Friday 2010-10-01 Dev. update and Discussion

[Dano]

Oleg has never said he doesn't want the competetion to see it, anyway , what competetion? If what we have been told is true the game is all but finished other than bugs, so the imaginary competeion will see it soon anyway? Doh!!

Wrong again, maybe you should take the time to review Oleg's postings before spouting rubbish. Oh wait, you couldn't even be bothered to read what he said about the bonus video this week let alone anything he's said in the past so I guess that's not going to happen.

[philip.ed]

Tree's point is, simply, that he feels it isn't up to 2010 standards. Ideally, Oleg would reply to this and say whether they are still working on it or not. Read between the lines, it isn't hard.

[furbs]

Here you go ;)

bottom of the page:
http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/category/computerspiele/storm-of-war-computerspiele/screenshots/2010/page/5/

cheers :)

[Dano]

Tree's point is, simply, that he feels it isn't up to 2010 standards. Ideally, Oleg would reply to this and say whether they are still working on it or not. Read between the lines, it isn't hard.

Hahahahahahhaha! This from somebody who can't even read what Oleg actually posts? LMAO!

[furbs]

Well...im also dissapointed "so far" with the landscape that we have seen. im hoping it will be much better by the time i get to play the game myself.

Like ive said before...we dont know what settings or setup Oleg is running to take screenshots, so its hard to judge the final look of the landscape.

Everything else Oleg has shown, from aircraft, ground units, clouds, damage model and crew has been fantastic and will set a new standard for flight sim.

The stuff he hasnt shown like, flight model, sound and others stuff im sure will also be great.
Taking all that into account, for me thats why im dissapointed "so far" with the landscape.

[kendo65]

I think its more to do with some of the things Oleg has said, for example Oleg was very dismissive of the 'Wings Of Prey' terrain, claiming that SOW would be far better, to date its simply not unless of course Oleg is holding something back which seems bizarre if we are as close to release as they would have us believe. Cinematic, and real time weather have been promised along with manning AA guns and DX11 etc , but so far we have not seen anything of these at this late date, so i think a lot of expectations have been brought about by the devs, who it seems maybe struggling to live up to them.
...


I think that's a fair point, but the main thing is that we've all filled in the blanks where there was a lack of information. We've assumed standards that maybe were just too high.

The reality was always going to have a hard time matching the dream we've all built up about this. It's inevitable given just how sky-high the expectations were. In our dreams it really was perfect.

A few months back people were resisting the idea that when they bailed out over England they wouldn't be able to interact in a completely life-like way with a fully realised miniature 1940s world - with cars, buses, cows in the fields, people walking around, etc as they made it back to their airfield on foot or swam the Channel.

Now Oleg did mention buses and traffic on the roads, also animals - but not in the way that some people latched onto it.

In truth, the landscape isn't scaling the heights that I'd hoped for (dreamt of...?) yet either, but unlike some others I don't think it's that far off. A little tweaking of colours / lighting to get away from the pastel effect - some of the 'polishing' that Oleg referred to, and some higher quality settings, AA, etc.

[KG26_Alpha]

This thread needs cleaning up.

Oleg

99% are grateful for your time and hard work giving us an update on Friday's.
1% are never going to be grateful or appreciative of your unique approach as a developer.

Keep smiling :)

[ATAG_Dutch]

Tumbleweed floats and bounces gently across the screen..............:grin:

In answer to my own post it seems to me to be the contrast between the darkness of the trees and the paleness of the fields at this altitude in the SoW shots.
For the fields to be that pale, I'd expect the trees to be less black green and more green green, yet when we get lower, they seem more green green relative to the surrounding landscape.
Maybe a simple colour contrasting thing.
Anyone?:confused:

Ah, well......:rolleyes:

[philip.ed]

Hahahahahahhaha! This from somebody who can't even read what Oleg actually posts? LMAO!

Show me. What have I done to upset you? I posted saying I wasn't happy with the clouds, and I think they could do with a bit of work to look 2010 quality.
I have always been grateful of Oleg's work; if I wasn't, I wouldn't send him dozens of research pages that he asked me to send him. What have you done to help him? Nothing.
Thankyou.

My original post. What is ungrateful about this:
Oleg, are the clouds shown final? They look quite nice, but IMHO are a bit grey? Also, they still look quite cotton-ballish. I hope this makes sense. I am sure it can be a feature that will always be tweaked from release, but this is just my two pence. Have a great weekend

Just my honest opinion from looking at the shots. No-one can tell me otherwise what I will think, or indeed try to put words in my mouth. Oleg has not said much on the clouds, other than the fact it won't be a cloud sim. I agree with him here, but I think they could be refined.
I posted a quote about this type of clouds. If you take my humble question, and try and twist it and laugh at me, then I will always reply to you. Can't we just enjoy the updates in our own way? I'd rather write a few lines on aspects that I feel need a bit of work compared to essays of praise (which I could easily write BTW).

[Insuber]

Nearmiss,

I suggest to limit these threads to 10 pages. IMHO 90% of posts beyond page 10 aren't worth reading, or are simply private quarrels between the usual people, repeating again and again the same 3 concepts and polluting any interesting debate.

Cheers,
Insuber

[Baron]

In reality im just asking the question that most of you want answered.


With all due respect and no offence intended (of course) but im 100% sure iv never asked u to speak for me, not in the past, present or the future.

U do know that there have been attempts at hacking Olegs computer, trying to steal, in essance SoW right? Or didnt u bother to read that either. And yet u still wonder why he doesnt show u what u whant.

We/I know what u (and others) think and i am just simply asking u nicely (for the love of good) not to repeat it 18 times in every threadh about SoW known to mankind. (no offence intended, of course)

At least, today, read what Oleg has posted in this threadh and get it into your head (same goes for your peers) that he is fed up with this whole bullsh*t from that 5% who is unhappy whatever he throws at them while ther rest of us will pay the prize (no more updates) and relize that they will release the game in any state they see fit, wether u or anyonelse like it or not.

Iv said it before and ill say it again, many people exspects waaaaay to much from SoW, its a flight sim, not the second comming. (well in a sence it is :), but u know what i mean.);)


No offence.


P.S Feel free to delete this post along with others since it doesnt add anything of value to the friday update, thx.

[winny]

Btw Philip, I wasn't calling you rude earlier. You're not! (just to be clear)

[philip.ed]

OK, thankyou ;)

I hate having to split hairs. All I'm saying is just let me be me. I love these updates that Oleg posts as they are all coming together to show me the sim I dreamed of flying when I was a kit. CFS1 answered that prayer, then Fighter Squadron, then CFS2, then Il-2, then BoB2 and now this.

:D

I understand I must sound like an old record, as I have mentioned the clouds a number of times, but Oleg seemed to be replying quite a lot so I thought he may decide to answer the question ;)

[ATAG_Dutch]

Good Grief.
Is anyone prepared to have a sensible discussion at all?

[philip.ed]

Do you take 2 sugars with that?

[ATAG_Dutch]

Do you take 2 sugars with that?

Usually just the one, but I've got to go to work for a couple of hours, so I'll catch up with the latest episode of 'Soap' about six-ish.

[philip.ed]

Fair enough then.

I wonder how DX-11 could affect clouds/terrain.

[winny]

Good Grief.
Is anyone prepared to have a sensible discussion at all?

Ok.. here's my attempt.

2 SoW shots, Saturation and contrast increased. (just to see what's there colour wise)

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/SoW/sow2.jpg

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/SoW/SoW1.jpg

[Eries]

More fantastic work by the Devs. Thanks for sharing some "work in progress " material. Its rare that developers share developments and WIP material. Most of us are appreciative and certainly looking forward to SOWs release.

-Eries


I think Oleg is still playing tricks with us on the terrain, the terrain in these shots look like they have been painted in water colour by a child.

Wow , what a coincidence....because it looks like your posts were written by a child. Go figure.

[Hecke]

Ok.. here's my attempt.

2 SoW shots, Saturation and contrast increased. (just to see what's there colour wise)

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/SoW/sow2.jpg

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/SoW/SoW1.jpg


Terrain looks a lot better in your shots. Do you have the possibilities to only change the color of a certain part of an image? If so, could you leave the planes colors how they are and change the terrain colors like you have done?

Would look awesome I think.

[Baron]

Ok.. here's my attempt.

2 SoW shots, Saturation and contrast increased. (just to see what's there colour wise)

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/SoW/sow2.jpg

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/SoW/SoW1.jpg


Perfect example of how some "problems" doesnt have to be corrected at Oleg&teams end.

[Baron]

P.S. I shudder when thinking what the threadh will look like when oleg posts a vid with sound in it.


OMG.

[Hecke]

Could it be that the damage in picture 4 is texture overlay whereas this picture shows modeled damage?
http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/4971/spitdamage.jpg


Maybe they've not yet implemented this damage feature.

[The Kraken]

Could it be that the damage in picture 4 is texture overlay whereas this picture shows modeled damage?

These are also for the most part "texture overlays" (alpha, specular, diffuse, normal maps). Same approach.

[Hecke]

These are also for the most part "texture overlays" (alpha, specular, diffuse, normal maps). Same approach.

Thx for the lesson. I think people know what i was trying to say.

Damage hole in Picture 4 looks painted on and in other picture it looks like real holes.

[The Kraken]

Fair enough then.

I wonder how DX-11 could affect clouds/terrain.

Most probably not at all, as textures usually don't care much what DirectX version they're rendered with. DX11 could provide some performance improvements that would allow increasing the view distance of landscape objects (vegatation, buildings) which would certainly improve the appearance. Otherwise, as someone has already mentioned, increasing the texture filtering setting will make a major difference (and the fact that it's set so low is a clear indication of detail settings used).

Otherwise DirectX 11 should primarily help with smaller details like shadow quality. It will not provide a completely different look to the environment unless Oleg has decided to code a completely separate 3D engine for DX11.

[philip.ed]

Ok.. here's my attempt.

2 SoW shots, Saturation and contrast increased. (just to see what's there colour wise)

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/SoW/sow2.jpg

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/SoW/SoW1.jpg

Nice work. The landscape looks really good there (although obviously the filter isn't realistic). :D
I think that, from seeing this, the terrain may be too green for Summer. I know this is WIP, but this shows what can be done ;) Cool work
Have you lot heard of an application for Windlight? Check it out.

[Jumo211]

Thank you Oleg for new update , everything is coming alone very nicely :cool:

Please , I would like to ask four questions as some other guys probably would
also like to know , if some similar IL-2 stuff graphics was carried over to the
BoB:SoW so we can know what to expect :

1. is the aircraft fuel leak effects in 2D with also some of the aircraft damage smokes in 2D ?

2. are clouds going to pop out suddenly from distance ?

3. is there color flickering with clouds ( dark/bright ) when looking at them from various angles ?

4. is there clouds jerking movement when flying around them as it is happening in IL-2 ?

Thank you so much , very appreciate that :-)

A shameless bump , it looks like from pictures that there will be
possibly fuel leak and some other aircraft smoke damage in 2D
in 2010/2011 release :roll:
Not even one member picked up on this concern including clouds
flicker and any jerking movements when flying around them
since video clearly show clouds flicker behind the He-111 .
Please , tell me I am jerk for asking such questions :cool:

I am waiting for this release us much as anyone else but these things are
my concern at this point in time and would love to know what to expect
as the development is in much further stage progress .

[ATAG_Dutch]

Ok.. here's my attempt.

Thanks Winny, that's precisely what I was hoping someone would do.
I've no idea how to do it myself.
As we can see, simple alterations make a huge difference.
If DX11 also improves definition, the disparaging 'watercolour' comment also reduces in significance.
I've said from the outset that we should trust the dev's to do a sterling job, and they know more about it than most people here put together.
Good post mate, thanks again.

