom of an "irrelevant BoB question thread" means it is unlikely to get noticed, however...

there is a technical reason why most games in recent years have a max 90 degree FoV when looking at a single display, it has to do with the inherent limitations in how the game is programmed and the physics of the game engine itself. this has been discussed a number of times in several flightsim forums over the years, and that is about what it amounts to.


Thanks Zapat, Where would you suggest I put this post to see if I can get some proper answers. The FOV question is not the most NB one for me, cause that is certainly achievable and is already possible in IL2.

My real interest is in the in cockpit vs wonderview question. As I think that it is a fundamentally new concept in balancing playablility and immersion.

Please redirect me if you know, thanks
Mat

Mat,

just start a brand new thread for the FoV issue if you want to discuss it, and maybe phrase the thread tittle as a question to oleg if you want to attract his attention to it :)

btw il2, like most games currently still on the market, is not programmed for widescreen and does not perfectly implement it with the ini hack (but it does cause the widescreen monitor to be filled with video/image during game play, giving the illusion of correctly implemented widescreen FoV (it cuts a strip off the bottom and top of the screen to do so)

there are several specific technical reasons for those factors, and many long term il2 folks will know the reasons for this, and i think you can be fairly safe oleg has programmed BoB for widescreen resolutions rather then 5:4 or 4:3 ratio's

for the "cockpit vs wonderview question" (and having a new version of wonderview requested from oleg), thats again another thread you can start. keeping threads mainly focused on one topic (if you want oleg's attention drawn to it and have a chance of getting him to respond, which often he does), then the more articulate and specific you can be the better (with illustrations and examples even if possible, like the person who recently posted the opaque wonderview dials did))

[Tree_UK]

In character with this non-informative thread, I've had the following exchange with Ubi Soft:

_______________
30/09/2010 12:29
Bonjour,

Je possède Il2 1946, je voudrais connaître la date de sortie de la suite, SoW:BOB, produit toujours par 1:C Oleg Maddox et annoncé il y à longtemps par UbiSoft. But thanks for confirming all the same Insuber.

Cordialement
___________________
Bonjour Monsieur,

Nous ne disposons pas à l'heure actuelle d'information sur une éventuelle suite au jeu IL2 1946.

Cordialement,
Le Service Clients Ubisoft
_____________________

That means that Ubisoft doesn't have for the time being any information about a successor to Il2 1946.

Cheers,
Insuber

I posted this information well over a year ago, I was attacked and rubbished and accused of being a liar, now its general knowledge that Ubi are no longer involved. But thanks for confirming Insuber.

[Foo'bar]

That means that Ubisoft doesn't have for the time being any information about a successor to Il2 1946.

It wouldn't make much sense if even Oleg isn't allowed to tell about the publisher but a member of UBI would tell per mail to everybody who asks... or?
And even if UBI wouldn't be publisher any more they would know who will be publisher in future.

We will see early enough.

[The Kraken]

In character with this non-informative thread, I've had the following exchange with Ubi Soft:

_______________
30/09/2010 12:29
Bonjour,

Je possède Il2 1946, je voudrais connaître la date de sortie de la suite, SoW:BOB, produit toujours par 1:C Oleg Maddox et annoncé il y à longtemps par UbiSoft.

Cordialement
___________________
Bonjour Monsieur,

Nous ne disposons pas à l'heure actuelle d'information sur une éventuelle suite au jeu IL2 1946.

Cordialement,
Le Service Clients Ubisoft
_____________________

That means that Ubisoft doesn't have for the time being any information about a successor to Il2 1946.

Cheers,
Insuber

Interesting, thanks for checking with them. However I wouldn't underestimate their potential for cluelessness. I still remember how they failed to mention Lock On in their official release list back in 2003, as if it didn't exist ;)

I guess we can at least consider it "unlikely" that they are still involved, which would be perfectly fine with me...

[Tree_UK]

They are not involved at all, and have not been for a long time.

[sorak]

Yes, just like the end of the world,it´s beeing predicted for hundreds of years.
When 2012 reach us and nothing happens again, like 2000, people will have another date.
So,we can have more hollywood films.

What movie was made about the year 2000 event?

[Gromic]

why is your ip address need for il2fovchanger?i never installed it is it good?

If you'd stop chewing your mic to shreds every other thursday, then we could get alot of those issues worked out together via vent. :-P

I'm using il2fov myself and it works perfectly 99% of the time.

Cheers

Gromic

[=XIII=Shea]

If you'd stop chewing your mic to shreds every other thursday, then we could get alot of those issues worked out together via vent. :-P

I'm using il2fov myself and it works perfectly 99% of the time.

Cheers

Gromic

Lmao Gromic i just love the taste of mic,s cant get enough of them:),good to hear m8,going to start using il2fov myself,;)

[matsher]

Mat,

just start a brand new thread for the FoV issue if you want to discuss it, and maybe phrase the thread tittle as a question to oleg if you want to attract his attention to it :)

btw il2, like most games currently still on the market, is not programmed for widescreen and does not perfectly implement it with the ini hack (but it does cause the widescreen monitor to be filled with video/image during game play, giving the illusion of correctly implemented widescreen FoV (it cuts a strip off the bottom and top of the screen to do so)

there are several specific technical reasons for those factors, and many long term il2 folks will know the reasons for this, and i think you can be fairly safe oleg has programmed BoB for widescreen resolutions rather then 5:4 or 4:3 ratio's

for the "cockpit vs wonderview question" (and having a new version of wonderview requested from oleg), thats again another thread you can start. keeping threads mainly focused on one topic (if you want oleg's attention drawn to it and have a chance of getting him to respond, which often he does), then the more articulate and specific you can be the better (with illustrations and examples even if possible, like the person who recently posted the opaque wonderview dials did))

Thanks for your suggestion Zap,
I will try my luck for tomorrows update... I know that Olegs reads that... At least until the endless debates on menutia gets into full swing... I have prepared a few screenshots to highlight my points as you suggested... I hope to get an answer from the man himself. Take care. Mat

[waspfarmer]

I find it amusing that anyone would ask "What are the specs for BoB?". I would understand if the question was a compatibity issue, though it makes sense that the sim will be compatible with popular operating systems... Surely no one's building a rig today to run a sim that hasn't even released it's system "required minimum specs"... I guess, if you have to ask, then you'll probably need new hardware. If I recall, releases from Maddox Games tend to hang around for years and get performance updates constantly through thier life cycle. I run IL-2 on a Pentium 3 400MHz with a BW 15" CTR and dial-up. It looks and behaves better on more modern equipment, however.

[Triggaaar]

I find it amusing that anyone would ask "What are the specs for BoB?".
... Surely no one's building a rig today to run a sim that hasn't even released it's system "required minimum specs"... I guess, if you have to ask, then you'll probably need new hardware.A lot of the people asking if they need new hardware have held off upgrading for a year or more and can't wait any longer. Given that Oleg has said they are very close to the final product, they must already have a good idea of what systems run the game well, and there's a fair chance we'll hear news here before the publishers release any system requirements.

[Skoshi Tiger]

I was at the dentist today and picked up a copy of Australian PCPowerplay magazine (march 2009 edition I think!)

In the hot release section I found this picture. (sorry for the blurry image it was on my mobile phone and the dentist just called out my name!!)

http://i1042.photobucket.com/albums/b423/Skoshi_Tiger/13-10-10_1559.jpg

It's a bit hard to see but the "Released Date" is 1-6-2009

Damnation! Oleg was right! Its October and 1000's have been playing SOW!

JUST NOT US!!!!!!!

Maybe we've been to busy asking "Is it Here yet? Is it here yet??" ;)

[goshikisen]

Will ships and land vehicles move realistically in SOW ie. not at right angles? Will we see curved roads in the sim?

[Hunden]

Will ships and land vehicles move realistically in SOW ie. not at right angles? Will we see curved roads in the sim?

I think your posting in the wrong thread, try friday update instead.

[fireflyerz]

I was at the dentist today and picked up a copy of Australian PCPowerplay magazine (march 2009 edition I think!)

In the hot release section I found this picture. (sorry for the blurry image it was on my mobile phone and the dentist just called out my name!!)

http://i1042.photobucket.com/albums/b423/Skoshi_Tiger/13-10-10_1559.jpg

It's a bit hard to see but the "Released Date" is 1-6-2009

Damnation! Oleg was right! Its October and 1000's have been playing SOW!

JUST NOT US!!!!!!!

Maybe we've been to busy asking "Is it Here yet? Is it here yet??" ;)
LOL :grin:...No... its behind you...:grin:

[Foo'bar]

Usually I'm not the one wich is posting unbelieveble release announcements. But this time 1C:SoftClub was speaking:

http://igromir.softclub.ru/games.aspx?id=il-2

Spring 2011.

[T}{OR]

All of this is just speculation until we know who the publisher is. Still, I do like your 'unbelievable' release date... :)

[Foo'bar]

All of this is just speculation until we know who the publisher is. Still, I do like your 'unbelievable' release date... :)

You should know that 1C:SoftClub isn't just another online store. They will publish in russia/eastern europe itself.

[T}{OR]

If they indeed publish SoW, than this can be considered good news. :) Spring 2011. looks alright to me.

[Luftwaffepilot]

Damn I thought it was close :D

[T}{OR]

The cover art looks interesting, or should I say familiar... :)

[1.JaVA_Sharp]

Keep that cover art. It has a certain something to it.

[T}{OR]

Keep that cover art. It has a certain something to it.

I agree, cover art looks very nice. Not sure about the 'IL2 title' though...

[Bloblast]

Spring 2011?

That is 5 months away from now. I expected it earlier. As Oleg said they are busy solving bugs, posted 3 weeks ago.

[The Kraken]

I agree, cover art looks very nice. Not sure about the 'IL2 title' though...

It's an established brand name so it could make sense sticking to it. And with any luck it's a sign that Ubi is no longer involved (fingers crossed).

[The Kraken]

BTW have these two pics shown up before? Don't remember seeing them in an update...

http://igromir.softclub.ru/load/sliders/il-2_02.jpg
http://igromir.softclub.ru/load/sliders/il-2_05.jpg

[major_setback]

BTW have these two pics shown up before? Don't remember seeing them in an update...

http://igromir.softclub.ru/load/sliders/il-2_02.jpg
http://igromir.softclub.ru/load/sliders/il-2_05.jpg

I think they are new.

I'm not too happy about the propeller blur, which is exactly like the bad looking 'radial blur' in Photoshop.

Like this:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/propeller3.jpg



..

[Insuber]

Spring 2011 is OK for me ... 6-8 months seem to be a reasonable delay to debug, polish, advertise, print & package, ship etc. Champagne anyone ? :)

Cheers,
Insuber

[Triggaaar]

If that's an educated date estimate, based on information from the development team and publishers, I don't like it, as it would likely be delayed a little further from any date they gave.

[GOA_Potenz]

almost another year, **** IT

[Foo'bar]

I agree, cover art looks very nice. Not sure about the 'IL2 title' though...