[philip.ed]

HG, I think when Oleg said there were fps issues with the video, he meant that not all the frames were translated, which causes the clouds to flicker. I'm hearing you though mate, I thought that too when I saw it ;)

[The Kraken]

Tumbleweed floats and bounces gently across the screen..............:grin:

In answer to my own post it seems to me to be the contrast between the darkness of the trees and the paleness of the fields at this altitude in the SoW shots.
For the fields to be that pale, I'd expect the trees to be less black green and more green green, yet when we get lower, they seem more green green relative to the surrounding landscape.
Maybe a simple colour contrasting thing.
Anyone?:confused:

Ok, I'll bite :)

You were asking about what's missing from SoW's landscape that makes it look strange. Above all it is texture resolution: as displayed the textures are extremely blurry, and in contrast you have the relatively sharp edges of the tree lines. There is a mismatch in detail which is something the human eye is quite good at realizing. The impression is that the trees a somewhat detached from the landscape.

As for the trees themselves, there are repeating patterns in the forest areas; yet again a focus point for the eye and something we aren't used to from reality, so it looks out of place.

These are the main issues I can see. I'd expect that in motion, the tree rendering as shown on that screen (which is already a bit older) could also result in some flickering.

Note that none of these issues are unsolvable (it's possible they were already non-issues when that image was taken, just not in that detail level). The colours and lighting themselves look spot on to me, and the atmospheric model is way beyond what Il2 provides. The same goes for the view range which is exceptional (most sims have a much closer horizon).

In the Il2 image you posted, the main drawbacks are the colours (see above) and the fact that a lot of the vegetation is only part of the texture, although that's not too apparent from a still shot at that altitude.

A final point: we haven't seen medium-distance shadows in any SoW screen yet. Shadows are very important to generate the impression that objects are placed within the landscape (and not "floating"; partially an issue with the trees). Il2 can create some very good images because every object up to a certain distance casts a nice shadow. Seeing a higher shadow distance (probably a quality setting) would also improve the SoW scenery a lot.

[swiss]

I agree - a lot of people are pretty blind. They don't see the changes (or what is implied by them). They'd be happier with pre-rendered intro videos.

The problem is they expect something else than Sow will be.

They expect a movie-like game, "photorealistic".

As far as I can tell, that's not going to happen.
This will be a Sim with a very complex engine focused on mechanics rather than just optic appearance, although I'm sure they try to make as photorealistic as possible, it's just not 1st priority but 2nd.
That's ok for me, I share this opinion.

I could be wrong though.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Ok, I'll bite :)

That's very useful info, thanks. I'm aware of the visual perception type stuff.:grin:
It's technical things about programming, DX this and that, AA, AF, or anything to do with computers I'm rubbish at.
Thanks for responding!

[swiss]

I think this is because we don't have a dedicated moderating team. Nearmiss is just one person and he can't be everywhere all the time.
The double edged sword about forum moderation however, is the fact that those who spent a lot of time on a forum and could possibly moderate are usually also the same people who can't keep a level headed attitude and totally lack the qualities of a good moderator :grin:

So you just delete the posts you don't like?
This is the Internet and I am free to to give a shit about someones opinion - I hope that's what Oleg does.
Censorship is very bad idea.

Nearmiss is doing a good job.

[swiss]

(Sorry to start the swastika discussion again.)
Wouldn't it be possible to make a downloadable patch for the realistic markings with swastika's? The Internet is 'intercontinental water' so laws don't really matter. (Or am I wrong?) So the people who want realistic markings can download it.

Still you can't use them on servers which are located in a country with swastika ban.
I thought I need swastikas for a quite some time - but spending most time on German servers I learned that I in fact don't, I even deleted most of the skins with it, just to avoid confusion.
Try to fly without 'em, you'll get used to it very soon. ;)

[matsher]

This week I am going to take out umemployment insurance. Cause I am almost certain that when this beautiful sim comes out I am gonna get my ass fired.

This sim almost makes that Fiat look pretty. Trust the Italians to turn a fighter plane into a cabriolet. Shhesh

Oleg - I am not certain what the issue is with the numbers on the plane - They look fantastic just the way they are now. And the weathering on the fuselage is simply brilliant.

Maybe you should just release the sim as arial photography software... Its that good.

[winny]

Thanks Winny, that's precisely what I was hoping someone would do.
I've no idea how to do it myself.
As we can see, simple alterations make a huge difference.
If DX11 also improves definition, the disparaging 'watercolour' comment also reduces in significance.
I've said from the outset that we should trust the dev's to do a sterling job, and they know more about it than most people here put together.
Good post mate, thanks again.

It was a rush job but I did it originally for my own peace of mind a few weeks back with the spitfire over the sea screenshot and was impressed with how it looked. I didn't post that pic because I feel slightly wierd 'touching up' someone elses work.. but seeing as you asked :)

[ElAurens]

Thank you Oleg for all the efforts in keeping us up to date with all these updates. Please know that there are lots of people watching these and discussing them in our squad forums and we are all very appreciative of all you do to keep us informed. Our resident former RAF pilot is chomping at the bit to fly a Hurri!

As to this edition's turn for the worse.

Some of you should be thankful I'm not a moderator here, and even more thankful that I was not your school master in the lower grades. Your parent's failure to inculcate tact, manners, and decorum would not have gotten past me.

BE VERY SURE.

[philip.ed]

Can you post it Winny? I hear that WoP looks pretty bad without filters, so I imagine that if the clouds were defined more and the terrain had higher-res-textures than a filter could make it look awesome (so long as it was realistic...)

[diveplane]

P.S. I shudder when thinking what the threadh will look like when oleg posts a vid with sound in it.


OMG.

pray they dont sound like flying lawnmowers this time, il2 was terrible in prop audios. however saying that theres some very nice audio mods that corrected a lot of the stock sounds.

really hope they study audios and sound dynamics this time and use real aircraft samples.


hardest audio to emulate in a game is flyby audio effect distant sounds
reverbs.

[swiss]

pray they dont sound like flying lawnmowers this time, il2 was terrible in prop audios. however saying that theres some very nice audio mods that corrected a lot of the stock sounds.

really hope they study audios and sound dynamics this time and use real aircraft samples.


hardest audio to emulate in a game is flyby audio effect distant sounds
reverbs.

what kind of soundcard/speakers were you using?

[Tempest123]

Wow, I'm late to the party on this one, excellent update!! Love the weathering on the italian planes. Looks like real progress being made, can't wait!

[Hoverbug]

Sorry, poorly worded from me :D the same is true everywhere (at least every-where I've been) ;)

Obviously some clouds will differ, but usually the cloud base/bottom is quite profound.

That said, having flown in both Britain and the U.S. I'm amazed by the variety and complexity and variety of clouds in Britain. The reason is indeed geographical - all of that dry arctic air is continually colliding with the warm water moving up from the Gulf Stream and all sorts of interesting things happen.

[Splitter]

Still you can't use them on servers which are located in a country with swastika ban.
I thought I need swastikas for a quite some time - but spending most time on German servers I learned that I in fact don't, I even deleted most of the skins with it, just to avoid confusion.
Try to fly without 'em, you'll get used to it very soon. ;)

Just to add to that (and this was in a past thread), Oleg and company will likely not be including anything that allows swastikas out of the box. No "hidden" settings where you can flip a switch and get them. Someone tell me if I interpreted that wrongly.

Eventually I am sure that third parties will develop those skins but you would probably run into the issues Swiss mentioned.

If Oleg and company allowed an "out of the box" switch for those symbols, it might be construed as a no-no by his own government. And of course, there are other countries that would consider it a no-no.

Stupid laws with dubious motives? Sure. But that's neither here nor there, they exist some places and there's no reason for the developer to put out two versions. I personally find the lack of swastikas a small detail that I have not bothered to correct as the absence is really of no importance to me.

I hope I touched on all sides of that issue as a summation so we don't need to further derail this thread lol.

Splitter

[NLS61]

This all heavily off topic.
I've seen only Italian Axis.
But these updates are my weekly fix so dont wine them away or stop Oleg giving any to us by off topic posts.
Btw If i good get the sim looking like it is presented here ill go for it.
Full real wil never happen as one can press replay in this day and age.
Niels

[Blackdog_kt]

Haven't posted on the update before now as I was just too pissed off with the attitudes of some people here to be bothered.

As others have already said, to get such a level of ungrateful whinging after being told we may not even get an update at all made pretty bad reading. No wonder Oleg got annoyed.

I suspect part of the problem we're hitting now is a growing mismatch between what people have been able to imagine the game would be and the approaching reality of what it actually is. You can detect an air of disbelief in some posts - "that isn't the 'real' terrain/smoke/texture/clouds - Oleg's holding it back to nearer release date..."

We've all had plenty of time, unencumbered by too many inconvenient 'facts' to create a fantasy of complete perfection - a cinematically-perfect recreation of 1940 aerial combat in which every facet that is most important to us is perfectly recreated - be it 100% accurate fm/dm, cinematic terrain, perfectly reproduced clouds, totally accurate aircrew uniforms, etc.

And we've been able to get away with this for so long because we didn't have evidence to the contrary.

Now the release date is getting closer and we find that all we are going to get is a very good flight sim! The best on the market no doubt and with room for growth and improvement, but falling short of perfection in areas where we'd begun to feel a sense of entitled certainty.

And so the disillusionment kicks in.

Anyway, I'm sure things will continue to improve up to release (and beyond). As others have said, until we really see this nearer to final production release on high settings without jaggies, etc it is next to impossible to judge its overall quality anyway - personally I am already pleased with what I've seen - it won't take too much more tweaking to get it very, very good.

But maybe we'd better get used to the idea that 'perfection' might have to wait a little longer?
-------
MD_Titus said it pretty well...

...while also claiming the record for the longest forum post I've ever seen (narrowly beating Blackdog_kt's recent efforts. Blackdog always puts in well-reasoned and interesting posts, but God, they're long. One of these days I hope to read one all the way through ;) )

I agree 100% with what you say about expectations and reality. It's not bad to imagine and want things, that's what brings advancements in every field of technology. What's bad is to demand things on a short time frame no matter what, while also expecting them to work flawlessly as if they had been tested and put through their paces for years. These two are just incompatible.

I expect a lot of things too, i just happen to know that many of them will not make it into the first version and some might even not make it in the series at all during its entire life.
I think the difference between constructive input and whining is not what you ask for, but how you ask for it.

I'll use myself as an example, as i've had loads of ideas about things i would like to see in SoW and none of that concerns graphics or sounds. They are all things that i believe would improve the gameplay first and foremost, in a way that combines extra realism with the capabilities of PC software.
If i went about saying that the ability to edit scripts for AI crew members is the cornerstone of this sim, that we haven't seen anything about it and hence the sim is a failure, while i woudln't really know if such things are possible on the new engine, and demanding to see it on the initial release version, then it would classify as whining. I still want these features, but i understand it might take a while before they make it into the sim, if they make it at all.

Just think about it, if i campaign these ideas in an obnoxious manner it doesn't really help my cause, does it now? People would be all like "it's this know-it-all and his impossible ideas", so i woudn't have any support from other community members and by irritating the devs i would only serve to put my ideas in the end of the very long line of features that are planned or requested for this sim. If on the other hand i simply describe what the implementation of these ideas would do to enhance our gameplay, it's much more likely to gather support from other community members and then the devs will take notice and think "there are quite a few people who like this guy's ideas, maybe we should look into it sometime".

To put it shortly, i prefer providing ideas and asking if they are possible to implement, than giving orders to professionals while being an amateur myself. It's not only about what we say, but also how we say it. Keep that in mind people ;)

This scripting thing i mentioned is one of my far-fetched ideas. Maybe SoW could at some point have an interactive, virual co-pilot that you can assign specific subsystems of the aircraft to monitor, or support for user-made scripts to do the same. For example if you are flying complex aircraft like twin-engined light bombers or four engined heavies, it might be possible in the future to select certain subsystems for the co-pilot to monitor, similar for the navigator or the flight engineer.

So, you could be flying a Lancaster at night and have your AI navigator giving your vectors to follow, while the radio operator is taking care of electronic equipment like radars and countermeasures and the flight engineer is adjusting intercoolers and cowl flaps to keep the engines within operating limits. This way, the aircraft would still function to a higher degree of realism but you wouldn't have to do everything on your own (there's a reason they were multi-crewed after all). You would simply concentrate on flying the aircraft, following the route given by the navigator and having to worry only about the fundamental engine controls like throttles and prop pitch, but the aircraft would still be highly detailed and not simplified in the way its functions are modelled. Of course, if you wanted you would switch between positions and do things manually.

This is basically a shameless rip-off from what i've seen in some FSX add-ons (one for the B17 and another for the Boeing Stratocruiser, which is essentially an airliner conversion of the B29), where you can either work everything by yourself or designate certain systems to be monitored by the co-pilot. The thing is, it adds quite an air of authenticity and the illusion of having a live crew with you when
a) in these multi-engined aircraft the performance of individual engines actually varies from one to the other
b) you have to make sure you synchronise them to prevent asymmetric thrust and
c)you have a virtual crew to help you do it, with your co-pilot informing you that "captain, the turbos on engine 3 are running a bit hot".



So you just delete the posts you don't like?
This is the Internet and I am free to to give a shit about someones opinion - I hope that's what Oleg does.
Censorship is very bad idea.

Nearmiss is doing a good job.

I didn't say that. A good moderator doesn't delete the posts he doesn't like out of spite, in fact that's the perfect description of a bad moderator. What a good moderator does is enforce the forum rules, which the participants implicitly agree to follow by posting here in the first place.

So, if forum rules say "it's ok to go off-topic in every thread except the update threads", then in the case of this thread the moderatior deletes the posts that are dragging everything into off-topic grounds, like this one of mine and the one of yours that i'm replying to and many others in this thread, or posts that create flame wars.
Some forums have stricter moderation than others, some communities manage better with slack enforcement of forum rules because the members can contain themselves and not descent into chaos and some communities can't contain themselves and need someone to separate the brawlers so the rest don't have to watch a repeat of the same fight each Friday, that's all.

It's perfectly fine for eveyone to say their point, it just makes it too low on the signal-to-noise ratio scale to have the same people fighting among themselves each week. There's no reason to delete their posts either, just move them to an official big off-topic post and they can continue their fight there ;)

[kalimba]

The problem is they expect something else than Sow will be.

They expect a movie-like game, "photorealistic".

As far as I can tell, that's not going to happen.
This will be a Sim with a very complex engine focused on mechanics rather than just optic appearance, although I'm sure they try to make as photorealistic as possible, it's just not 1st priority but 2nd.
That's ok for me, I share this opinion.

I could be wrong though.

Hello Swiss...You are right about our high expectations....But photorealistic is exactly what Oleg spoke about when he was asked at what level he was hoping to get SOW...He was also building his new code to be integreted in hi-tech cinematic process...
Well, maybe after the release , if it is not already there :rolleyes:, he will have time to push his engine to the limit ?...:grin:

Salute !

[Jaws2002]

Thank you Oleg for all the efforts in keeping us up to date with all these updates. Please know that there are lots of people watching these and discussing them in our squad forums and we are all very appreciative of all you do to keep us informed. Our resident former RAF pilot is chomping at the bit to fly a Hurri!

As to this edition's turn for the worse.

Some of you should be thankful I'm not a moderator here, and even more thankful that I was not your school master in the lower grades. Your parent's failure to inculcate tact, manners, and decorum would not have gotten past me.

BE VERY SURE.

+1

Thx Oleg for the updates! The vast majority of the community apreciates your work.

I think the moderartors should make a list of this guys (is allways the same short list of kids without manners), and just ban them every friday by default. This would make the interaction with the developers A LOT more positive and Oleg would have the dialog with the 99.99% of the community not with the 0.001 this people represent.

[Old_Canuck]

Logon - click User CP near top of page - click edit ignore list at left side. Type in user name to ignore and don't forget underscores, they kind of hide in the user's sig.

Thanks for the reminder BadAim. This thread is improving with each choice. It's against my nature to ignore people but Friday updates was becoming something less than a positive experience lately.

[Hecke]

+1

Thx Oleg for the updates! The vast majority of the community apreciates your work.

I think the moderartors should make a list of this guys (is allways the same short list of kids without manners), and just ban them every friday by default. This would make the interaction with the developers A LOT more positive and Oleg would have the dialog with the 99.99% of the community not with the 0.001 this people represent.


So for you interaction between developer and potential customer means to constantly say:

Awesome ...
Appreciate ...
Excellent ...
Can't wait ...
Thx Oleg ...
Wonderfull ...
Everything is coming together nicely ...
...

I don't think Oleg can make any use of this sort of comments.
Has Oleg ever answered a post which contains only such phrases? No ...

[nearmiss]

+1

Thx Oleg for the updates! The vast majority of the community apreciates your work.

I think the moderartors should make a list of this guys (is allways the same short list of kids without manners), and just ban them every friday by default. This would make the interaction with the developers A LOT more positive and Oleg would have the dialog with the 99.99% of the community not with the 0.001 this people represent.


During discussions about this update, Oleg expressed his disdain of some members expressed attitudes. Oleg made it clear he didn't appreciate the verbal jabs and hinted about ceasing to post.

Members of this forums want the updates and they want the discussions with Oleg or Luthier. Stringent moderation will be maintained, especially on the first day when there is viable discussion. After a couple days there is no longer anything, but banter between members so moderation will not be as strict.

Moderators receive immediate emails when you click on the report this post icon in the upper right corner. Moderators don't hang out on the forums all the time, but with instant email notifications we can take care of issues very quickly.

[philip.ed]

So for you interaction between developer and potential customer means to constantly say:

Awesome ...
Appreciate ...
Excellent ...
Can't wait ...
Thx Oleg ...
Wonderfull ...
Everything is coming together nicely ...
...

I don't think Oleg can make any use of this sort of comments.
Has Oleg ever answered a post which contains only such phrases? No ...

+1

the easy solution is this: if someone posts their thoughts, don't argue with their view. simple.

[furbs]

During discussions about this update, Oleg expressed his disdain of some members expressed attitudes. Oleg made it clear he didn't appreciate the verbal jabs and hinted about ceasing to post.

Members of this forums want the updates and they want the discussions with Oleg or Luthier. Stringent moderation will be maintained, especially on the first day when there is viable discussion. After a couple days there is no longer anything, but banter between members so moderation will not be as strict.

Moderators receive immediate emails when you click on the report this post icon in the upper right corner. Moderators don't hang out on the forums all the time, but with instant email notifications we can take care of issues very quickly.

As far as i could see Oleg was talking about people moaning about him not posting the video...not people expressing views on content, good or bad.
In fact ive never seen him angry at members or saying people cant express their viewpoint.
To be honest Nearmiss ive thought your moderation of late has been spot on. :)

[Jaws2002]

So for you interaction between developer and potential customer means to constantly say:

Awesome ...
Appreciate ...
Excellent ...
Can't wait ...
Thx Oleg ...
Wonderfull ...
Everything is coming together nicely ...
...

I don't think Oleg can make any use of this sort of comments.
Has Oleg ever answered a post which contains only such phrases? No ...


I don't think Oleg needs feedback from 15 years old crybabies. :rolleyes:

[speculum jockey]

I don't think Oleg needs feedback from 15 years old crybabies. :rolleyes:

But he's right. "Yah, great work!" Ok, how does Oleg and Luthier use that to make the game better? People who post that the font colour is wrong, the Pitot tube is wrong, or that the roads are not to scale are helpful (although not always diplomatic). As it stands now, Oleg has to sift through 30 pages of people giving him High-Fives, and probably gets tired of that and misses out on some actual constructive criticism or feedback.

You love the work, great! Add it to the end of a post that helps the game development process, points out something that needs to be done. Don't have a post that can be used to help the development of the game? This isn't the thread for it!

[philip.ed]

+1 to Speculum. Posts that say 'great' are fine, but if everyone posted that it'd be a bit...dull. Suffice to say, as I have said a number of times, the sim would be worse off because many errors wouldn't have been changed that the community noticed.
Just my 2P.

[Jaws2002]

It's not what you say, it's about how you say it. Some people are plain rude with their "feedback" and is always the same guys.
In all this "Updates" threads you see respectful observations to one aspect or another. For example observation about markings and some aircraft parts. Very respectfuly and with back up info. Soon you see the issues corected or adjusted.
This is what I consider "feedback", not the "this is crap", "that is crap", "I made it better in XX mod" years ago, and so on.
This is not feedback. It's noise. Rude noise. Nobody needs this kind of "feedback".
Many of you confuse the reason for this updates. They are not posted for you to criticize. Specially since you are always told "it's W.I.P." This updates are posted to keep us in the loop with the progress.
Do you think someone wants to get crap from 10 year olds every week for something he is giving for free?
Everything is WIP until you buy the game! Give them a break, they don't owe you nothing.

[philip.ed]

I agree there though; it doesn't take much to be a bit more eloquent.

I don't think I'm rude, am I?

[Jaws2002]

best way to find out: Make a poll. :mrgreen:

[lbuchele]

I'm one of the guys who likes so much Oleg's work that I admits that I rarely criticized his
work.
But I like to see construtive critics from people here and I always will support freedom of speech,even if I don't agree with the poster view.

[ATAG_Dutch]

I agree there though; it doesn't take much to be a bit more eloquent. I don't think I'm rude, am I?

Now that really is getting a bit off topic!:grin:

Mr Maddox also commented on the weathering of squadron codes etc. being a 'bug' that they may or may not resolve.

It can be seen on one of the G50 shots there there is something happening to the lettering where the paint is worn, but it doesn't look quite right. Not 'worn off' enough perhaps.

This isn't something that would bother me at all in the initial release, compared to IL2 they look great, but looking at the screenshot and filmmaker potential of the sim, what do others think?

[philip.ed]

Will we have the option to get the spit/109/hurricane/etc repainted/patched-up? It'd be cool to see the work of the airmen like patches over cannon-shell hits etc ;) I doubt this will happen, but in the future.... :-P

[MD_Titus]

i do love multi-quote.

In reality im just asking the question that most of you want answered.
presumption to speak for all. well done man, hubris +50 for you.

i'm guessing, but can only say personally, that i know these are WIP shots... i will leave off the complaining for when i get the game in my hands and the machine capable of playing it at full settings before assuming that something is wrong. and then we will see many patches after release in the hopefully long long life of the game, correcting any number of miniscule errors.
(Sorry to start the swastika discussion again.)
Wouldn't it be possible to make a downloadable patch for the realistic markings with swastika's? The Internet is 'intercontinental water' so laws don't really matter. (Or am I wrong?) So the people who want realistic markings can download it.
nah, even building it as an addable option would be illegal. however it could be that user made skins can feature it, and that's something that is end user modifiable by it's very nature, rather than built into the engine as a patch would be.
Does anyone know if Oleg has shown anything in DX10 or 11 yet? or has he said what settings his screenshots are taken at?...that would at least give us some context to put the shots we have seen so far into.
not as far as i recall, other than landscape. i'd expect it to add bells and whistles and performance. have a look at crysis in dx9 and 10 for examples of stuff, eg "god rays"
Tree's point is, simply, that he feels it isn't up to 2010 standards. Ideally, Oleg would reply to this and say whether they are still working on it or not. Read between the lines, it isn't hard.
he feels, not everyone else is of the same opinion. can he post examples of a 2010 flight sim to back up his view?
Good Grief.
Is anyone prepared to have a sensible discussion at all?

on the basis of evidence and observation... no.
Fair enough then.