I don't know what "Il-2" should have in common with 1940 and BoB. :( In my eyes that's a unhappily decision. Anyway, march 2011 sounds okay :)

[imaca]

A lot of the people asking if they need new hardware have held off upgrading for a year or more and can't wait any longer. Given that Oleg has said they are very close to the final product, they must already have a good idea of what systems run the game well, and there's a fair chance we'll hear news here before the publishers release any system requirements.
Hey, I've held off upgrading for 5 years. I'm trying to imagine what kind of bad 1 year old PC buy/ hardware melting new game combo could make "waiting any longer" impossible?

[T}{OR]

I'm not too happy about the propeller blur, which is exactly like the bad looking 'radial blur' in Photoshop.

IIRC, and Oleg has said so himself (and we have seen it on the shots) that the prop won't look anything like this in the game. Only when you pause the game you will get a situation like this - as if it was taken by a camera.

Which is great, as I hate this kind of unreal propeller look - like many mods have it nowadays.

If I am not mistaking, we should be able to set the shutter speed ourselves and change this option in the game - what happens when we hit pause.

[domian]

A release in 2011 is NOT OK for me.

SoW is become more and more a neverending story like HALO, Duke Nukem Forever or Stalker. On the one hand, i can understand Oleg. He wants to make the simulation perfect. But on the other hand the wishes of the community are sometimes disgusting (different facial expressions or wind shear in perfection).

Sure Oleg could model some motion captured snails at the runway at last... :|

I am very disappointed about the promises of Oleg. "SoW will have thousands of players until october 2010..bla bla bla..."

[klem]

I can't wait any longer for SoW system specs, the community have taken IL-2 to such new levels (no I didn't use the 'm' word) that my AMD3800+ 2x64 at 2.4GHz, 2Gb RAM and 2 x 7800GTs no longer runs it smoothly on Perfect.

I'm going now with

Intel i7 950 3.06GHz (overclockable)
6Gb DDR3 RAM
XFX 5870 GPU
ASUS Sabertooth mobo
SSD for the OS and Flying software (IL-2, FSX, SOW)
700w Storm PSU (cos i have one in the cupboard)
plus a couple of HDDs for other stuff

If that doesn't run SoW which has been in development for 7+ years(?) then I won't bother buying it. Also SoW's only going to be 32bit. I expect the 64 bit version will run even better if it ever gets developed but that would take another 2 weeks :^)

Seriously guys, if it's that close (even 5 months away), current products aren't going to change that much and newer stuff will be way too expensive for me. I haven't gone i7 960 or 5970 due to the almost double cost. That could improve over the next 6 months but probably not by much.

btw my laptop with i7 720QM 1.06GHz, 6Gb RAM and 5850 GPU eats IL-2 alive on max settings and FSX is rock solid with 1.2m photo terrain so the new rig should be even better.

[major_setback]

IIRC, and Oleg has said so himself (and we have seen it on the shots) that the prop won't look anything like this in the game. Only when you pause the game you will get a situation like this - as if it was taken by a camera.

Which is great, as I hate this kind of unreal propeller look - like many mods have it nowadays.

If I am not mistaking, we should be able to set the shutter speed ourselves and change this option in the game - what happens when we hit pause.

The modded propeller has a nice even blur, unlike the photoshop one. I certainly hope we won't get that one each time we pause or take a screenshot, even if the amount of blur varies.
The photoshop blur has a tell-tale 'rabbits ears' at the outer edges of the blur.

I hope it is just a WIP.

Mod/SoW WiP:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/prop4.jpghttp://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/prop5.jpg

[ElAurens]

I just hope there is no blur on the moving blades as seen in flight.

This is a cinematic effect and in no way reflects reality.

[Insuber]

I just hope there is no blur on the moving blades as seen in flight.

This is a cinematic effect and in no way reflects reality.

I see blur with my naked eyes ... clinical case? :D

[The Kraken]

The modded propeller has a nice even blur, unlike the photoshop one. I certainly hope we won't get that one each time we pause or take a screenshot, even if the amount of blur varies.
The photoshop blur has a tell-tale 'rabbits ears' at the outer edges of the blur.

I hope it is just a WIP.

I guess it's supposed to replicate what a camera shot would look like, and seems to do a good job at that (see below). Oleg has explained previously that shutter speed etc. will be factored in for propeller or tracer appearance when taking screenshots, and that would mean the blur is calculated automatically (propably using the same radial blur algorithm). I'm pretty sure though that this will be optional anyway.

Shouldn't make much of a difference when playing, in most screens we've seen a "correct" highly transparent spinner disk that is completely blurred as it should be.

http://www.airmuseumsuk.org/airshow/2004/Rougham2004/800/images/310%20Hawker%20Hurricane%20XIIa%20Z5140%20G-HURI%20HAC.jpg

[robtek]

Insuber, unless you've had a shutter implanted you wouldn't see anything like pictured above.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Insuber, unless you've had a shutter implanted you wouldn't see anything like pictured above.

robtek, I respectfully disagree! On TLAP Day I drank most of a bottle of rum and quite a few things were blurry! ;)

[swiss]

A release in 2011 is NOT OK for me.

SoW is become more and more a neverending story like HALO, Duke Nukem Forever or Stalker. On the one hand, i can understand Oleg. He wants to make the simulation perfect. But on the other hand the wishes of the community are sometimes disgusting (different facial expressions or wind shear in perfection).

Sure Oleg could model some motion captured snails at the runway at last... :|

I am very disappointed about the promises of Oleg. "SoW will have thousands of players until october 2010..bla bla bla..."

WTF?

It's the final lap, they have a publisher and and a demo for nvidia.
This is the first time the light at then end of tunnel seems to be indeed daylight.
:)

[domian]

WTF?

It's the final lap, they have a publisher and and a demo for nvidia.
This is the first time the light at then end of tunnel seems to be indeed daylight.
:)

Let's hope so, by goodness!

[Triggaaar]

I'm going now with

Intel i7 950 3.06GHz (overclockable)
6Gb DDR3 RAM
XFX 5870 GPU
ASUS Sabertooth mobo
SSD for the OS and Flying software (IL-2, FSX, SOW)
700w Storm PSU (cos i have one in the cupboard)
plus a couple of HDDs for other stuff

If that doesn't run SoW which has been in development for 7+ years(?) then I won't bother buying it.Obviously an i7 is not going to be a problem - but what would be nice, is to have a better understanding of the game's use of Physx and Tesselation, and whether it matters if we go nvidia or amd (ATI). Obviously both will work, but it could, for example, make good use of features that one card is better at.

Why are you going for a 5870, is that 2nd hand? It seems the new 6xxx series may be better value.

WTF?

It's the final lap, they have a publisher and and a demo for nvidia.
This is the first time the light at then end of tunnel seems to be indeed daylight.)Nope, that's another lost soul with his torch out :)

[major_setback]

Nope, that's another lost soul with his torch out :)

Can't hold on much longer myself.
:-)

[swiss]

Why are you going for a 5870, is that 2nd hand? It seems the new 6xxx series may be better value.


You do know the 58xx is a totally different league?

68xx maybe newer and cheaper, but they are not meant to compete with the 58xx - the 68xx is more like a 460.

[T}{OR]

A release in 2011 is NOT OK for me.

SoW is become more and more a neverending story like HALO, Duke Nukem Forever or Stalker. On the one hand, i can understand Oleg. He wants to make the simulation perfect. But on the other hand the wishes of the community are sometimes disgusting (different facial expressions or wind shear in perfection).

Sure Oleg could model some motion captured snails at the runway at last... :|

I am very disappointed about the promises of Oleg. "SoW will have thousands of players until october 2010..bla bla bla..."

I am willing to wait as long as the game is in final state when released. I'm fed up with 'half-done' titles being released every day now for the past few years. So, in a big NO I don't agree with you. If the had the chance to released in 2010 and decided to polish it up more before release - I welcome the decision wholeheartedly.

If that doesn't run SoW which has been in development for 7+ years(?) then I won't bother buying it. Also SoW's only going to be 32bit. I expect the 64 bit version will run even better if it ever gets developed but that would take another 2 weeks :^)


Oleg confirmed there will be a x64 exe. On a similar note - DCS A-10C is a x64 sim, first ever released. So my bet is that with SoW we will have similar support, for both x32 and x 64.

[Qpassa]

I think now that its impossible to be a release in 2010

[Hecke]

Are there any games being released in december?

[The Kraken]

Only heaps of junk pushed out of the door in time for Christmas, regardless of its state.

[klem]

[QUOTE=Triggaaar;194691]Obviously an i7 is not going to be a problem - but what would be nice, is to have a better understanding of the game's use of Physx and Tesselation, and whether it matters if we go nvidia or amd (ATI). Obviously both will work, but it could, for example, make good use of features that one card is better at.

Why are you going for a 5870, is that 2nd hand? It seems the new 6xxx series may be better value.]

Hi Triggaaar
No the 5870 will be new.
I started with the 5000 series as I was impressed with the i7/5850 combination in my laptop. 5870 was the highest in the family I could afford and all review checks kicked Nvidia into touch.

Also, as far as I could see from quick google results the 6000 series was a marginal level of performance down on the 5000 series, especially the 5870/5890. In addition it is much cheaper than the 5870 so "surely not as good as the 5870 even if a strange jump in numbering" (yes, a wild assumption). Strange for a new release.

For example, looking here.....
http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles.php?id=82
See 5870 vs 6870, the 5870 outperforms the 6870 although it is 2Gb vs 1Gb.
But then in...
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/Sapphire_HD_6870/
The 6870 and 5870 swing around depending on the game, at stock speeds, although the 6870 uses less power.
And here...
http://techgage.com/article/amd_radeon_hd_6870_hd_6850/1
The 5870 beats the 6870 in virtually all comparisons except where heavy Tesselation is involved (no I'm not some expert - and as you say, will SoW use Tesselation?). One of their conclusions is
"The Radeon HD 6870 is about ~15% slower than the HD 5870, but costs much less ($240 from $400)."

I know there's not a huge difference reported between 6870 and 5870. So now I am wondering and looking forward to more opinions here.

"Oleg confirmed there will be a x64 exe"
Good. Hopefully on release :)

[Hecke]

Actually I never tried an ATI. And Oleg saying it will look better on Nvidia doesn't help me change this trend.
If Oleg stated, that it would look as good on Ati I would definately buy the new 6970, because the new gtx 580 stuff of nvidia seems to be a "fail" again.
Hot, loud, ...

Too bad Sandy Bridge isn't out this year.

[Skoshi Tiger]

have a better understanding of the game's use of Physx and Tesselation, and whether it matters if we go nvidia or amd (ATI).




Didn't Oleg mention a long while back that they were using their own physics engine????



Nope, that's another lost soul with his torch out :)

LOL


Cheers!

[speculum jockey]

Actually I never tried an ATI. And Oleg saying it will look better on Nvidia doesn't help me change this trend.
If Oleg stated, that it would look as good on Ati I would definately buy the new 6970, because the new gtx 580 stuff of nvidia seems to be a "fail" again.
Hot, loud, ...