I wonder how DX-11 could affect clouds/terrain.
one of the things seen in dx11 tech demonstrations is the tessilation (sp?), so instead of having a flat 2d texture of paving stones, you actually get the 3d variations between slabs.

Wow , what a coincidence....because it looks like your posts were written by a child. Go figure.
zing!
So for you interaction between developer and potential customer means to constantly say:

Awesome ...
Appreciate ...
Excellent ...
Can't wait ...
Thx Oleg ...
Wonderfull ...
Everything is coming together nicely ...
...

I don't think Oleg can make any use of this sort of comments.
Has Oleg ever answered a post which contains only such phrases? No ...
equally, i don't think "painted by a child" is in anyway helpful, in fact i'd take personal offence at that if i had been working on a game for years and wsa told this by, frankly, a rank amateur who most likely has absolutely zero relevant experience.

such posts as you highlight are people expressing a positive and grateful outlook at being shown dev shots. do you think each of these doesn't notice the jaggies etc? no, they are evident to all, but those people recognise a WIP shot when they see it, and have the necessary neurones to remember the previous series of shots and see the progression.

+1

the easy solution is this: if someone posts their thoughts, don't argue with their view. simple.
and an equally good solution is "think, write, read, think, post".

if you're posting in a belligerent, ill-mannered way don't think you are somehow protected from the approbation of others who are honestly appalled at what they are reading.
It's not what you say, it's about how you say it. Some people are plain rude with their "feedback" and is always the same guys.
In all this "Updates" threads you see respectful observations to one aspect or another. For example observation about markings and some aircraft parts. Very respectfuly and with back up info. Soon you see the issues corected or adjusted.
This is what I consider "feedback", not the "this is crap", "that is crap", "I made it better in XX mod" years ago, and so on.
This is not feedback. It's noise. Rude noise. Nobody needs this kind of "feedback".
Many of you confuse the reason for this updates. They are not posted for you to criticize. Specially since you are always told "it's W.I.P." This updates are posted to keep us in the loop with the progress.
Do you think someone wants to get crap from 10 year olds every week for something he is giving for free?
Everything is WIP until you buy the game! Give them a break, they don't owe you nothing.
precisely. should be posted in font size 7 flashing letters before each update.
best way to find out: Make a poll. :mrgreen:
forums always need polls. lots and lots of polls.

[philip.ed]

MD, show me where I have posted something appalling.
Did you actually read my original post before saying that I wrote something appalling? My first post was a simple question that I had posed to Oleg. There was nothing rude about it.

[Tree_UK]

It is so worrying here how any critisim is recieved, some of you lot are boardering on fanatical, it really is a joke. No offence of course.

[Qpassa]

It is so worrying here how any critisim is recieved, some of you lot are boardering on fanatical, it really is a joke. No offence of course.

Also some user have been baned for saying something like this :rolleyes:
Dear Mr. Maddox and team,

Thanks for your nice pictures; week to week they seem much better than the ones before...

But, don´t you think such this looooong time showing us the carrot, it's time now for some exciting video (no sound )??? We should be very grateful...

Regards.
Please calm down , we just want to see something new of SOW:BOB, all of us ( maybe not) know that now you ( Oleg) are beeing pushed and you are the first to release the game, but you want it with quality, and not full of bugs.
Regards

[Osprey]

Im sure someone like Cannon could sort the terrain out in no time at all :grin:, his terrain for Il2 is better than what we are seeing here at this moment in time.

I look forward to not seeing you in any servers.

[Baron]

Once again:

Thank you very much Oleg and team. I and many with me see theese updates for what they are and appreciate your tolerance and hope u, despite everything will continue showing the progress on SoW.

Please dont let the majority suffer because of the acts of a few. (why does that sound femilliar?)


P.S. The last shot of the Wellingtons is especially nice, the detail is amazing, thx :)

[The Kraken]

Funny. Now telling Oleg that we like the progress and appreciate him posting (especially this Friday given the circumstances he explained) is not "constructive" enough? Gimme a break...

Some people way overestimate their potential influence on the development (and no I'm not referring to the people who are really providing additional knowledge, mostly technical details like pitot tube size, lettering and emblem usage or flight jacket details).

[The Kraken]

Now that really is getting a bit off topic!:grin:

Mr Maddox also commented on the weathering of squadron codes etc. being a 'bug' that they may or may not resolve.

It can be seen on one of the G50 shots there there is something happening to the lettering where the paint is worn, but it doesn't look quite right. Not 'worn off' enough perhaps.

This isn't something that would bother me at all in the initial release, compared to IL2 they look great, but looking at the screenshot and filmmaker potential of the sim, what do others think?

I guess if the underlying paint layer has eroded completely, the paint of the letters should also be gone, not just half transparent.

What's been mostly ignored is that this is the first in-engine shot which seems to show environment mapping on the bare metal parts. That should come in handy if we'll ever see some US planes later during the war... should look nice on a Fiat as well though :)

[Tree_UK]

Thank you Oleg for all the efforts in keeping us up to date with all these updates. Please know that there are lots of people watching these and discussing them in our squad forums and we are all very appreciative of all you do to keep us informed. Our resident former RAF pilot is chomping at the bit to fly a Hurri!

As to this edition's turn for the worse.

Some of you should be thankful I'm not a moderator here, and even more thankful that I was not your school master in the lower grades. Your parent's failure to inculcate tact, manners, and decorum would not have gotten past me.

BE VERY SURE.

Good job your not a moderator on here, lets put things in perspective, saying that the Terrain does not look good, is not the same as saying that you are the b*stard son of satan is it? Unfortunately people on here take it as a personal slant, where as if they were reasonable human beings they would simply say, "hey tree, i happen to like the terrain" rather than get all playground or school teacher on my ass. :grin::grin:

[Osprey]

I agree my friend, i have asked him to pm his attacks and to keep it out of the forums but I guess he like an audience.

I would honestly like to see you banned by IP. Would the Administrators apply the order? Anybody else upset by his antagonising and obtuse posts each week?

[BG-09]

Hello gents!

Oleg, I think that you have to use computer to analize perhaps 100 color photos of Elglish landscape, in order to find by computer calculations the proper color of the grass and the forests of England. Just my 2 pences.

~Regards!

[furbs]

yes...when ever Tree says something that isnt "nice" a kitten dies...jeez...there is a ignore button...use it if Tree makes you cry.

[Tree_UK]

I would honestly like to see you banned by IP. Would the Administrators apply the order? Anybody else upset by his antagonising and obtuse posts each week?

Im so sorry I have upset you so much my friend. try ringing the samaritans, they are pretty good at helping people such as yourself.

[Foo'bar]

there is a ignore button

Where? Or am I blind??

[ATAG_Dutch]

yes...when ever Tree says something that isnt "nice" a kitten dies...jeez...there is a ignore button...use it if Tree makes you cry.

And here we go again. And I don't mean you, furbs.

Any more comments on the question regarding squadron codes?
This appeared to me as being something Mr Maddox might actually appreciate some comment on.

[Osprey]

Im so sorry I have upset you so much my friend. try ringing the samaritans, they are pretty good at helping people such as yourself.

Are you talking from personal experience? You may need to ring them again when SoW is on sale to deal with your disappointment.

[philip.ed]

Moaning at someone who, in turn, moans about the game is just as bad. Be the better person and take a step above. If they really are so low, then don't stoop to their level ;)

[nearmiss]

What I find interesting is Oleg never finishes a sentence with a ? mark.

That indicates to me he isn't asking, is he?

He provides updates and a little discussion. I don't think he is asking for anyone's input. The BOB SOW is on the downwind leg. Everything now is about refinements and de-bugging.

Oleg is just being a nice guy posting updates, because he enjoys his work and likes to share.

[mungee]

I'm "taking the bait"!!
I feel that I must say something on the "niggle" that appears to be dominating the content of this thread at the moment!
You know, it's really the MANNER in which things are said that can "hurt", irritate, upset etc others.
I am, I suspect, relatively old when compared to most of the members of this forum, and I must point out (at great risk of being told to "get lost") that criticism can be done and can be quite "palatable"IF it is done in a polite and constructive manner.
With respect to those who are drawaing "flak" for critical comments made, I respectfully suggest that you consider the MANNER in which you say things.
I'm aware that the world of today is VERY different from the world that I was brought up in - people are generally more selfish, less caring, less sensitive etc - I think that it's happening worldwide (eg TV reality shows thrive because they show someone being made a fool of, or being rejected by fellow participants etc) - it's a pity, but I think that we all being exposed to this side of things, and there's nothing we can do about it - however, let's try and leave it off this forum.
Oleg and his team are clearly producing a ground-breaking flight sim that is going to be way ahead of "the opposition" - apart from being grateful, encourage him and his team with constructive and polite criticism.
There ... I've got that "off my chest"!!

[philip.ed]

But he hasn't turned advice and information away, has he? The term 'discussion' exactly sums up these very topics. Discussion about the update which includes personal feelings. That's just my view on it though. No doubt others will differ in their opinions...

[FG28_Kodiak]

Where? Or am I blind??

go on User CP -> Setings and Options -> Edit Ignore List
Then type in the name you wish to ignore in future.

[undercut]

No sound? There hasn't been any sound yet and you said you wouldn't show any sound till the release. So i don't see where the problem is.

Bummer...

*Nudge, Nudge.. wink, wink...* ;)

[winny]

Can you post it Winny? I hear that WoP looks pretty bad without filters, so I imagine that if the clouds were defined more and the terrain had higher-res-textures than a filter could make it look awesome (so long as it was realistic...)

Firstly when it come to filters mine are purley artistic... I have no idea how to do proper atmosphere effects...

I did these for myself really but they are relevant.

All I've done to them is increase the colour saturation and messed about with contrast. I added a 1 pixel blur to everything as it eases som of the AA-ing.

I dont claim that I know what the finished game(?) will look like but I was just looking at the colours out of interest.

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/SoW/Sow3.jpg
http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/SoW/Sow4.jpg
http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/SoW/Sow5.jpg

Looking at them I might have added film grain as well.

[philip.ed]

Nice work. I like the colours in the last shot for the grass. Obviously monitors will show different colours, but from my PoV it looks like a good representation of summer-grass. Then again, so did the original shot, but here the grass blends better into a 2D texture than the original shot.
It shows what can be done, screenshot wise, from SoW and considering this is a very early SoW-version then people who like taking screenshots will hit gold when SoW is released.
I'm confident the terrain will reach the photo-realistic quality Oleg talked of. If not on x-day, then in a patch. (or even later in a 3rd party app)

[Qpassa]

wow winny

[MD_Titus]

MD, show me where I have posted something appalling.
Did you actually read my original post before saying that I wrote something appalling? My first post was a simple question that I had posed to Oleg. There was nothing rude about it.
tbh that particular comment wasn't specifically aimed at you. if someone posts something appallingly childish etc etc
It is so worrying here how any critisim is recieved, some of you lot are boardering on fanatical, it really is a joke. No offence of course.
there's a ton of difference between constructive criticism and whiny griping about childlike landscapes.

[philip.ed]

Sorry, recently I have built up quite a guilty conscience on here. My apologies for accusing you.

[ATAG_Dutch]

tbh that particular comment wasn't specifically aimed at you. if someone posts something appallingly childish etc etc

there's a ton of difference between constructive criticism and whiny griping about childlike landscapes.

I give up.
See you next week.
Ho Hum.

[fireflyerz]

Sorry, recently I have built up quite a guilty conscience on here. My apologies for accusing you.

No you aint mate , its just the usual suspects grinding you down , your friends are still here and the questions you ask aint by any means whining or out of order , your input like Zorins , dose make a difference.

[philip.ed]

Cheers, I appreciate it ;)

[Blackdog_kt]

Here we go again...of course it makes an impact.

You know, i take all this time to write long posts in an effort to cover all angles and be polite but i suspect nobody reads them :-P

So, i'll say it short this time.

It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

"Oleg, i think that the squadron codes are wrong. I have this and that historical references and these pictures. Do you think they could be changed before release or looked at in a post-release patch? Also, nice to see your efforts on the terrain, the draw distance is very good and the amount of objects higher than most other flight sims, but the color palette needs some work. If you are interested, i can provide you with some references"--> GOOD. It provides useful feedback in a respectable manner and the user is making an effort to make himself useful instead of only pointing fingers.

"Oh no! The terrain colours are totally wrong and the texture resolution is appalling. To be honest, i can't see how this is up to par for a 2010 sim, when we have better looking terrain in IL2 already"--> BAD. It simply points out the flaws without providing any amount of information as to what's wrong in the poster's opinion. It also degrades the work of professionals and when that happens by amateurs, it saps any kind of credibility the poster might have had with a better choice of words.

It's perfectly fine to say things are in need of improvement. It's not fine at all to say "things are crap, please fix it" while doing nothing at all to specify what needs fixing or how.

[philip.ed]

On the terrain subject, have any of you seen the Outerra graphics engine? This is incredible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGMs7Iem3Vg&feature=player_embedded#!

it lacks a lot of SoW detail, but in many other respects it's just mind-blowing. I can se SoW looking like this in the not-too-distant future.

[matsher]

[QUOTE=Tone71;186463]All things considered, I don't think it looks too bad:

http://www.islandbreaks.co.uk/xsdbimgs/stcatherinesaerial2.jpg

@ Tree_UK
I think that the landscape looks great. I say this because in this reference pic from TONE71 you can clearly see that in the distance is a distinct haze. Which is very common, and looking at Olegs' Screenshot you can see the haze is present all the way to the shoreline.
In the above reference pic, the haze has burned off in the near distance. I fly a lot and I can vouch for the presence of this haze effect, which dampens and flattens the colour of the ground and skies... The ground is really very well rendered.

Also the above reference shot is also over saturated, it has way too much blue/cyan. You wanted others input about this concern of yours, so this
is mine.

I also want to tell you that its not your opinion that rubs people up the wrong way, its your delivery. Telling Oleg his landscapes look like a child painted them
or that Canon should or could fix up what (in your opinion) Oleg couldn't achieve cannot be viewed as criticism. Constructive or otherwise.
They are straight up insults...
If it was your intention to insult Oleg and his years of work, then congrats, you've achieved your goal. BUT if it wasn't your intent, then try and consider another approach. This is my opinion. Use it, Don't use it, you choose.

[philip.ed]

The colours are just a bit bright for summer at the moment. But of course this will be subject to change right up until x-day. Be sure.

[major_setback]

...






A floral study (I know, just starting to talk about tree again :grin: :grin:)

The Undercliff and the surrounding countryside;

Then and ...

http://www.back-of-the-wight.shalfleet.net/images_undercliff/undercliff_motor.jpg




http://www.back-of-the-wight.shalfleet.net/images_undercliff/undercliff_fall.jpg




http://www.back-of-the-wight.shalfleet.net/images_undercliff/undercliff_1904.jpg



... Now.

http://www.wight-cam.co.uk/WightCAM/2006Walks/061101-Blackgang/Pana04.jpg



...

Well found! A couple more.

http://www.isleofwightholidays4all.co.uk/images/knowles-farm1.gif

http://www.isleofwightholidays4all.co.uk/images/St-Catherines-Point.jpg

We should get this area on the map, I think (correct me otherwise). I want to fly a Spitfire under that arch!!!!
And it would be a perfect place for an online quick dogfight map. Old Harry, Swanage:

http://02c1289.netsolhost.com/AZ0104.jpg

http://www.edenpics.com/pictures/005/it/1280/Edenpics-com_005-024-Old-Harry-Rocks-Regno-Unito-England-Dorset-Pressi-di-Swanage.jpg

http://www.swanagecottageholidays.co.uk/docs/photos/swanage/large/out5.jpg

http://www.mcqueens.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/img_0500.jpg

[EDIT] - Ohh...just found that Durdle Door is in that area too..(I thought it was further away at first);
an amazing looking place. I think you might even get a Blenheim through there:-)
.... IF it's modelled of course!!!


http://westfossil.co.uk/photos/door1.jpg

http://www.jonathangooding.co.uk/dorset_landscapes/durdle_door.jpg

http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/durdle-door-490x224.jpg

For scale:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/08_01/durdleL1308_468x311.jpg

[matsher]

Right, onto the real reason I wanted to post. This posting thing is pretty new to me so please excuse any babbling...

I have one development question / wish / request that has always been on my mind, and I have never come across anyone else asking about it... So here it is

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.

To Oleg- Will/can there be a player defined option to set the in-cockpit view at 65% (or so) opacity, to make it semi-transparent?
So pilots can still have more "sky" but also can have the feeling that they are still flying in a beautifully rendered fighter plane?

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.

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

Please give me feedback guys, I am interested to know your opinions on this request...

And Oleg, Please answer, I am burning to know...
I'll be satisfied with either a
1. Yes
2. No
or
3. Could happen in a future release.

(RESPONSE TO OLEG'S EARLIER POST) I also want to say that the view options in IL-2 are the best of any sim ever... I have played pretty much every single flight sim that has been made and none compares with IL-2's viewing systems... Coupled with the fact that outside camera views can be used (turned) with the track IR is immensely useful. Please dont change them, but add to them with your new secret viewing options:)

I also love the little details, like the pilots and gunners having 'weight' to them. I can see myself flying with the chase camera and throwing the bomber around the skies and seeing how the gunners react to inertia - Seeing if I can shunt the plane hard enough so they will fall out... :)

I am not sure how many more people will view my post... I think I may have missed the boat a bit cause most of the vast majority of the community have already been and gone, So I will repost this next week and hopefully get loads of responses, I am super interested to know what other may think of this idea.

[Richie]

By what this looks like I don't think we've had a wide view of the finale terrain yet.

[Baron]

Right, onto the real reason I wanted to post. This posting thing is pretty new to me so please excuse any babbling...

I have one development question / wish / request that has always been on my mind, and I have never come across anyone else asking about it... So here it is

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.

To Oleg- Will/can there be a player defined option to set the in-cockpit view at 65% (or so) opacity, to make it semi-transparent?
So pilots can still have more "sky" but also can have the feeling that they are still flying in a beautifully rendered fighter plane?

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.

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

Please give me feedback guys, I am interested to know your opinions on this request...

And Oleg, Please answer, I am burning to know...
I'll be satisfied with either a
1. Yes
2. No
or
3. Could happen in a future release.

(RESPONSE TO OLEG'S EARLIER POST) I also want to say that the view options in IL-2 are the best of any sim ever... I have played pretty much every single flight sim that has been made and none compares with IL-2's viewing systems... Coupled with the fact that outside camera views can be used (turned) with the track IR is immensely useful. Please dont change them, but add to them with your new secret viewing options:)

I also love the little details, like the pilots and gunners having 'weight' to them. I can see myself flying with the chase camera and throwing the bomber around the skies and seeing how the gunners react to inertia - Seeing if I can shunt the plane hard enough so they will fall out... :)

I am not sure how many more people will view my post... I think I may have missed the boat a bit cause most of the vast majority of the community have already been and gone, So I will repost this next week and hopefully get loads of responses, I am super interested to know what other may think of this idea.



I think the idea with the semi transparent cockpit has been discussed in the past, cant remember of Oleg gave any awnsers about it though.

[matsher]

I think the idea with the semi transparent cockpit has been discussed in the past, cant remember of Oleg gave any awnsers about it though.

Thanks Baron, If you remember anything else about it, please tell me... Also what is your opinion on it...?

[Dano]

Show me. What have I done to upset you?
Upset me? You haven't, I'm merely pointing out the irony of you telling me to read between the lines when you clearly failed to read a straight up post from Oleg.

Stating this:

It seems like a step back from the spit video. Unless Oleg was trying to say that the FPS here is glitchy, notice how the clouds are popping in and out of focus...


After Oleg stated this:

Some early video. Crew animation visible outside of aircraft. Glitches are present! This was recorded some couple of months ago for the test how it looks on the video (not all frames smoothly grabbed by a programm).

is the point, you clearly failed to read anything he posted.

I posted saying I wasn't happy with the clouds, and I think they could do with a bit of work to look 2010 quality.
I have always been grateful of Oleg's work; if I wasn't, I wouldn't send him dozens of research pages that he asked me to send him

What have you done to help him? Nothing.
Thankyou.

Assume much? Or are you that involved in SoW development that you know every contributer? No I doubt it else you wouldn't be continually on here asking questions and whining. I'll tell you what I've done to help Oleg, I've taken the time to read his posts and refrained from making asinine posts regarding the state of things that he has already made clear.

If I had any level of expertise that would help Oleg I'd offer it, trust me, but as it happens it's all well out of my experience which is why I keep my mouth shut 99% of the time instead of spouting what amounts to pointless opinions. Not that I'm immune from doing so occasionally :)

My original post. What is ungrateful about this:

Nothing, where did I say it was?


Oleg, are the clouds shown final? They look quite nice, but IMHO are a bit grey? Also, they still look quite cotton-ballish. I hope this makes sense. I am sure it can be a feature that will always be tweaked from release, but this is just my two pence. Have a great weekend

Just my honest opinion from looking at the shots. No-one can tell me otherwise what I will think, or indeed try to put words in my mouth. Oleg has not said much on the clouds, other than the fact it won't be a cloud sim. I agree with him here, but I think they could be refined.
I posted a quote about this type of clouds. If you take my humble question, and try and twist it and laugh at me, then I will always reply to you. Can't we just enjoy the updates in our own way? I'd rather write a few lines on aspects that I feel need a bit of work compared to essays of praise (which I could easily write BTW).

If you want my opinion (and that's all it is, I claim no expertise in anything I say) then I'm tempted to agree on the clouds, but I don't think we've seen enough of them yet to form an informed view of them, same with the landscape, push comes to shove and I have to agree with Tree, it's somewhat lacking in my eyes, however I am very aware that we have no real frame of reference as to what we are actually seeing, is it low settings, high? some placeholders still in place, missing features and post processing or just Oleg showing off technical features that we need to look deeper into to see without it looking anything like what SoW will actually look like? We just don't know and given Oleg's track record of holding back (again shown with the bonus video this week showing crew animations which we only found out about very recently but was obviously being tested quite some time ago) and the fact that until it goes gold (and again, even after given Oleg's track record) it's still work in progress and subject to change.

Oleg has my trust to bring us a stunning sim and after playing IL2 for so long I just can't see him letting us down.