Too bad Sandy Bridge isn't out this year.

I've played 15-20 games that had the big green Nvidia logo at the start and none of them looked any better or any worse on an ATI card. Image quality usually becomes a factor if you're playing a game at 16x AF or 8x FSAA.

You're not going to notice a difference between the two cards until you look at your power consumption and your wallet. The screen is the last place their differences become apparent. I don't want to sound like an ATI fanboy, but their cards have been hitting the performance/price sweet spot a lot better for the past few years than Nvidia has.

If anyone is trying to decide what they should get, go to tom's hardware, check out the video card chart in your game of choice, and see the performance stats of all the different cards. Now find the performance area you want and check out the card prices. Whatever gives you the most FPS at the lowest price is the winner.

[julian265]

^ Valid points. But there are other things which make me stay with Nvidia. These are things I've experienced or noticed on forums. Your experience may be different, but of course I'm always going to place more weight on my own observations when making decisions.

Compatibility.
In IL2 my 4870 had graphics corruption issues unless I stayed with the 8.9 drivers. The same happened again to 5xxx owners. (then they fixed the drivers, then broke them again in the next version, then fixed...)

DCS: A-10C (yes, it's a beta, but I still think it's relevant) there are quite a few high-end (i7, etc) computer owners complaining about terrible frame-rates. The link between them? They have late-model ATI cards.

In general, on the forums I frequent, I notice more threads about problems with ATI-based hardware and compatibility than nvidia.

Control panel.
I don't like nvidia's CP much, but the ATI CP, I cannot stand! For example, when using the on-board ATI stuff on a TVPC, I needed to disable over-scan (IIRC). After much fruitless poking around, I found the answer on a forum - you need to press a little, UN-LABELLED button (which did not look like a button!) to get to the relevant section...

Then there's the catalyst AI, which seems to need to be turned off for most of my games, making me wonder why it is there, and enabled by default.

I could put up with the control panel if I were confident about the card's functionality, but my observations about compatibility issues put me off, to the point where I justify the extra cost and (somewhat irrelevant) extra heat/power usage. These are just my observations, no doubt others will see the opposite, or the opposite might be true for a different set of games.

[domian]

DCS: A-10C (yes, it's a beta, but I still think it's relevant) there are quite a few high-end (i7, etc) computer owners complaining about terrible frame-rates. The link between them? They have late-model ATI cards.


I can confirm that.

But Lock On - the base layer - runs much better on Nvidia Cards for years.

[Hecke]

do you guys know, if ...

a AMD - ATI combination works better than a AMD - Nvidia combo?

or if ...

a Intel - Nvidia combination works better than a Intel - ATI combo?

I'm speaking of stuff with comparable power.
Just wondering because AMD and Intel are competitors as well as Nvidia and ATI, so they might have intentionally done sth to make some combinations work not as good. :confused:

[klem]

If anyone is trying to decide what they should get, go to tom's hardware, check out the video card chart in your game of choice, and see the performance stats of all the different cards.

Well I just did that and they don't cover the 6000 series yet in their Graphics card best buy Hierarchy. What they do say here..

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6870-radeon-hd-6850-barts,2776.html

is "The Radeon HD 6870 is slower than Radeon HD 5870. Radeon HD 6850 is slower than Radeon HD 5850. It's confusing, we know, but AMD has what it considers a good explanation for the naming scheme." and in the final page Verdict "The high-end Radeon HD 5870 and 5970 will be replaced by the “Cayman” and “Antilles” Radeon HD 6900-series before the end of Q4 2010."... also supported by supposedly leaked AMD information (I won't post the link as there may be legal issues) stating the ATI "Cayman" is supposedly being released late November=6970?, Antilles in December=6990?

There's nothing on AMDs site about the 6900 series and they don't answer the phone ("leave a number and we'll call back") but other Google-guessers are expecting release in late November and guessing the 6970 to be round 1/3 more in price than 5870. It's only someone's guesswork though. So I may have to wait ? :(

Back to this Thread, I don't see AMD doing anything more before SoW is released so for me that's part of the system spec puzzle resolved. 6970/6990 will probably be the way to go for max effect unless you want to wait for Nvidia's response. But what do I know?

[kendo65]

Struck by this quote from the TomsHardware article

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...arts,2776.html

"And in the midst of all of that jockeying, there are new games launching that may or may not be under the influence of developers who selectively cooperate with one GPU vendor or the other. These are anticipated games. Games we've wanted to test for some time now. But we face the possibility that one hardware architecture might be highly-optimized, while the other company's driver team still hasn't seen the title running. Now there's a recipe for hard-to-explain benchmark results."

Given Oleg's arranged presentation for nVidia this week ( and i believe I remember him saying that he'd made overtures to AMD/ATI but had got no replies or interest...) then we may have another situation like for il-2 where nVidia are the way to go???

[Igo kyu]

do you guys know, if ...

a AMD - ATI combination works better than a AMD - Nvidia combo?

or if ...

a Intel - Nvidia combination works better than a Intel - ATI combo?

I'm speaking of stuff with comparable power.
Just wondering because AMD and Intel are competitors as well as Nvidia and ATI, so they might have intentionally done sth to make some combinations work not as good. :confused:
Intel is also a competitor of nVidia's. The new Intel processors do not work with nVidia motherboards, PCIe cards still work, but nVidia's integrated graphics don't, only Intel's own. Look at the way the nVidia Ion graphics chip no longer works with the new Intel Atom processor. The Atom and Ion are low power and no use for SoW, but they are typical of how friendly Intel and nVidia are (not at all friendly).

AMD could make their systems unfriendly to nVidia's graphics cards, but then people might choose graphics cards ahead of processors, so they could lose CPU sales, and it would take extra work, so why bother.

[Triggaaar]

Didn't Oleg mention a long while back that they were using their own physics engine????I haven't been here that long (which is just as well, I'd be out of my mind with all the expectation), bt if that's the case, thanks for the heads up.

do you guys know, if ...

a AMD - ATI combination works better than a AMD - Nvidia combo?

or if ...

a Intel - Nvidia combination works better than a Intel - ATI combo?

Just wondering because AMD and Intel are competitors as well as Nvidia and ATI, so they might have intentionally done sth to make some combinations work not as good. :confused:Well obviously ATI was taken over by AMD, do the new 6xxx series are AMD, and will obviously work well with AMD CPUs. And I'm sure all manufacturers want their products to work well with whatever system their customer may have (i've not seen any reports of collusion).

Struck by this quote from the TomsHardware article

"And in the midst of all of that jockeying, there are new games launching that may or may not be under the influence of developers who selectively cooperate with one GPU vendor or the other."
Yes there are some games that have received funding from card manufacturers - eg, Nvidea paid a chunk for Crysis, and no doubt had an input on its development. Nvidea and Ubisoft are boosom buddies - ATI cards were running Assassin's Creed better than Nvidia thanks to DirectX 10.1, and support for 10.1 was suddenly removed, ruining performance for many ATI owners. There has recently been fighting between AMD (was ATI) and Nvidia over Ubisoft's new HAWX 2 game - before it passed Beta it was being used for benchmarking in reviews (not unusual), and was perfoming better with Nivdia cards. AMD cried foul, and said they'd be able to work on the drivers once they were given access to the game.

Given Oleg's arranged presentation for nVidia this week ( and i believe I remember him saying that he'd made overtures to AMD/ATI but had got no replies or interest...) then we may have another situation like for il-2 where nVidia are the way to go???Particulalry with Ubisoft rumoured to be the publisher outside of Russia, that is a concern. I currently own an Nvidia card, and I'm waiting for this game before upgrading, but the fact is that AMD cards are currently better than Nivdia cards, but it's possible the game could be made to suit Nvidia better.

[LoBiSoMeM]

The sim will run under DX9,10 or 11.

Just one API at a time to be used by NVIDIA and ATI. The "tweaks" to one side or other are minimal.

People are scared for nothing. If some game dev create a game with serious performance issues or visual degradation in some VGA brand, this dev was really a "genious"...

The "optimized" is more "I received some money from X to put some logo in the splash screen"...

Relax! I will buy one HD 5850 1GB to run SoW BoB.

[PLR_ATHos]

Hi, I wanted to ask...if I bend down with my trackir in the cockpit of my plane to avoid the bullets of the enemy, will it be possible to avoid being killed in BOB?
Strange but valid question, isn't it?

Greetings
Athos

[Skoshi Tiger]

Hi, I wanted to ask...if I bend down with my trackir in the cockpit of my plane to avoid the bullets of the enemy, will it be possible to avoid being killed in BOB?
Strange but valid question, isn't it?

Greetings
Athos

Actually it's not to bad a question. I've always wanted to crouch down behind the engine in a head-on game of chicken.

Of course you wouldn't be able to see where your going and if the other guy does it as well it would only end in a bad way!

Cheers!

[klem]

The sim will run under DX9,10 or 11.
........................
Relax! I will buy one HD 5850 1GB to run SoW BoB.

I guess you guys have all been following Oleg's latest thread including the page linked below with videos and related posts about system spec Oleg was stuck with for the presentation (particularly 2Gb RAM)


i5 Processor (corrected as csThors post below)
Nvidia 460
2GB RAM

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=17135&page=74

(Good luck reading through all the other irrelevant crap)

This is also quite helpful:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-graphics-radeon-hd-6870-radeon-hd-6850,review-32039-7.html

The 5850 is reckoned equal to the 6870 and apparently the 6000 series are better for Tesselation although I don't know if that's an issue with SoW. I don't really know where the 5850 will stand in SoW, I'm trying to decide between a 5870 or wait for the 6970 (if I can afford it). The 5850 runs IL-2 and FSX very well on my laptop but I don't know how well it will run SoW. One comfort is that Oleg's 460 is a little further down the list and if the presentation stutters are caused by too little RAM the higher cards on the list may deliver well in SoW.

[csThor]

In fact that exhibition processor is just an i5, not an i7. ;)

[=XIII=Shea]

Did Oleg mention anything about a release date at the game exhibition???

[Triggaaar]

I'm trying to decide between a 5870 or wait for the 6970 (if I can afford it).Unless you're getting a really good deal, the 5xxx series aren't a good buy at the moment. The 6xxx series are better for equal money, and if the game develops (as IL2 did) to be more power hungry in a couple of years time, you can then add another 6xxx series, as they are much better in CF than the 5xxx series.

The 6970 promises to be a great card, but until we're given more info we don't know if the game will work better on Nvidia cards. It would be good if you could wait for more information though.

[nearmiss]

Release date

Sure wish this could be one piece of news everyone is anxious to read.

The marketing campaign appears to now be underway.

Updates and information should be available more frequently.

Check around on other sim sites each day as well.

[speculum jockey]

Unless you're getting a really good deal, the 5xxx series aren't a good buy at the moment. The 6xxx series are better for equal money, and if the game develops (as IL2 did) to be more power hungry in a couple of years time, you can then add another 6xxx series, as they are much better in CF than the 5xxx series.

The 6970 promises to be a great card, but until we're given more info we don't know if the game will work better on Nvidia cards. It would be good if you could wait for more information though.

ATI cards will run it just as well at Nvidia cards. The only thing different is that Nvidia likes to give out a lot of cards to game developers so that they get their logo when the game boots up. This is a sales tactic more than a comparability issue. Sometimes a game is slightly more optimized to run on one brand rather than another, but the days of double-digit differences between equal cards running the same game are pretty much over.

Go with the card with the best money/FPS ratio.

[Richie]

WTF?

It's the final lap, they have a publisher and and a demo for nvidia.
This is the first time the light at then end of tunnel seems to be indeed daylight.
:)


Who's the publisher I missed that one :)

...Oh on the edit..1c Soft Club

[Richie]

$40 in 2006 is like $65 in today's dollars. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v687/Thunderbolt56/Smilies/blink.gif

Well when I bought IL-2 in 2001 it was almost $80 inclueding tax but that's in Canada.

[swiss]

Who's the publisher I missed that one :)

Oleg just said he has one, but not who it is.

But we got another source, which i trust by now; and that means ubi.

[Richie]

Yes I just found it but thanks Swiss. 1c Soft Club

[Triggaaar]

Yes I just found it but thanks Swiss. 1c Soft ClubThat's for Russia only. Looks like Ubis**t for the rest of us.

[nearmiss]

That's for Russia only. Looks like Ubis**t for the rest of us.

It may be you are right. Remember, Oleg has a lot patches and addons coming our way. A lot of distributors want too much control with addons and patches.

So... Ubi may not be a best choice as many view it, but from a developers point of view it may be a best go.

Afterall, Ubisoft was definitely efficient getting the boxes onto retailer shelves. There were alot of IL2 addons, which didn't necessarily make the distributor any money (PE-2), yet Ubi did distribute all the addons.

[Ailantd]

UBI DRM could be a hard handicap for best selling the game. Ubi DRM is a pain for the legal user, not for the illegal user. Even ROF with a similar DRM change it.

[Richie]

I doubt if it's Ubi Soft.

[robtek]

I, for my part, couldn't care less who the publisher is as long as i can play without
internet connection and can sell (if i ever wanted, just as principle) my copy.

[Hecke]

I, for my part, couldn't care less who the publisher is as long as i can play without
internet connection and can sell (if i ever wanted, just as principle) my copy.

+1

That's really the only important point.

[Richie]

Please don't take any offense but I think you two are very much in the minority. To me the IL-2 series was always meant to be played online. I think if people have trouble with online play Storm Of War it would be catastrophic.

[Foo'bar]

It may be you are right. Remember, Oleg has a lot patches and addons coming our way. A lot of distributors want too much control with addons and patches.

So... Ubi may not be a best choice as many view it, but from a developers point of view it may be a best go.

That's exactly why Steam would be a good choice.

[The Kraken]

That's exactly why Steam would be a good choice.

Steam?

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fsukhoi.ru%2Fforum%2Fshowp ost.php%3Fp%3D1492123%26postcount%3D588&sl=ru&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

[Foo'bar]

Steam?

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fsukhoi.ru%2Fforum%2Fshowp ost.php%3Fp%3D1492123%26postcount%3D588&sl=ru&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

Sorry mate but google translation from russian to anything else is nothing else than c**p. I don't understand that.

[The Kraken]

Sorry mate but google translation from russian to anything else is nothing else than c**p. I don't understand that.

Well I wouldn't take it as a "reliable source" for sure, and who knows what "Steam" in that context means... but "Ilya replied that there was something somehow will run through Steam" is one of the more straight-forward translations from Google. But ok probably not a good idea to start rumours this way, we should anyway find out soon enough.

[Foo'bar]

Thank you anyway :)

[Triggaaar]

It may be you are right. Remember, Oleg has a lot patches and addons coming our way. A lot of distributors want too much control with addons and patches.

So... Ubi may not be a best choice as many view it, but from a developers point of view it may be a best go.Just to be clear, I won't blame or criticise the developers for choosing whichever publisher they fancy. There's lots of things that can affect their decision, and after all the effort they've made developing this sim who can begrudge them. But that doesn't mean we have to like their choice :)

[robtek]

Please don't take any offense but I think you two are very much in the minority. To me the IL-2 series was always meant to be played online. I think if people have trouble with online play Storm Of War it would be catastrophic.

And what makes you think that i am not a online player???
That is typical black-white thinking!
Completely unsuitable for any kind of discussion.
I just want to be able to play even if my internet-connection is f****ed up again!

[Hecke]

Yeah, I also thought you meant the DRM crap.

[Richie]

Misunderstood.

[Blackdog_kt]

I, for my part, couldn't care less who the publisher is as long as i can play without
internet connection and can sell (if i ever wanted, just as principle) my copy.

I agree. I'm not against DRM just to be against it and i'm not against copy protection in general. I'm just against certain copy protection or DRM methods that don't let me do what i want to do and what has become the expected norm for fair and legal software usage in my own free time and discretion, that's all :grin:


That being said, UBI was said to have abandoned their DRM scheme. They opted to ship all their latter games (after the SH5/Assassin's creed debacle) with Steam protection. That doesn't mean you can't buy it in a box however. For example, Empire:Total War was a game you could buy in a boxed copy but it required use of a Steam account for activation.

I'm not really a fan of having extra apps running in the background and using up system resources but i'd have to say that even though i've never used it, Steam seems to be the most painless method for online authentication. We can go online once and activate, then we can play in offline mode if our internet connection is down, plus i think you can download the game at no extra charge if you lose the discs as long as you have it registered to your account.

So, if SoW comes along in a boxed copy without securom/starforce/limited activations/permanent online requirement but requires steam for a one-off activation, i'd call that a very good compromise and would have no reservations with it.

[klem]

Unless you're getting a really good deal, the 5xxx series aren't a good buy at the moment. The 6xxx series are better for equal money, and if the game develops (as IL2 did) to be more power hungry in a couple of years time, you can then add another 6xxx series, as they are much better in CF than the 5xxx series.

The 6970 promises to be a great card, but until we're given more info we don't know if the game will work better on Nvidia cards. It would be good if you could wait for more information though.

I agree even though no specs have been published. I'm expecting the 6970 to at least match the 5870 for performance and add new graphics capabilities like Tesselation (if we need that).

I've asked both XFX and Scan if they know when and what sort of price bracket, hoping for an answer in the next few days (which will probably be "we don't know yet"). Scan have just offered me a good 'Black Ops' deal with the 5870, pretty much what I posted earlier. If the 6970 is several months away (actually to market) I'll go with the 5870.

My fingers are itching now :(

speculum jockey,

I've always been a Nvidia man (2 x 7800GTs atm) but ATI seem to have a big edge just now and I, too, don't believe ATI would allow themselves to be left behind on game compatibility.

[MuxaHuk]

Steam is very useful thing, not only DRM, it is:
- global server list (filters, sorting by, and more more etc)
- auto-update (download and install lattest patch automaticly)
- social network (groups, friends and etc.);
- chat (easy chating from in-game, voice chat, messages like ICQ, MSN);
- achivements (military ranks, medals and awards, and etc.)

[Sven]

Steam is very useful thing, not only DRM, it is:
- global server list (filters, sorting by, and more more etc)
- auto-update (download and install lattest patch automaticly)
- social network (groups, friends and etc.);
- chat (easy chating from in-game, voice chat, messages like ICQ, MSN);
- achivements (military ranks, medals and awards, and etc.)

Steam as a sort of DRM is not really bad, I use it a lot, but sometimes the servers from steam are down or there are malfunctions which causes all servers to crash in ETW/NTW, it does not happen frequently but at least 2 times a month, a bit annoying.

[Foo'bar]

Steam is very useful thing, not only DRM, it is:
- global server list (filters, sorting by, and more more etc)
- auto-update (download and install lattest patch automaticly)
- social network (groups, friends and etc.);
- chat (easy chating from in-game, voice chat, messages like ICQ, MSN);
- achivements (military ranks, medals and awards, and etc.)

Albeit the lats 5 points are only to make the first one more tasty ;)

UBI please hear me! If need be any DRM then PLEASE Steam!

[brando]

I agree even though no specs have been published. I'm expecting the 6970 to at least match the 5870 for performance and add new graphics capabilities like Tesselation (if we need that).

I've asked both XFX and Scan if they know when and what sort of price bracket, hoping for an answer in the next few days (which will probably be "we don't know yet"). Scan have just offered me a good 'Black Ops' deal with the 5870, pretty much what I posted earlier. If the 6970 is several months away (actually to market) I'll go with the 5870.

My fingers are itching now :(

speculum jockey,

I've always been a Nvidia man (2 x 7800GTs atm) but ATI seem to have a big edge just now and I, too, don't believe ATI would allow themselves to be left behind on game compatibility.

I'm enjoying the smoothness of my HIS 5870 (CoD version), which comes lightly overclocked @875 MHz (GPU) and 1225MHz Memory. I'm pretty certain that it, plus a quad-core cpu, and some decent memory 4Gb+, will be able to run SoW at a decent setting.

[csThor]

Unfortunately ATI seems to be rather uninterested what Maddox Games does. IIRC Oleg once complained that they never answered his calls for technical support so that MG had to fiddle with ATI problems on their own. Nvidia was a lot more responsive, hence the traditional edge their cards have in Il-2. I don't know if that's changed ...

[1.JaVA_Sharp]

Unfortunately ATI seems to be rather uninterested what Maddox Games does. IIRC Oleg once complained that they never answered his calls for technical support so that MG had to fiddle with ATI problems on their own. Nvidia was a lot more responsive, hence the traditional edge their cards have in Il-2. I don't know if that's changed ...

not much. Oleg mentioned that the build he was demonstrating was an Nvidia build.

[ElAurens]

ATI's traditional lack of good driver support continues apace.

Good hardware left wanting.

[robtek]

ATI's traditional lack of good driver support continues apace.

Good hardware left wanting.

I really can't follow you here, the actual AMD - Drivers, 10.10 as i recall, are working flawless with all my games.
Are there problems with SoW:BoB, was it even tried with a amd-card?

[CBA_Bludawg]

i run ati 5870 900 and 1225 oc. and 6 core amd oc to 3.9 and run il2 with no problems at all, and all my games run flawless. (arma2 to codmw2)

[julian265]

I really can't follow you here, the actual AMD - Drivers, 10.10 as i recall, are working flawless with all my games.
Are there problems with SoW:BoB, was it even tried with a amd-card?

ElAurens is probably thinking along these lines: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=194857&postcount=123

I had problems with anything newer than 8.9 in IL-2 (until the 4870 died), then further issues popped up in the early 10s, then they fixed it in 10.5 (or 3?), then on their next release I saw a bunch of posts about the same issues returning (!), and now you're saying it's good in 10.10. I see too many posts that report the exact same issues, to believe the problems are due to anything other than the ATI drivers.