[Splitter]

Thanks Baron, If you remember anything else about it, please tell me... Also what is your opinion on it...?

Just an opinion, but the semi-transparent cockpit would be good to play with. I wonder if that would tax the system, though, because it would have to render the sky/planes AND and cockpit in the same area. I have no idea if that;s the case, but it wouldn't surprise me.

BTW, the screen shots where people have played with the color saturation and such....spectacular even if a little dark. No one remembers it but I made a similar point in a post several weeks ago. I feel better about the theory I had back then after seeing these "doctored" screen shots.

Splitter

[Tree_UK]

Fair post Dano, the reason why i have been less subtle (if thats possible) with my comments on the terrain is that Oleg as stated that the game is effectively finished, just ironing out the bugs, now Oleg did promise Terrain better than WOP, and like I have already pointed out that it may well be the case that we will get wonderful terrain, but, and i stress but, the terrain we have seen recently from altitude is IMHO very poor.

[Abbeville-Boy]

good update oleg! i like the shots you posted, nice of you to do that because i know you were still very busy, in the middle of moving :grin:

[Baron]

Thanks Baron, If you remember anything else about it, please tell me... Also what is your opinion on it...?


Nothing wrong with the idea, options is good, all depending on the amount of work needed to implement it. Could be a good tool in the transison from WW to cockpit only flying. How much work it is, i have no idea.

[Dano]

That's the trouble though isn't it, technically it is better than WoP, it has a far greater draw distance, more realistic palette etc etc, it just doesn't currently 'look' as nice, so even the term 'better than' is entirely subjective to what exactly you are comparing it to.

The other point to consider is that we have only currently seen static screens of the landscape and sometimes they do not do any justice whatsoever at all to a game in motion.

[Freycinet]

"This message is hidden because Tree_UK is on your ignore list."

Ah, really nice feature that one! I can recommend it.

[Tree_UK]

"This message is hidden because Tree_UK is on your ignore list."

Ah, really nice feature that one! I can recommend it.

You wont see this one then , CHEESE BREATH :grin:

[Freycinet]

Oh well, SimHQ is also being polluted now...

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3105169/10_1_2010_update.html#Post3105169

Tree
SimHQ Member
"Jeez im so glad you guys agree about the terrain, i was beginning to feel very isolated on the banana forum for daring to question it. There are so many bum lickers over there its untrue."

Philip_ed
SimHQ Member
"You're not isolated Tree. It's just that, at the Banana forum, the moment you post a slight critique they start to ram their thoughts down your throat and call you names etc. Those guys need to get a life."

[Old_Canuck]

So for you interaction between developer and potential customer means to constantly say:

Awesome ...
Appreciate ...
Excellent ...
Can't wait ...
Thx Oleg ...
Wonderfull ...
Everything is coming together nicely ...
...

I don't think Oleg can make any use of this sort of comments.
Has Oleg ever answered a post which contains only such phrases? No ...

Is Oleg and Team encouraged by such comments? I think all artists are encouraged by such comments. No need to reply to them either. Just appreciate them like a warm glow of sunlight in the morning. Agreed that constructive criticism can be valuable to an artist. But there's a big difference between constructive criticism (which is usually backed up by relevant data) and ill-intended bickering usually by the same actors. So I make no apology for my attempts to compliment and encourage these artists. I personally lack the knowledge and expertise to offer the team any relevant data. But, like many in the silent majority, I can offer them a little encouragement from time to time. I'll keep doing this until Oleg tells me to shut up.

[zauii]

The real question is, which comes first Duke Nukem Forever or Storm of War, its a race to the finish line by two games long due :)
Love these updates, just ignore the whine and continue next Friday.

[zapatista]

I would honestly like to see you (Tree_UK) banned by IP. Would the Administrators apply the order? Anybody else upset by his antagonising and obtuse posts each week?

yes he should be, and he has already been temp banned for it in the past

what some people dont seem to recognize with him is that he is deliberately offensive to oleg personally and on purpose constantly posts negative and destructive remarks about the BoB project and previews we get here, it has nothing to do with him giving some honest and balanced feedback on the updates

his behavior is like that of the slighted women, or the low EQ child who's toy has been taken away, and he keeps whining on and on and on long after the event has passed. for tree-uk that trigger experience was the postponement of il2/BoB mark-1 about 4 yrs ago which he must have been looking forward to a lot, and from then on his sole purpose to come onto these forums is to post his negative crap (and he does it on all the il2 forums). if you look back on all his post in this forum 90% of them are his deliberately offensive negative remarks

and anytime he gets cornered about his misrepresentation of facts or his deliberate exaggerated negative spin on things, he'll try and backtrack about being misunderstood and will slither and slide away, only to reappear doing the exact same thing in the next posts, he's been doing it for years, and temp banning him here has had no change in his behavior either. his previous main constant whining was about the release date, and since it is obvious in the last couple of months that release is imminent and just around the corner (barring some major bug that delays intended release date), so Tree-uk now has switched to deliberately offensive remarks about the content (yet he knows little of game design or grafix/video, and completely ignores all the positive aspects of what we see, and neither is he able or willing to see minor WIP factors for what they are)

tree-uk is also now locked into his behavior because it gets him attention (and he has very little knowledgeable or interesting to contribute on ww2 aviation so he cant "participate" on that level), and because he gets stroked along by cluster of hanger's on who are to dimwitted to see the bigger pattern of what he is doing here

so when you see oleg's outburst of frustration at all the unnecessary and ungrateful negative crap being constantly posted by people like tree, most of us are concerned, but not tree, for him its EXACTLY what he wants to achieve and he will keep doing it, its his sole purpose for being here. so dont expect tree to change, he wont, and because of that he really shouldnt be here at all

[zapatista]

All things considered, I don't think it looks too bad:

http://www.islandbreaks.co.uk/xsdbimgs/stcatherinesaerial2.jpg


I think that the landscape looks great. I say this because in this reference pic from TONE71 you can clearly see that in the distance is a distinct haze. Which is very common, and looking at Olegs' Screenshot you can see the haze is present all the way to the shoreline.

In the above reference pic, the haze has burned off in the near distance. I fly a lot and I can vouch for the presence of this haze effect, which dampens and flattens the colour of the ground and skies... The ground is really very well rendered..

exactly, the main point with the recent high altitude screenshots is that what we see of the terrain below shows good detail in the ground contours, toning the color palate (or density of foliage/scrubs/trees/hedges) is a very minor and easy component (and is not the purpose of showing those shots imho)

[Splitter]

yes he should be, and he has already been temp banned for it in the past



Dude, you seriously need to come out of your shell and tell us what you really think :-P. Holding back your true feelings will lead to indigestion and ulcers. So let me ask this in as direct a manner as possible:

Tell us how you feel about TreeUk.

Get it off your chest, you will fell better.

Now where did I put my popcorn.....

Splitter

[swiss]

so when you see oleg's outburst of frustration at all the unnecessary and ungrateful negative crap being constantly posted by people like tree, most of us are concerned, but not tree, for him its EXACTLY what he wants to achieve and he will keep doing it, its his sole purpose for being here. so dont expect tree to change, he wont, and because of that he really shouldnt be here at all

You're wrong.
He's speculative on the release date - he's free to do so.
He doesn't like the terrain. He's free to like whatever, unfortunately he picked a bad formulation.

The whiners here are actually not negative or destructive - they are just disappointed.
Not of Olegs work - but they had unrealistic dreams(i'm exaggerating here) of a Sim, where you can fly over meadows and see the grasshoppers jump away if you only do it low enough.
Now their dream is manifesting and they realize it's not going be like they imagined, hence the don't like this, don't like that.

[proton45]

Is Oleg and Team encouraged by such comments? I think all artists are encouraged by such comments. No need to reply to them either. Just appreciate them like a warm glow of sunlight in the morning. Agreed that constructive criticism can be valuable to an artist. But there's a big difference between constructive criticism (which is usually backed up by relevant data) and ill-intended bickering usually by the same actors. So I make no apology for my attempts to compliment and encourage these artists. I personally lack the knowledge and expertise to offer the team any relevant data. But, like many in the silent majority, I can offer them a little encouragement from time to time. I'll keep doing this until Oleg tells me to shut up.


I really didn't want to get "sucked into" this whole topic...

But its obvious that most of the people here have absolutely NO IDEA about the proper way to communicate their criticism of an ongoing creative project.

I have been a working musician and an artist...and I have collaborated with many brilliant artists...and I can tell you, "for a fact", that insulting, marginalizing, or speaking presumptively (the presumption being that Oleg finds all this bickering educational) with the artist, IS NOT, the way to communicate your thoughts.

I'm gonna "tap out" now (lol).... ;)


P.S. Old_Canuck...I'm not really commenting on your statement as much as I'm communicating my thoughts after reading your thoughts. I hope that is ok.

[ATAG_Dutch]

"This message is hidden because Tree_UK is on your ignore list."

Ah, really nice feature that one! I can recommend it.

I was trying very hard to not get sucked into this but I can't resist anymore.
What a bunch of women.
Is there anyone at all who would like to discuss the sim?
Some of us find logical discourse useful.
Others think 'I'm a celebrity, get me out of here' is highly educational.
Which camp are you in?

[ATAG_Dutch]

Dude, you seriously need to come out of your shell and tell us what you really think :-P. Holding back your true feelings will lead to indigestion and ulcers. So let me ask this in as direct a manner as possible:

Tell us how you feel about TreeUk.

Get it off your chest, you will fell better.

Now where did I put my popcorn.....

Splitter

Now then splitter, we've had some good chats and you're obviously an intelligent chap, so don't jump on the bandwagon, please.

What do you think about the weathering of squadron codes?

Thanks.

[Blackdog_kt]

Right, onto the real reason I wanted to post. This posting thing is pretty new to me so please excuse any babbling...

I have one development question / wish / request that has always been on my mind, and I have never come across anyone else asking about it... So here it is

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.

To Oleg- Will/can there be a player defined option to set the in-cockpit view at 65% (or so) opacity, to make it semi-transparent?
So pilots can still have more "sky" but also can have the feeling that they are still flying in a beautifully rendered fighter plane?

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.

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

Please give me feedback guys, I am interested to know your opinions on this request...

And Oleg, Please answer, I am burning to know...
I'll be satisfied with either a
1. Yes
2. No
or
3. Could happen in a future release.

(RESPONSE TO OLEG'S EARLIER POST) I also want to say that the view options in IL-2 are the best of any sim ever... I have played pretty much every single flight sim that has been made and none compares with IL-2's viewing systems... Coupled with the fact that outside camera views can be used (turned) with the track IR is immensely useful. Please dont change them, but add to them with your new secret viewing options:)

I also love the little details, like the pilots and gunners having 'weight' to them. I can see myself flying with the chase camera and throwing the bomber around the skies and seeing how the gunners react to inertia - Seeing if I can shunt the plane hard enough so they will fall out... :)

I am not sure how many more people will view my post... I think I may have missed the boat a bit cause most of the vast majority of the community have already been and gone, So I will repost this next week and hopefully get loads of responses, I am super interested to know what other may think of this idea.

Welcome to the forum first of all.You'll find that things get heated some times, but that's because we're all a bunch of over-enthusiastic kids at heart, with a lot of passion for this hobby.

Don't get discouraged if someone shouts you down and don't get dragged down to petty arguments, just keep providing your opinion and feedback in the manner you just did and all is going to be ok. I think you'll do just fine. ;)

As for your request, i would never use something like that but i can recognize that other people would find it useful. As long as time constraints and coding limitations permit, i wouldn't mind one bit if it was included as a feature of this upcoming flight simulator. Like i always say what's bad is forcing a certain set of preferences on everyone because not everyone has the same taste, but extra options are never a bad thing. In that sense, even though i would never use it i can still see the usefulness of it for other people.