And then there's the better nvidia support for linux (which matters to me).

[speculum jockey]

Unfortunately ATI seems to be rather uninterested what Maddox Games does. IIRC Oleg once complained that they never answered his calls for technical support so that MG had to fiddle with ATI problems on their own. Nvidia was a lot more responsive, hence the traditional edge their cards have in Il-2. I don't know if that's changed ...

Nvidia had excellent OpenGL support which accounted for their edge over ATI. Since SOW is going the DX9/10/11 route I imagine it will be even footing again. Like I said before, there were countless games ATI ran just as well or better than Nvidia, and they all had that "Nvidia" logo at the beginning.

Nvidia better get their act together and stop worrying about getting their logo on games. Nobody buys Call of Duty/MOH/WOW, sees the Nvidia logo, and then goes out and buys an Nvidia card. People who are smart enough to buy and install a video card are smart enough to look at a GPU chart and see that there are better options for less money that Nvidia's current offerings.

Personally I want to see them regain some ground from ATI so that ATI will drop their prices even further.

[Richie]

Won't the Hyperlobby make a place for Storm Of War right after it comes out just like they did with the 2001 IL-2 Demo and so on. Hyperlobby is the only way to go for online play...right?

[LoBiSoMeM]

ElAurens is probably thinking along these lines: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=194857&postcount=123

I had problems with anything newer than 8.9 in IL-2 (until the 4870 died), then further issues popped up in the early 10s, then they fixed it in 10.5 (or 3?), then on their next release I saw a bunch of posts about the same issues returning (!), and now you're saying it's good in 10.10. I see too many posts that report the exact same issues, to believe the problems are due to anything other than the ATI drivers.

And then there's the better nvidia support for linux (which matters to me).

The "problem" is an dated engine using an less used API, and slow solution delivery by ATI regards to drivers issues.

People confuse that with the illogical believes like "ATI runs worse IL-2 than NVIDIA" and "Water=4 in NVIDIA has a HUGE difference over Water=2 in ATI".

Those things don't happens with modern VGAs. They have PLENTY of horsepower to runs IL-2 at the maximum level with only the drops in performance induced by the dated engine, even in NASA computers.

SoW : BoB = DX10, DX11 = standard for game development today = ATI and NVIDIA performing at the same level, with minor gains for one side, as in ANY other title...

Things are simple.

[II/JG54_Emil]

Won't the Hyperlobby make a place for Storm Of War right after it comes out just like they did with the 2001 IL-2 Demo and so on. Hyperlobby is the only way to go for online play...right?

I would expect SOW not to need Hyperlobby at all.

[Richie]

Really? There would be a base gathering point and then other arenas?

[Red Dragon-DK]

I would expect SOW not to need Hyperlobby at all.

Of course SOW needing HL. Dont you fly VR - Virtual Battlefield, Vow, Blue VS Red ect? So of course SOW will be justified in HL. Just because some believe a product they have not seen yet is fantastic, is no reason to be naive.
I want to belive SOW will be good. But I dont know before I have seen it. Will it be complete - No I dont think so. But in time - mabye - like IL2 1946. One can only hope :D

[JG52Uther]

It will all depend on how SoW ios played online.For all we know it could be a system similar to RoF,through master servers.A seriously flawed system that would be...

[Richie]

Here's a screen of the Hyperlobby for people who may not realize the amount of online play that IL-2 gets. Probably very few. When Storm Of War comes out about two weeks later probably half to three quarters of the population of Hyperlobby will have purchased it and IL-2 1946 will become what IL-2 2001 has become, a classic sim that will be loads of fun for people with older systems. Thousands of Storm Of War converts have got to go some where to fly in the new "Spits VS 109s", "Warclouds" and other Dogfight arenas not to mention the online wars etc. and I don't think they can do it without the Hyperlobby.

[ElAurens]

Oleg has already mentioned a global dedicated server set up, some time ago as I recall.

I think HL will be redundant, but we will just have to wait and see.

[Hecke]

I think HL will be redundant, but we will just have to wait and see.

I hope so. I don't like it when other programms have to run in background and eat recources.
Anyway, the hyperlobby looks a bit too outdated compared to the high visual standard of SoW BoB.

[Blackdog_kt]

Actually, there was talk from the developers a few updates back about integrating their server browswer/multiplayer lobby with the game's copy protection.
That sounds a bit like valve's steam to me, in which case we'll still have a secondary client running in the background.

[F19_Klunk]

Nobody buys Call of Duty/MOH/WOW, sees the Nvidia logo, and then goes out and buys an Nvidia card. People who are smart enough to buy and install a video card are smart enough to look at a GPU chart and see that there are better options for less money that Nvidia's current offerings


.

I see that u are not into marketing :) or have any clue about consumor behaviour :)

[Insuber]

I searched a game development glossary with the typical duration of each step. Here are my findings, and if Oleg's "BETA" is a real beta, we are some 4-5 months from Gold master, and (presumably) at least 6-7 months from game relase. Adding the complexity of SoW and the amount of bugs I would add at least 3-4 months to the standard times ... Fall 2011? IMHO of course. I cannot understand how this matches with Oleg's previous forecasts and statements about the budget constraints ... unless we will get a flawed version "à la RoF", which I hope not.

**********************
First playable

The first playable is the game version containing representative gameplay and assets, this is the first version with functional major gameplay elements. It is often based on the prototype created in pre-production. Alpha and first playable are sometimes used to refer to a single milestone, however large projects require first playable before feature complete alpha.First playable occurs 12 to 18 months before code release.

Alpha

Alpha is the stage when key gameplay functionality is implemented, and assets are partially finished. A game in alpha is feature complete, that is, game is playable and contains all the major features. These features may be further revised based on testing and feedback. Additional small, new features may be added, similarly planned, but unimplemented features may be dropped. Programmers focus mainly on finishing the codebase, rather than implementing additions. Alpha occurs eight to ten months before code release.

Code freeze

Code freeze is the stage when new code is no longer added to the game and only bugs are being corrected. Code freeze occurs three to four months before code release.

Beta

Beta is feature and asset complete version of the game, when only bugs are being fixed. This version contains no bugs that prevent the game from being shippable. No changes are made to the game features, assets, or code. Beta occurs two to three months before code release.

Code release

Code release is the stage when all bugs are fixed and game is ready to be shipped or submitted for console manufacturer review. This version is tested against QA test plan. First code release candidate is usually ready three to four weeks before code release.

Gold master

Gold master is the final game's build that is used as a master for production of the game.

**************************************
I will be glad to be proven wrong by Oleg, of course :)

[swiss]

.

I see that u are not into marketing :) or have any clue about consumor behaviour :)

Plus he's wrong.

ATI don't outperform nv in all games.

[swiss]

I searched a game development glossary with the typical duration of each step. Here are my findings, and if Oleg's "BETA" is a real beta, we are some 4-5 months from Gold master, and (presumably) at least 6-7 months from game relase. Adding the complexity of SoW and the amount of bugs I would add at least 3-4 months to the standard times ... Fall 2011? IMHO of course. I cannot understand how this matches with Oleg's previous forecasts and statements about the budget constraints ... unless we will get a flawed version "à la RoF", which I hope not.

**********************
First playable

The first playable is the game version containing representative gameplay and assets, this is the first version with functional major gameplay elements. It is often based on the prototype created in pre-production. Alpha and first playable are sometimes used to refer to a single milestone, however large projects require first playable before feature complete alpha.First playable occurs 12 to 18 months before code release.

Alpha

Alpha is the stage when key gameplay functionality is implemented, and assets are partially finished. A game in alpha is feature complete, that is, game is playable and contains all the major features. These features may be further revised based on testing and feedback. Additional small, new features may be added, similarly planned, but unimplemented features may be dropped. Programmers focus mainly on finishing the codebase, rather than implementing additions. Alpha occurs eight to ten months before code release.

Code freeze

Code freeze is the stage when new code is no longer added to the game and only bugs are being corrected. Code freeze occurs three to four months before code release.

Beta

Beta is feature and asset complete version of the game, when only bugs are being fixed. This version contains no bugs that prevent the game from being shippable. No changes are made to the game features, assets, or code. Beta occurs two to three months before code release.

Code release

Code release is the stage when all bugs are fixed and game is ready to be shipped or submitted for console manufacturer review. This version is tested against QA test plan. First code release candidate is usually ready three to four weeks before code release.

Gold master

Gold master is the final game's build that is used as a master for production of the game.

**************************************
I will be glad to be proven wrong by Oleg, of course :)

They way I understood Oleg, we're at code freeze.

[kendo65]

I searched a game development glossary with the typical duration of each step. Here are my findings, and if Oleg's "BETA" is a real beta, we are some 4-5 months from Gold master, and (presumably) at least 6-7 months from game relase. Adding the complexity of SoW and the amount of bugs I would add at least 3-4 months to the standard times ... Fall 2011? IMHO of course. I cannot understand how this matches with Oleg's previous forecasts and statements about the budget constraints ... unless we will get a flawed version "à la RoF", which I hope not.

...
...

**************************************
I will be glad to be proven wrong by Oleg, of course :)

Not trying to be a smart-arse and sorry for the divergence, but your post brought to mind something called the Drake equation in astronomy - used to 'calculate' the potential number of civilisations in our galaxy. It all looks great, but unfortunately none of the numbers you plug into it are known - they all have to be guessed - with the result that different people with different opinions have used it to produce answers ranging from 1 (just us!) to over 100,000.

I think the margins of error in your conclusion could be nearly as big! :)

... Fall 2011? IMHO of course. I cannot understand how this matches with Oleg's previous forecasts and statements about the budget constraints ...

I can...Oleg KNOWS......and you're guessing based on no evidence.

[swiss]

I think the margins of error in your conclusion could be nearly as big! :)

Not really. If you have a plan, you have a timeline, and you'll have to stick to it, come hell or high water.
Of course you change it all the time, not sure if that is a result of good management though.

[kendo65]

Not really. If you have a plan, you have a timeline, and you'll have to stick to it, come hell or high water.
Of course you change it all the time, not sure if that is a result of good management though.

I wasn't actually really being that serious ;) :)

[Dano]

I searched a game development glossary with the typical duration of each step. Here are my findings, and if Oleg's "BETA" is a real beta, we are some 4-5 months from Gold master, and (presumably) at least 6-7 months from game relase. Adding the complexity of SoW and the amount of bugs I would add at least 3-4 months to the standard times ... Fall 2011? IMHO of course. I cannot understand how this matches with Oleg's previous forecasts and statements about the budget constraints ... unless we will get a flawed version "à la RoF", which I hope not.

**********************
First playable

The first playable is the game version containing representative gameplay and assets, this is the first version with functional major gameplay elements. It is often based on the prototype created in pre-production. Alpha and first playable are sometimes used to refer to a single milestone, however large projects require first playable before feature complete alpha.First playable occurs 12 to 18 months before code release.

Alpha

Alpha is the stage when key gameplay functionality is implemented, and assets are partially finished. A game in alpha is feature complete, that is, game is playable and contains all the major features. These features may be further revised based on testing and feedback. Additional small, new features may be added, similarly planned, but unimplemented features may be dropped. Programmers focus mainly on finishing the codebase, rather than implementing additions. Alpha occurs eight to ten months before code release.

Code freeze

Code freeze is the stage when new code is no longer added to the game and only bugs are being corrected. Code freeze occurs three to four months before code release.

Beta

Beta is feature and asset complete version of the game, when only bugs are being fixed. This version contains no bugs that prevent the game from being shippable. No changes are made to the game features, assets, or code. Beta occurs two to three months before code release.

Code release

Code release is the stage when all bugs are fixed and game is ready to be shipped or submitted for console manufacturer review. This version is tested against QA test plan. First code release candidate is usually ready three to four weeks before code release.

Gold master

Gold master is the final game's build that is used as a master for production of the game.

**************************************
I will be glad to be proven wrong by Oleg, of course :)

If I recall correctly Oleg has previously stated that he doesn't follow the traditional development cycle as other developers do.

[speculum jockey]

.

I see that u are not into marketing :) or have any clue about consumor behaviour :)

I see that Nvidia's market share has been falling steadily for the past few years. Wonder if their guys are into marketing as well?

Read again! This time don't try and discern what's between the lines (nothing there) just read the post.

People don't buy a game, see the logo on boot up and then go out and buy an Nvidia card. They're already playing the game which means they already have a card. Plus people who are likely to buy a video card and install it themselves are much more likely to actually research their purchase rather than blindly grab a green box. Sure some buy Nvidia, but the numbers show that a lot of them are switching teams. A lot of the easily swayed people who make those kind of snap decisions that Nvidia are banking on have already moved on to consoles, they don't have to make that decision any more, and the market is reflecting that.

Hardware junkie today (as opposed to 5 or even 10 years ago) are much more savvy and less swayed by brand loyalty and all the little extras that only add to the cost and not to the FPS. The PC hardware market is shrinking because of the Console market (just like the PC games market) so the people who are left are the hard-core crowd who are willing to dish out the cash for a PC that will play their games as smoothly as possible. 5 or 10 years ago you could be a fanboy and just blindly go with ATI or Nvidia since the prices were so close for the same amount of performance. Now that has widened, and fanboys are feeling the sting ($100 or more in some cases) because they want a certain amount of performance and don't intend on looking at what the other team has.

Plus he's wrong.

ATI don't outperform nv in all games.

Never said that ATI can outperform Nvidia in all games, I said they are a much better value. If you look at $/FPS ATI is well ahead of Nvidia, and is set to widen the gap with their latest releases. One card beating all others in all games and categories is not something that you're going to see very often (if ever). Saying one card is the all-out best is a matter of opinion. But the value of a card is something we can sort of decree. Right now it's in ATI's court. Maybe next year or later Nvidia will gain back some territory. I hope so since it's competition that keep these prices low the the technology moving ahead at full steam.

[swiss]

People don't buy a game, see the logo on boot up and then go out and buy an Nvidia card. They're already playing the game which means they already have a card. Plus people who are likely to buy a video card and install it themselves are much more likely to actually research their purchase rather than blindly grab a green box. Sure some buy Nvidia, but the numbers show that a lot of them are switching teams. A lot of the easily swayed people who make those kind of snap decisions that Nvidia are banking on have already moved on to consoles, they don't have to make that decision any more, and the market is reflecting that.


Those ppl change the gpu at least once a year.
[I'd say +/-$100/month is a reasonable number too keep your system more or less up to date(high mid-end)]
Sure they research the GPU, however it comes down to which cards performs beat at their favorite games.

So, if card A outperforms card B in 2 out of 3 (of my favorite)games I'll go for card A.
Even if B is better on energy, $100 cheaper, or performs way better in other games - which I don't play...

[Insuber]

If I recall correctly Oleg has previously stated that he doesn't follow the traditional development cycle as other developers do.

You're right, but nature makes no leaps :) ... Natura non facit saltus.

[Insuber]

I can...Oleg KNOWS......and you're guessing based on no evidence.

No guessing ... guesstimating ;)
At any rate, only who makes a forecast can be wrong ... and forecasts are always wrong :D, but not SO wrong ... I would say +/-25% in this case. And a last treasure of wisdom... a wrong forecast is better than no forecast ... Augh!

[klem]

Oleg has already mentioned a global dedicated server set up, some time ago as I recall.

I think HL will be redundant, but we will just have to wait and see.

I would be very happy to see a MMOG server like Aces High have. I miss those large historical scenarios we used to run in AH. However I think I read somewhere a while ago that large server setups will be limited, if not prevented, by the capability of user's PCs to handle the extensive amount data passed between SoW (even IL-2) players ( sneaks back to 'on-Topic' :) ) I would be glad to find that isn't so.

What would it take? 5Mb Broadband, 10Mb, 20? It's widely available in Europe/USA. Core i5 ++ power?

It's secondary to the main Topic but an interesting question.

[Richie]

What about cost though? Hyperlobby is free. Aces High, Warbirds aren't.

[klem]

What about cost though? Hyperlobby is free, Aces High, Warbirds aren't.

True, "yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice". I wouldn't mind $10-$15 a month for all the time I play on line if a MMOG Host was going to deliver top-value.

I still think the "free" opportunities will be there but, of course, they aren't really free. Someone is paying for them and many HL servers frequently ask for, and get, donations from the community.

[Richie]

Ten - Fifteen dollars..That sounds good as long as he's fine with paypal lol

[swiss]

What about cost though? Hyperlobby is free. Aces High, Warbirds aren't.

In fact Hyperlobby was down(capped to 30 players per game) few days ago due to financial problems.

Sure it lastet only 45minutes, until enough ppl donated.

So no, there aren't free meals.

[Thunderbolt56]

I haven't used Hyperlobby in well over 5 years and even before that, I used it very rarely. I prefer to direct connect or use more intuitive, more forgiving server finders. I have no doubt there will be a SoW presence on HL and I also have no doubt that it will be redundant.

I'm expecting a Q1 2011 release and I use a core i7 overclocked within an inch of its life with an Nvidia card.

I keep my ear to the ground and talk to people much more in the know than I, but I have no crystal ball or telling tarot cards.

I guess that about covers the last 3 pages...lol.

[Gringo]

Hi there!

May I would like to go back to the first post of this thread and the first question:

1. When will BOB SOW be released or or in other words, when can we buy it? :oops:

Thank you very much in advance for a serious answer. :cool:

Best wishes
Gringo

[Foo'bar]

There is and there will be no planned release date...

You know what? Thank God, I say! ;)

[Tte. Costa]

I couldn´t imagine how the programmers can work without a strict timetable.

I think is the best way to work, not to relase a game under pression of publisher and full of bugs.

[addman]

I think it's very interesting to note how long this game has been in development, considering it's neither CoD nor Duke Nukem -which WILL be released next year by Gearbox who now owns the IP-. They -Maddox Games- must have relatively low burn rate since the IL-2 series is by no means is a triple-A series of games.

Whoever their publisher is, they must have A LOT of confidence in O-Team. Everybody's saying Ubisoft is the publisher but I find that hard to believe since Ubisoft since a while back has stated that their main focus for games are in the console market -piracy- and rather then bringing out many different IP's they'll be focusing on a smaller range of triple-A titles instead i.e Assassins Creed.

Oleg and his team is a dying breed IMO, game studios have more money then ever but the sales of the games not only has to match the expenditures but also produce waaaay more profit if there will be any sequels/second chances. This is where DLC makes it's entrance me thinks, forget about expecting free patches with additional content, those days are over. A lot has happened since the first releases of the IL-2 series. Bug fixing patches will be free of course but expect to pay for all the other stuff, planes, map packs etc. Finally Oleg can actually make some money from us cry babies ;)

I'm more then happy to pay for stuff coming out of Olegs team because I know it's always top quality. These are just some educated or less educated guesses IMHO :)

[The Kraken]

Sure, but this could become a neverending story, because it is nearly impossible to eliminate all bugs.

I want SoW in good shape too, no question, but i believe, Oleg is a perfectionist and the game is in good shape already.

Oleg himself has mentioned several areas that still need to be worked on, and that isn't limited to small and unimportant features. Overall SoW hasn't been in development considerably longer than Il2, but with a lot more content and detail to cover.

And the business model that requires a mandatory release date independent of the actual state of the software is, fortunately, not the only possible approach.

[Richie]

Hi there!

May I would like to go back to the first post of this thread and the first question:

1. When will BOB SOW be released or or in other words, when can we buy it? :oops:

Thank you very much in advance for a serious answer. :cool:

Best wishes
Gringo

In my opinion spring 2011 Feb March April. I think that's a fair guess.

[Hecke]

"thousands will be playing SoW BoB by October" - Maybe October 2011? ;)

[klem]

Oleg confirmed there will be a x64 exe. On a similar note - DCS A-10C is a x64 sim, first ever released. So my bet is that with SoW we will have similar support, for both x32 and x 64.

A squadmate just pointed this out from these discussions on 24th September:

Quote:
Originally Posted by steam View Post
Oleg, does this mean that the game will be two versions of 64 and 32 bit?
Currently the answer is no, it doesn't. In future - maybe.

:(

[Chivas]

A developer can have the all the work schedules you want but they are almost impossible to keep.

SOW announced by Oleg in 2003 to be released in 2005.
.....this did not happen as the developer decided to help Luthier build Pacific Fighters into a full addon.

SOW announced by Ubi in 2006 to be released in 2007
.....this did not happen as there seems to be more money to be gained with further addons to the Il-2 series, ie IL-2 1946 etc.

SOW development again started after the release of Il-2 1946 in 2008.
....there were a few setbacks in this period including employee problems on a small team
....it looked as if it could be released by Oct 2010, but anyone who has developed anything understands there are still allot of minefields to clear.
....now it all depends on how long it will take to clear the beta bugs.

Its certainly been along time, but it appears the wait will be worth it. Hopefully there will be enough sales to make building further additions to the SOW series worth the time and effort.

[Richie]

Directx11 explained well here.
======================


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wp4Y-u8-Qw

Now that I've checked out Chias's post I'm glad it's been delayed and it's a Dx11 game

[major_setback]

Directx11 explained well here.
======================


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wp4Y-u8-Qw

Now that I've checked out Chias's post I'm glad it's been delayed and it's a Dx11 game


Well, from that video (the bit about the cobblestones) Parallax Occlusion Mapping seems something to look out for! Looks 3D - but is easy on computer resources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_occlusion_mapping

"Parallax occlusion mapping (POM) is an enhancement of the parallax mapping technique. Parallax occlusion mapping is used to procedurally create 3D definition in textured surfaces, using a displacement map (similar to a topography map) instead of through the generation of new geometry. This allows developers of 3D rendering applications to add 3D complexity in textures, which correctly change relative to perspective and with self occlusion in real time (Self-shadowing is additionally possible), without sacrificing the processor cycles required to create the same effect with geometry calculations."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcAsJdo7dME&feature=related

More on the side-bar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKe1pt2rPI4&feature=related

[Richie]

I'm thinking it may have a positive effect on the instrument panel with the framing around the different gauges?