Also as Baron said, it would a serve as a useful transition point from no-cockpit view to full cockpit view and anything that helps people move from lower to higher realism settings is useful in my opinion. Just because someone is flying on lower difficulty settings doesn't mean he should be shunned and made fun of. From where i'm standing, the best thing to do would be to guide that person through increasing difficulty settings and showcase the amount of satisfaction that comes with increased challenges, but i know that some steps of this progression tend to have a steep learning curve. Such a feature would be very useful in bridging part of that gap. The only concern, again as Baron has already stated, is how much effect it would have on frame rates because it increases the amount of things to be rendered.

On another note...

You're wrong.
He's speculative on the release date - he's free to do so.
He doesn't like the terrain. He's free to like whatever, unfortunately he picked a bad formulation.

The whiners here are actually not negative or destructive - they are just disappointed.
Not of Olegs work - but they had unrealistic dreams(i'm exaggerating here) of a Sim, where you can fly over meadows and see the grasshoppers jump away if you only do it low enough.
Now their dream is manifesting and they realize it's not going be like they imagined, hence the don't like this, don't like that.

I think this is a pretty accurate post. Tree doesn't have to change his opinions, he's entitled to them. What annoys people is usually the way they are presented. I too am not that happy about the terrain but i would never say it's painted by a child because even though it's not perfect i can still see a lot of things i like, i know next to nothing about whether it's final or not, i don't know the settings used to take the screenshots and i don't know if it's placeholder or in a testing stage.

For me, the most important thing to be gleaned from the Friday updates is not the quality displayed because that changes constantly due to testing. In fact, we've seen a lot of older update shots where things look better than newer ones and vice versa. What happens is that most people take the most recent set of screenshots as a universal quality benchmark that supersedes and "overwrites" all previous updates, while that is most probably not the case. Instead of doing that, people should take the time to look back to previous updates and accumulate all the positive points of what's there if they want to have a more thorough look at what's possible with the new engine. Maybe our PCs can't run it at full tilt just yet and that's why certain features move up and down on the quality scale? With regards to PC resources, it's one thing to show a fully detailed aircraft in the object viewer or a static shot with nothing happening (not even the propeller turning) like we've seen in the past, but a totally different one to show a shot of a full-blown combat sequence where some things will have to be set to lower detail in order to maintain playable frame rates.

So, how can we dissect these updates properly? I'd say it's the pace of progress made that matters and trust me, from my point of view progress is happening rapidly. We just have to be able to accumulate all the positive points from the previous updates as well, instead of assuming that what we see is final each week. Some shots might be taken with aircraft detail at 60% and terrain detail at 80%, others could be taken with aircraft detail at 100% and terrain detail at 40%, because it's too heavy to run on the PC used to take the screenshots. Of course you don't need highly playable FPS just to snap a few stills, but thing about something else...these guys are on a tight schedule and every minute counts. If showing things at full detail on the medium range PC used for optimizing the sim to run on lower spec systems means a 10 minute loading time, then the developers will just drop the graphics sliders in the options to make it load in 2 minutes and snap the pictures using that setting because they have other more important things to do, like finishing the game for example ;)

[ATAG_Dutch]

[QUOTE=zapatista;186782]yes he should be, and he has already been temp banned for it in the past/QUOTE]

I don't know what the past history is with you two but please stop it.

It's stupid.

Move on.

The pair of you appear like a pair of bitchy schoolgirls and it's extremely tedious for the rest of us, although you both have valid points to make.

That said, I am interested in both your opinions on the appearance of weathered squadron markings within the sim.

Any Thoughts? Or are you too busy scoring points?

[LukeFF]

"This message is hidden because Tree_UK is on your ignore list."

Ah, really nice feature that one! I can recommend it.

+1

[LukeFF]

What do you think about the weathering of squadron codes?

I think the way they are displayed on the British aircraft is excellent, but the ones on the Italian aircraft are too transparent (as Oleg alluded to in his initial post here).

Otherwise, they are a major step up from the stock IL2 markings, which don't blend in at all with the airframe.

[Goanna1]

So the owner of the company comes onto the forum, posts works in progress, gives comments on what is in the pipeline, RESPONDS to requests, and then forum members bitch that it's not enough.

Yeah, you all will flame me and call me a fanboi, but I understand Oleg's attitude. When is enough enough? How many other games in development have the top guy interacting with fans before release? I've waited for a number of games and in only one other instant have I encountered an owner who interacts with the fan base prior to release in anything similar to this fashion and HE does it on his own terms. Oleg has gone above and beyond, you all need to shut it up for a while.

And are you all STILL griping about details that none of us will see when whizzing by at 300mph?

You all are enough to make a preacher cuss. Reminds me of my ex-wife.

Splitter
He does what he said he will do --give out info and as usual there are some whingers and whiners who want more
Oleg must be very busy with moving and continual production of this series yet 'enough' is not taken to be enough
I will happily wait till we are given more when he wishes to and has time to do it-we have waited long enough whats a few more months
patience grasshoppers!!

[johnnypfft]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptB4otetD6s

[Osprey]

Moaning at someone who, in turn, moans about the game is just as bad. Be the better person and take a step above. If they really are so low, then don't stoop to their level ;)

I haven't Phil and I don't require patronising on it either, though I am sure your comment is in the best intention. I don't think you see that the guy is just entertaining himself, so you answer his silly remarks, and he's laughing at that. I've not answered any of it because it doesn't warrant an answer, I'd just rather see him not post anymore and not have the pleasure of Oleg's salivating updates.

[Osprey]

http://www.islandbreaks.co.uk/xsdbimgs/stcatherinesaerial2.jpg

I think people forget that in 1940 everything was in black and white.......:rolleyes:

[kendo65]

...
Mr Maddox also commented on the weathering of squadron codes etc. being a 'bug' that they may or may not resolve.

It can be seen on one of the G50 shots there there is something happening to the lettering where the paint is worn, but it doesn't look quite right. Not 'worn off' enough perhaps.

This isn't something that would bother me at all in the initial release, compared to IL2 they look great, but looking at the screenshot and filmmaker potential of the sim, what do others think?

Ok Dutch, ;)

I've looked at the G50 shots. I can see that in the area where the camouflage paint has been chipped away to show the bare metal, then the squadron codes should have gone completely too. Instead they are just more 'weathered' looking. (edit: in reality I presume that the camo paint and national markings are factory-applied while the squadron codes are put on once the ac is supplied to its unit? If that's the case then maybe the squadron codes could sometimes be re-applied in the field over the well-worn camo? Doesn't take away from the fact that in the game it's still a bug)

To be honest it's not something that jumps out at me unless I'm specifically looking for it. The overall effect seems to be enough to 'fool' the eye, even though, technically, it's wrong.

I think the G50 shots look great - more impressive than some of the earlier Spitfire shots showing weathered markings.

Hopefully they'll fix it, but if not, for me anyway it's not a big deal.

[kendo65]

...
But its obvious that most of the people here have absolutely NO IDEA about the proper way to communicate their criticism of an ongoing creative project.

I have been a working musician and an artist...and I have collaborated with many brilliant artists...and I can tell you, "for a fact", that insulting, marginalizing, or speaking presumptively (the presumption being that Oleg finds all this bickering educational) with the artist, IS NOT, the way to communicate your thoughts.


+1

I've never bought the argument, used by some here, that the destructive critique is somehow more useful to Oleg, or that his main reason for posting is so that we can enlighten him with our superior insight and knowledge.

[Richie]

I still don't think we've seen a shot of the finished terrain..not really Compared to that Hurricane low over that section of London with even smoke coming out of a chimney why would everything look like mush from 10,000 feet. It just doesn't make sense to me. Wait until the website comes and if it still looks worse than that lawnmower sounding WOP then you can really complain.

[Foo'bar]

On the terrain subject, have any of you seen the Outerra graphics engine? This is incredible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGMs7Iem3Vg&feature=player_embedded#!

it lacks a lot of SoW detail, but in many other respects it's just mind-blowing. I can se SoW looking like this in the not-too-distant future.

Of course. Even Oleg did a reply on that: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=167926&postcount=71

And it is useless for a complex flight sim, unless a frame rate of 3-5 fps is enough for you ;)

[Avionsdeguerre]

SoW bob gonna be a great game! But when's the release date?
In late October, Christmas?


ps: Great job Mr. Oleg : eek:
sorry for my bad English : grin :

[Sturm_Williger]

Right, onto the real reason I wanted to post. This posting thing is pretty new to me so please excuse any babbling...

I have one development question / wish / request that has always been on my mind, and I have never come across anyone else asking about it... So here it is

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.

To Oleg- Will/can there be a player defined option to set the in-cockpit view at 65% (or so) opacity, to make it semi-transparent?
So pilots can still have more "sky" but also can have the feeling that they are still flying in a beautifully rendered fighter plane?

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.
...

Matsher, some years ago, Oleg posted a development picture showing the "new Wonderwoman" view in which the "floating instruments" were semi-opaque. This wasn't a semi-transparent cockpit, but did show "see-through" instruments, so about half of what you're looking for. ( also, they were representations of the actual cockpit guages/dials, rather than the IL2 "cartoon" instruments )

I spent some time looking through old harddrives last night, but unfortunately I can't find it. Still, it was quite some time ago and anything might have changed.

[Rodolphe]

...

March 21st 2008.
Customizable indicators for no cockpit view. They are half transparent, resizable, and possible to put at any place of the screen. With the release of BoB there will be 3 types of standard indicator sets for no cockpit view – customizable indicators for German, British and Italian side.

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/grab0002.jpg


http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/grab0004.jpg



http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=38339&postcount=6


...

[Foo'bar]

SoW bob gonna be a great game! But when's the release date?
In late October, Christmas?


ps: Great job Mr. Oleg : eek:
sorry for my bad English : grin :

BoB is very close to release. It's up to you tu understand the meaning of "close" now ;)

[Foo'bar]

Ok Dutch, ;)

I've looked at the G50 shots. I can see that in the area where the camouflage paint has been chipped away to show the bare metal, then the squadron codes should have gone completely too. Instead they are just more 'weathered' looking. (edit: in reality I presume that the camo paint and national markings are factory-applied while the squadron codes are put on once the ac is supplied to its unit? If that's the case then maybe the squadron codes could sometimes be re-applied in the field over the well-worn camo? Doesn't take away from the fact that in the game it's still a bug)

To be honest it's not something that jumps out at me unless I'm specifically looking for it. The overall effect seems to be enough to 'fool' the eye, even though, technically, it's wrong.

I think the G50 shots look great - more impressive than some of the earlier Spitfire shots showing weathered markings.

Hopefully they'll fix it, but if not, for me anyway it's not a big deal.

Did you remember this one? That should be what you mean. Paint away = markings away.

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Fiat_G-50_08.jpg

Be patient. All will get well.

[Richie]

I don't think we've seen the terrain....

From the check 6 interview.

After a good meal offered by Oleg we get back in the office, and spend some time with the team responsible of the map.

The person working on it is using an old map which he superimposed on his modelling tool and is reproducing all the ancient roads exactly where they should be ! I think that it's really insane to give such a hard work to the team, but in a way, that's why we love Oleg's games !
Oleg gives me informations about the new textures they will use and told me that his photo experience helps him a lot to get the most realistic textures possible !

[ATAG_Dutch]

Did you remember this one? That should be what you mean. Paint away = markings away.
Be patient. All will get well.