[WTE_Galway]

I'm thinking it may have a positive effect on the instrument panel with the framing around the different gauges?

textured leather comes to mind

[klem]

Directx11 explained well here.
======================


But will SOW be using these features (Tesselation, Compute Shading, Parallax Occlusion etc.?

Does it have to be 'programmed in' by Oleg or does it 'come with Directx11'?

Excuse my ignorance but as you'll know from earlier posts I am divided over ATI's 6970 (capable of Tesselation etc) which may not be out for a while or the 5870.

[phoenix1963]

Klem - I think all recent ATI cards have tesselation built in, whereas it's only the lastest family of NVidia cards that have it.

You are correct, Oleg would have to program DX11 tesselation in the game, rather than using the LODs (level of detail) models which switch between models. That's why the Stuka (in particular) jumps in resolution suddenly when you approach it.

Tesselation is a way of offloading increased detail to the graphics card rather than the CPU. But as an NVidia engineer once said to me, at the end of the day the card eventually does a traditional triangle-lighting-pixellation render - it's more of an programming interface and work distribution issue.

I think I remember Oleg saying it wouldn't have tesselation, but I'm not 100% sure. I suggest to you that he'd be ruling out a fair number of NVidia users with older cards if he went for it.

56RAF_phoenix

[klem]

Thanks phoenix

I spoke to ATI and they emphasis that the 6000 series is cheaper than the 5000 and is optimised for Tesselation. There was a bit of a language problem but I think he was saying the 5000s also deliver Tesselation (I've seen this in other posts) and he defintiely said the game has to be written for it.

I think Oleg has said it would be Dirext11 (hearsay from other threads) but I believe that won't deliver Tesselation on its own.

According to a couple of websites the 5870 is 'faster' than the 6870 except where Tesselation is used

http://www.hardware-infos.com/grafikkarten_charts.php
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-radeon-hd-6870-radeon-hd-6850,2782-7.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6870-radeon-hd-6850-barts,2776.html

[F19_lacrits]

According to a couple of websites the 5870 is 'faster' than the 6870 except where Tesselation is used

This is also confirmed by AMD, the tesselation engine in 68xx is much improved compared to previous 58xx-series GPU's. It's about twice as fast at lower levels of tesselation.. though this advantage goes down with higher levels of tesselation. See this graph from xbitlabs comparing 68xx tesselation vs. 58xx.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video/radeon-hd6870-hd6850/hd6800_tess.png

.. Though AMD are still behind nvidia Fermi GF100 when it comes to tesselation.

You will find that the 6870 and 6850 are not far behind their predecessors overall, and in CrossFire they scale even better than "old" 58xx.. though they have less raw "GPU"-power, they are better optimized for their task.

[Triggaaar]

Klem - I think all recent ATI cards have tesselation built in, whereas it's only the lastest family of NVidia cards that have it.I think you have this the wrong way around. Nvidia have led ATI/AMD in tesselation for a while, as can be seen in the benchmarks.

[JAMF]

I think you have this the wrong way around. Nvidia have led ATI/AMD in tesselation for a while, as can be seen in the benchmarks.nVidia had a type of tesselation before 2002? Ati had Truform back then.

[K_Freddie]

That Dx11 video is sooooo pathetic.
What did he actually tell us,.... 'Tesselation' :rolleyes:

And what about the rest of DX11... Now that would be informative.
;)

[Triggaaar]

nVidia had a type of tesselation before 2002? Ati had Truform back then.Did anyone have tesselation that made a positive contribution to any game back then? I'm really thinking of the last batch of cards, the 5xxx series against the 4xx series, and the nvidia cards were better at tesselation.

[JAMF]

Did anyone have tesselation that made a positive contribution to any game back then? I'm really thinking of the last batch of cards, the 5xxx series against the 4xx series, and the nvidia cards were better at tesselation.

Tessellation.

And you basically said phoenix1963 claim was wrong, where it was you who was wrong. That's what I was referring to.

The reason there were no positive contributions, because not many game developers did make use of it. If you had a Radeon 9500, you would have seen it in Quake, Unreal Tournament, Rainbow Six, Morrowind and some others.

The other point was that AMD is innovating. nVidia isn't. nVidia does the "oooh, let's do that too, but a bit better" a generation after AMD. Same with surround gaming.

[JAMF]

Flaming fanboy :roll:Funny that, as I had nothing but nVidia cards till now.

[speculum jockey]

Flaming fanboy :roll:

It's sort of true. They're usually the ones that look to see what happens then try and catch up and pass the innovators. Most of their early 2000's innovation came about after acquiring 3DFX and all their tech and a lot of their staff.

[swiss]

It's sort of true. They're usually the ones that look to see what happens then try and catch up and pass the innovators.

Actually a smart move, economically too.

[Flanker35M]

S!

AMD or nVidia, you can not go wrong these days. Anything above 60FPS at your desired screen resolution and details is good IMO. Comparing cards how they perform in IL-2, for example, is just plain stupid as we know AMD has some issues with it AND back then IL-2 was optimized for nVidia. I've been using both brands and not a single game has performed badly in the games I play. I prefer AMd because it is more silent, cooler and draws less power for almost equal performance to the green team. For me a few % means a squat, I play not live for benchmark scores :D

[dduff442]

AMD and nVidia are both guilty of anti-competitive practices -- that's what optimisations for a specific card are all about. Competition in this way rather than on price hurts buyers.

PhysX and CUDA are examples of anti-competitive practices as well. Nvidia want gamers to hold on to old CPUs and buy new GPUs to cement their control of the market. CPU power is very cheap compared with GPU power, and physics belongs on the CPU.

dduff

[swiss]

ll. Nvidia want gamers to hold on to old CPUs and buy new GPUs

Hold on to old cpus?

Pls explain.

[Triggaaar]

PhysX and CUDA are examples of anti-competitive practices as well. Nvidia want gamers to hold on to old CPUs and buy new GPUs to cement their control of the market. CPU power is very cheap compared with GPU power, and physics belongs on the CPU.

dduff

Hold on to old cpus?

Pls explain.I believe duff's point is that nvidea want you to become dependant on the GPU for the PhysX elements of a game, which suits the cards they sell more than their competitor. But it would be more economical for the physics to be handled by the cpu, so users would be better keeping their cpu up to date, rather than spending more on their nvidia GC.

[swiss]

why should nv develop a program which does not use the resources they sell?

There isn't a AMD or Intel Physx version...

[Baron]

CPU`s doesnt even come close to GPU`s abillity to handle PhysX, proppably never will.


Thats why NVidia is working so hard to make it a feature in games and nvidia gpu`s. The fact thet everyone who doesnt buy nvidia is whining about them dealing dirty is, well childish.

No reason what so ever why Nvidia should just give away features they work hard to develop.

Especially not to a company (read AMD) who cant even be bother if it cost them the slightest. (SoW to name one)

[Blackdog_kt]

While nVidia is obviously doing what's best for them, us users complaining about it is anything but childish, it's about what's good for us.

For example, if 99% of the games 5 years from now use physX and you are forced to buy nVidia cards at grossly inflated prices due to lack of competition, you'll understand why people are complaining now in a effort to steer things the way of the customer while it's still early on ;)

[swiss]

While nVidia is obviously doing what's best for them, us users complaining about it is anything but childish, it's about what's good for us.

For example, if 99% of the games 5 years from now use physX and you are forced to buy nVidia cards at grossly inflated prices due to lack of competition, you'll understand why people are complaining now in a effort to steer things the way of the customer while it's still early on ;)

Isn't it the programmer/studio who decides to use physx or not?
So:

1st: blame the programmers
2nd: blame AMD for not having something similar
3rd: blame nvidia only if they OWN the programming studios.

[julian265]

Isn't it the programmer/studio who decides to use physx or not?
So:

1st: blame the programmers
2nd: blame AMD for not having something similar
3rd: blame nvidia only if they OWN the programming studios.

+1

Also I'd only see a problem if a game NEEDED PhysX, rather than just benefitted from it, which I think is unlikely.

If PhysX became an important factor in the sales of Nvidia cards, the competitors would probably come out with their own solution... I'm not surprised that they haven't yet.

[dduff442]

Well first of all I pointed out that both AMD and nVidia are guilty of anti-competitive practices, so the accusations I'm part of the fanboisie are misplaced.

Secondly, I'd need to see a lot of evidence before I'd believe GPUs have some inherent advantage over CPUs for physics calculations; physics engines have been incorporated in numerous games for years and hardly any games are CPU limited on even the most basic machines. Il-2 has it's own rigid body model for crashes for example, one of many innovations.

People need to move past brand loyalty and see attempts to control the market for what they are: monopoly exploitation that will hurt consumers in the long run. PhysX, CUDA etc are just attempts to balkanise the industry in the exact same way Netscape and Microsoft tried to with the internet. They took open standards like HTML and added proprietary extensions; the idea was that websites would look bad or just be broken on their opponents software. This had nothing to do with helping consumers and everything to do with gaining power over them.

I don't believe that AMD are more innocent than nVidia, it's just that these tricks serve the interests of the dominant player rather than the underdog. Two companies are already insufficient for proper competition. If either gets a lock on the market, everybody loses.

dduff

[Igo kyu]

Secondly, I'd need to see a lot of evidence before I'd believe GPUs have some inherent advantage over CPUs for physics calculations;
GPUs have advantages over CPUs for processing, full stop. The only advantage CPUs have is that they are optimised for x86 and x64 code, so you need them to run Windows (or Linux, or Apple's OSX).

People used to use multiple CPUs to make fast computers, now they use multiple GPUs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPGPU

CUDA is the nVidia name for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA

The AMD name for it is Stream:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_FireStream#Software_Development_Kit

[swiss]

GPUs have advantages over CPUs for processing, full stop. The only advantage CPUs have is that they are optimised for x86 and x64 code, so you need them to run Windows (or Linux, or Apple's OSX).

People used to use multiple CPUs to make fast computers, now they use multiple GPUs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPGPU

CUDA is the nVidia name for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA

The AMD name for it is Stream:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_FireStream#Software_Development_Kit

http://pressroom.nvidia.com/easyir/customrel.do?easyirid=A0D622CE9F579F09&version=live&prid=686142&releasejsp=release_157

[dduff442]

From Wikipedia.

On anti-competitive practices:

Versions 186 and newer of the ForceWare drivers disable PhysX hardware acceleration when a GPU from a different manufacturer, such as AMD, is present in the system.[14] Representatives at Nvidia stated to customers that the decision was made due to development expenses, and for quality assurance and business reasons.[11][15] This decision has caused a backlash from the community that led to the creation of a community patch for Windows 7, circumventing the GPU check in Nvidia's updated drivers. Nvidia also implemented a time bomb in versions 196 and 197 which slowed down hardware-accelerated PhysX and reversed the gravity, leading to unwanted physical effects[16] - which was again remedied by the updated version of the community patch.[17]

On 5 July 2010, Real World Technologies published an analysis[21] of the PhysX architecture. According to this analysis, most of the code used in PhysX applications is based on x87 instructions without any multi-threading optimization. This could cause significant performance drops when running PhysX code on the CPU. The article suggests that a PhysX rewrite using SSE instructions may substantially lessen the performance discrepancy between CPU PhysX and GPU PhysX.

In response to the Real World Technologies analysis, Mike Skolones, product manager of PhysX, said[22] that SSE support has been left behind because most games are developed for consoles first and then ported to the PC. As a result, modern computers run these games faster and better than the consoles even with little or no optimization. Senior PR manager of Nvidia, Bryan Del Rizzo, explained that multi-threading is already available with CPU PhysX 2.x and that it is up to the developer to make use of it. Automatic multi-threading and SSE will be introduced with version 3 of the PhysX SDK.[23]

It's hard to make sense of Mike Skolones' comment that "modern computers run these games faster and better than the consoles" because "most games are developed for consoles first and then ported to the PC".

Some forms of physics modelling are suitable for parallelisation and some are not. I don't recall Havok based games running into CPU bottlenecks. In fact CPU-limited games are rarer than hen's teeth.

This conversation badly needs to get away from the nVidia vs AMD thing. When Apple were underdogs they complained bitterly about Microsoft's dirty tricks. Now they're on top, they're as bad as Microsoft ever were. Microsoft haven't gotten much better either. Back when Netscape was on top in internet applications, it wrestled with all it's might for power over consumers; it only started complaining when it lost out to Microsoft. Such practices are nearly universal among companies that have the power to carry them out.

dduff

[dduff442]

The supercomputers referred to run a restricted set of programmes over and over again. The performance figures referred to apply only to these specially tailored programmes which are suitable for parallelisation. Many software applications, including numerous physics applications, cannot be parallelised in this way. That many others can is neither here nor there -- CPUs don't struggle with modern games.

Reference to supercomputers is in any case of no relevance to a discussion about computer games.

dduff

[swiss]

I still don't get it:
(all from wiki)

PhysX is a proprietary realtime physics engine middleware SDK acquired by Ageia (which itself was acquired by Nvidia in February 2008[1]) with the purchase of ETH Zurich spin-off NovodeX in 2004. The term PhysX can also refer to the PPU add-in card designed by Ageia to accelerate PhysX-enabled video games.

Their engine(NV), their company, their rules.

Give them one reason why they should spend a single nickel to optimise it for CPUs they don't sell or ATI cards, which is a competitor.

the decision was made due to development expenses, and for quality assurance and business reasons

They they do what they think is best for their own company.
It's not like NV is a NPO - they paid for it too.
Maybe ATI want to shove some green over?


Now neither of the two is really dominating the market, tell ATI to remove the finger and give it go themselves.

also:

Nvidia provides both the engine and SDK for free to Windows and Linux users and developers

I'd say this enough charity. ;)

[dduff442]

Oh God...

You've just ignored most of the points made, as well as the numerous comparisons drawn with other companies that are uncontroversially held to have engaged in uncompetitive practices in the past.

The time bomb is inexcusable -- it's just an attempt to make competitors hardware look like it's malfunctioning when in fact it's nVidia sabotaging its own equipment.

The disabling driver is equally inexcusable; the people affected own perfectly funcioning PhysX-capable nVidia cards, but because the driver detects an AMD card also on the system it shuts down. This isn't "nVidia's driver, nVidia's rules", it's "gamer's cards, nVidia's rules". People shelled out on secondary nVidia cards only for nVidia to sabotage them after the fact with a driver "update".

A tiny bit of attention paid to nVidia's excuses reveals them to be plain BS in each case.

If you're going to persist with the debate, please address the parallels drawn with the behaviour of Apple, Microsoft and Netscape described above.

dduff

[speculum jockey]

I still don't get it:


I'll try and use an analogy so you can understand.

Mastercard give preferential rates to customers who shop at stores that are partners with them. If you use a visa you will not only NOT get that preferential rate, but it will actually cost you more money than it should.

Shell Oil decides to make cars. If you don't put Shell brand gas in that Shell car then you will get horrible mileage due to a design to ensure you only use their brand of gas.

Nvidia includes code that makes games run like crap if you don't use their cards!

[K_Freddie]

Nvidia includes code that makes games run like crap if you don't use their cards!
:confused::confused::rolleyes:
MSoft makes DirectX11(DX11) and freely distributes it.
NVidia, Radeon, etc.. make drivers that connect their cards to lower interface of DX11.
Game developers mostly use the top interface of DX11 to connect to any card, or connect directly to the card's driver itself.
The same idea applies PHysX and other types of interfaces.

What you're saying above is non-sense, unless of course you've installed a NVidia driver for a Radeon/ATI/etc card.... well, what more can I say ??
:grin:

[speculum jockey]

You compare apples to oranges. Thats complete and utter bullshit.

Sure in youre opinion Solarworld should give theirs solar panels for free to every person, because we all want to protect the environment. :roll:

This is in relation to release#'s 196 and 197 with regards to games using the physx programming and non NV cards.

[Baron]

Nvidia includes code that makes games run like crap if you don't use their cards!


U really belive that?

Maby NVidia should start develope Ati`s drivers to?

Maby NVidia includes code that makes games run as well as possible if u use thire cards? (shocker, i know)

[Blackdog_kt]

Isn't it the programmer/studio who decides to use physx or not?
So:

1st: blame the programmers
2nd: blame AMD for not having something similar
3rd: blame nvidia only if they OWN the programming studios.

I don't really disagree with that, but that's just one side of the coin. The point stands that if we are ever left with a single GPU brand, a lot of things we take for granted will become prohibitive in price.

I think that currently nVidia's lead is a perceived one and not a real one, a lead that's mainly in the marketing department. That's why i object to such practices, because if they sell enough of a product that needs improvement technically, they will be less inclined to improve it.

It's not like i'm an nVidia hater either, up till my current PC all i've ever had was nVidia cards. However, i have no brand loyalty whatsoever. I pay good money to these people and i expect the product to suit me, if it doesn't then too bad for them. However, the reason i can do this is because there is a competitor. I wouldn't be able to if there wasn't one.

In simple terms, a spinning logo during game start-up or all the hype about a technology that's still in its early stages and used in a handful of games (tesselation) doesn't equal true technological benefits for me that will justify their prices.

I'd rather they used some of that money to improve their manufacturing techniques, bring down the cost per unit and lower their wattage and heat signature than buy advertising space for a logo on as much games as possible. Then they would be more competitive, their products would be even better and we would all benefit from it due to the price wars with Ati.

As it is now, Ati has been selling at the prices they are simply because they know it doesn't make sense to buy a single core card that costs almost as much as, is hotter than, draws similar or more watts and delivers comparable performance to their dual core flagship model. If they were feeling threatened they would have cut prices earlier.



EDIT:


Well first of all I pointed out that both AMD and nVidia are guilty of anti-competitive practices
[...........]
People need to move past brand loyalty and see attempts to control the market for what they are: monopoly exploitation that will hurt consumers in the long run. PhysX, CUDA etc are just attempts to balkanise the industry in the exact same way Netscape and Microsoft tried to with the internet. They took open standards like HTML and added proprietary extensions; the idea was that websites would look bad or just be broken on their opponents software. This had nothing to do with helping consumers and everything to do with gaining power over them.

I don't believe that AMD are more innocent than nVidia, it's just that these tricks serve the interests of the dominant player rather than the underdog. Two companies are already insufficient for proper competition. If either gets a lock on the market, everybody loses.

dduff

That's exactly the point really.

A company develops software to further their own hardware sales: Good

A company actually spends money and time on sabotaging their own hardware if a competitor's hardware is also present on the system: Down right unacceptable and worth a big fat "screw you" to them next time i decide to buy :-P

[addman]

Haven't read the whole thread but I'd like to comment on the whole "SoW will be Nvidia optimized etc." subject. No game developer in their right mind will make a game that runs better on one brand of VGA cards than another. It doesn't make financial sense, if you wan't to reach out to as many customers as possible you have to make the game work equally good on all different brands. Maybe 10 years ago it was different when Nvidia all but owned the VGA market but these day when it's so evenly spread you have to satisfy ALL customers. Many games have an ATi or Nvidia stamp but they work just as well on both respectives in most cases, it's mostly just a marketing ploy. This is just my own humble opinion though :-)

[Igo kyu]

U really belive that?

...

Maby NVidia includes code that makes games run as well as possible if u use thire cards? (shocker, i know)
No, that turn their cards off if there's a non nVidia card present. So that you can't use a radeon for graphics, and a Geforce for CUDA, which if they didn't turn their card off, you could do. CUDA is currently better than AMD's Stream apparently, so it could make sense to try that, if you could, but no, if you want CUDA, you have to use a nVidia card for graphics. Which means, if you have an expensive AMD card already, you can't get a cheap GeForce as a physics co-pro. You could get a cheap radeon, but it probably won't work as well as a physics co-pro as a GeForce would, and the programing interface for the radeon physics set-up is probably different too, meaning more work for developers to use that. Years from now, the AMD way which is more about complying with industry standards may turn out to be better, but at this point in time as I understand it, the proprietory CUDA interface is leading.

[Triggaaar]

U really belive that?Yes. Some of us do believe that many of these companies do whatever they can to maximise their profits. Companies, as mentioned by duff, such as Microsoft, Apple, nVidia, AMD, Netscape etc.

In the example of nVidia, they have paid developers to optimise their code to suit nVidia cards, and it's suggested that they also (and this doesn't require much imagination for any of the companies listed) do extra work to prevent the cards working well on a competitors card. This is not surprising. It makes their card look good, and leads to more sales and bigger profits, which is really the only thing most (all) of these companies care about.

Maby NVidia should start develope Ati`s drivers to?Maybe you miss-understand the accusations, which are not made solely at nVidia.

As explained above, this is even just about making games work badly for customers of the competition - some people bought nVidia cards for PhysX, and nVidia stopped those cards working, if the customer also owned an ATI card.

[klem]

This is all a bit too deep for me.

Is anyone suggesting that SoW is being developed to deliver maximum benefit only if Nvidia's cards are used whilst ATI users have to settle for second best?

[brando]

Perhaps the Lucid Hydra chip, as seen on the new Asus Crosshair IV Extreme mobo, will go some way towards levelling this bumpy field. (Not that I'm recommending that particular board, which is aimed mainly at the over-clocking market) Once they have the software sorted it should be possible to combine green and red cards, hopefully to exploit the advantages of each type. Using the CUDA and PhysX features was mentioned in the review I read @ http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=1134&page=1