Now that looks superb, and would be very welcome.
Hopefully they'll be able to iron out the bug in due course.:)

[philip.ed]

Of course. Even Oleg did a reply on that: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=167926&postcount=71

And it is useless for a complex flight sim, unless a frame rate of 3-5 fps is enough for you ;)

Thankyou Foobar. I completely missed that post of his ;)

[Tree_UK]

...

March 21st 2008.


http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/grab0002.jpg


http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/grab0004.jpg



http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=38339&postcount=6


...

Now what happened to that terrain, thats more like the terrain i thought we would be seeing.

[Qpassa]

its beautiful in that screen :S

[Tree_UK]

So why does it look so bad now, in that shot it looks like England, the colours are right, the hedgerows are right, it just needs some trees etc.

[furbs]

Agreed it does look very nice.

[Tree_UK]

Im sure most of you would agree that when we first saw terrain like that above our expectations were somewhat raised, obviously if that kind of terrain makes the game unplayable then im down with that, but surely a statemnet saying as much would at least put us all in the picture.

[ElAurens]

Tree, what is it about the words "work in progress" that you just cannot seem to grasp?

You see one shot you like then another that you don't, and you wrongly come to the conclusion that they have thrown the baby out with the bath water and gone with the one you don't care for.

Now you believe that because Oleg has said they are working on bugs, that the sim is totally done and everything is fixed in place. This is in spite of the fact that Oleg has said that they will be tuning the graphics till the time the code goes to the publisher.

You have the most twisted thought process of anyone I've ever read online.

Or, you work for a competitor and are being paid to raise hell in this forum.

Either way, you should seek help.

[Richie]

Wasn't England logged out centuries ago? Aren't you thinking of my country Tree? :)


TOO MANY TREES!!.... right?

[Tree_UK]

guys, i will ask this once more, if you want to insult me in any way please feel free to 'pm' me rather than do it in the forums, I am more than happy to recieve your insults and trade if you want to go down that route. However much you want to get personal with me wont unfortunately change my view or make me like something that you do, I am open to a discussion though which these forums are designed for.

[philip.ed]

I think the point is, even if the terrain is WIP, then why couldn't they use this terrain as WIP which looks better?
having said that, notice the repetion of the textures here...it looks aesthetically nice, but realistically?

[Richie]

Ok I'm sorry. I just wanted you to see my pretty trees. I don't get off on insulting you. You make me crazy but you're consistent and honest about what you feel.

[Tree_UK]

Absoloutley agree Philip, but it still looks better than in the recent screenshots, the colours are really good.

[Tree_UK]

Ok I'm sorry. I just wanted you to see my pretty trees. I don't get off on insulting you. You make me crazy but you're consistent and honest about what you feel.

Thats ok buddy, no problem :grin:

[matsher]

So why does it look so bad now, in that shot it looks like England, the colours are right, the hedgerows are right, it just needs some trees etc.

Come now TREE,
its the same landscape you've been slating the whole time... 'cept in this top down view there are no weather effects between your eye and the landscape.
And it is now most likely far better than this old screenshot from 2 years ago.

[Richie]

But like we agreed in the HL we'll sure be gunning for each other over the channel, you in your Hurricane and me in my E3.

[Richie]

Come now TREE,
its the same landscape you've been slating the whole time... 'cept in this top down view there are no weather effects between your eye and the landscape.
And it is now most likely far better than this old screenshot from 2 years ago.

No..about 10 months ago. The same time this 109 was put up.

[Hecke]

Maybe Oleg is realizing that many of his high res stuff is far more than todays pcs can handle.

[Osprey]

Wasn't England logged out centuries ago? Aren't you thinking of my country Tree? :)


TOO MANY TREES!!.... right?

It was deforested to make way for farmland and build our mighty navy, however the south east is actually one of the most forested parts of the country. Take a trip up and around Surrey/Sussex/Kent in a light aircraft and it will honestly surprise you just how forested the area is.

[Hoverbug]

Now what happened to that terrain, thats more like the terrain i thought we would be seeing.

The one with the repeating textures that brought howls of complaint!? [sound of Oleg banging his head against his desk]

[matsher]

No..about 8 months ago.

Okay, I stand corrected, 8 months. Still 8 months of landscape development can produce even better results...

@TREE_UK
Olegs got a photographers eye... And the experience of living in Euro-Russian weather conditions, AND he has been in the sky... So he knows what it should look like... And no matter how hard everyone may feel you are being on Oleg, I can tell you absolutely that he is 10 times as hard on himself and his team to get it just right.

Hasn't this guy demonstated time and time again, to the world (and us) that he is a perfectionist that sticks to his principles of Quality first, profit second... Tree, from the heart... you have not got the qualifications, or the eye, or as it turn out, the memory to make definitive judgements on how the sim should look.

[proton45]

guys, i will ask this once more, if you want to insult me in any way please feel free to 'pm' me rather than do it in the forums, I am more than happy to recieve your insults and trade if you want to go down that route. However much you want to get personal with me wont unfortunately change my view or make me like something that you do, I am open to a discussion though which these forums are designed for.

Ok Tree...sense you really seem to need an answer from someone (lol)...

I could be wrong, but...I believe that the screen shot you have selected to display was an example of a "terrain tile" that was built for the "old" "SoW" engine...as some of you might remember, "SOW" was originally built on the old "IL 1946" game engine, and then Oleg and team realized that if they really wanted a 21st century game (for the future) they need to go back to the beginning and built a game engine "from scratch"...

Even though the "old" engine was limited in possibility's (for expansion)...Olegs team had a lot of experience with the old engine and the graphics (and colors) had been highly tuned, over the years.

The new game is not finished, and all the screen shots are a "WiP"...

[Osprey]

Well, you don't actually have to fly, just google

Surrey
http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/20260-1/godstone-surrey-aerial-ba27024.jpg

Sussex
http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/85258012.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=AA1747D0965B1B3D28295646265C840617778A0F20DE3E64 57AA6D42562F48CCE30A760B0D811297

Kent
http://www.privateschoolreview.com/photos/large_1243621188_5368.jpg

[Splitter]

Now then splitter, we've had some good chats and you're obviously an intelligent chap, so don't jump on the bandwagon, please.

What do you think about the weathering of squadron codes?

Thanks.

I'm not jumping on anyone, Dutch, I promise. I even joked with Tree about his what he calls his direct honesty. That post just gave me a chuckle because of the spleen venting lol. So don't take insult.

As for the weathering, it would be a neat thing but here again, it's not anywhere near a priority in my mind. However, I will say it will look a bit awkward if the planes weather but the lettering does not. A big deal even at that point? Not to me, just one of those things that would/should be fixed in a future patch.

Peace, brothers :).

Splitter

[kedrednael]

its beautiful in that screen :S


in that shot it looks like England, the colours are right, the hedgerows are right, it just needs some trees etc.

what the frak? ! you can see 12 repeats in that little texture. The terrain looks way better than that now, BUT I think it is at medium details, because the quality gets less good when the distance increases a bit, in some of the newer screens you can look at the closest patch of ground and that's incredibly detailed, but the ones behind that are less detailed. It's just because of the graphic settings.
And every update I see different textures. In the stuka shot there were square fields, and in the blenheim shots from the week before that the patches were all different shapes. A lot of variaty.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=3164&d=1283522562
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=3305&d=1284729362
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=2598&d=1276867657

[Richie]

Thanks for those pics Osprey.

[Igo kyu]

And every update I see different textures. In the stuka shot there were square fields, and in the blenheim shots from the week before that the patches were all different shapes. A lot of variaty.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=3164&d=1283522562
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=3305&d=1284729362
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=2598&d=1276867657
It seems Speedtree don't do hedges. In Britain, and parts of Europe, that's a big problem, even if hedges are unusual in the US of A.

[Tree_UK]

Ok Tree...sense you really seem to need an answer from someone (lol)...

I could be wrong, but...I believe that the screen shot you have selected to display was an example of a "terrain tile" that was built for the "old" "SoW" engine...as some of you might remember, "SOW" was originally built on the old "IL 1946" game engine, and then Oleg and team realized that if they really wanted a 21st century game (for the future) they need to go back to the beginning and built a game engine "from scratch"...

Even though the "old" engine was limited in possibility's (for expansion)...Olegs team had a lot of experience with the old engine and the graphics (and colors) had been highly tuned, over the years.

The new game is not finished, and all the screen shots are a "WiP"...

yeah i think you are correct regarding the old tile proton, but the colouring is pretty much bang on, The close up terrain we have seen with the ground objects is superb, its the 'middle distance' of the terrain that looks odd to me, and the terrain from high altitude it looks 'washed out'. I have said previously that it may not be the finished terrain but it is slightly worrying when oleg says that the game is just going through a de bugging stage, this suggest that all other work is finished.

[kendo65]

Did you remember this one? That should be what you mean. Paint away = markings away.

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Fiat_G-50_08.jpg

Be patient. All will get well.

WOW! No I didn't remember that one.

So they had it working and now it is bugged! Damn! Software is a frustrating business!

Thanks.

[kendo65]

Now what happened to that terrain, thats more like the terrain i thought we would be seeing.

Similar situation to the flaking paint perhaps?

Interesting to see how this debugging and 'polishing' will turn out...

[Richie]

yeah i think you are correct regarding the old tile proton, but the colouring is pretty much bang on, The close up terrain we have seen with the ground objects is superb, its the 'middle distance' of the terrain that looks odd to me, and the terrain from high altitude it looks 'washed out'. I have said previously that it may not be the finished terrain but it is slightly worrying when oleg says that the game is just going through a de bugging stage, this suggest that all other work is finished.

You mean from a few miles away and say 10,000 - 20,000 feet high Tree? If that's what you mean I agree. Something is turned down though like distance view or something like that.

[Tree_UK]

Thats exactly what i mean Richie.

[Rueckwaertsflieger]

Well, you don't actually have to fly, just google

Surrey



http://www.privateschoolreview.com/photos/large_1243621188_5368.jpg

On my last trip to England I have done these photos.

[kendo65]

re: the various photos posted. Brought to mind something I mentioned before - I don't recall ever seeing dense woodland/forest in any of the SOW pics that have been posted..?!

A while back there was an image showing a larger area than normal of trees but the density was very low - made me think that they are having fps issues or some such and that everything has been trimmed down to the bare minimum?

(or - once again - LOW settings, like il2 running with trees=1 or 0 set in config.ini ???)

ok, went back and checked - there are a few, but from way back. All the recent shots show very lo-density tree coverage

[philip.ed]

On my last trip to England I have done these photos.

Awesome shots :D Notice the flat bottomed clouds :o

[philip.ed]

re: the various photos posted. Brought to mind something I mentioned before - I don't recall ever seeing dense woodland/forest in any of the SOW pics that have been posted..?!

A while back there was an image showing a larger area than normal of trees but the density was very low - made me think that they are having fps issues or some such and that everything has been trimmed down to the bare minimum?

(or - once again - LOW settings, like il2 running with trees=1 or 0 set in config.ini ???)

Check out the October 2009 shots. Dense woodland was shown there.

[MD_Titus]

Now then splitter, we've had some good chats and you're obviously an intelligent chap, so don't jump on the bandwagon, please.

What do you think about the weathering of squadron codes?

Thanks.
promising feature, although the transparency of the markings rather than full chipping away looks a bit off, as identified.
I think the way they are displayed on the British aircraft is excellent, but the ones on the Italian aircraft are too transparent (as Oleg alluded to in his initial post here).

Otherwise, they are a major step up from the stock IL2 markings, which don't blend in at all with the airframe.
yeah, pretty much. huge improvement over the pasted images afforded by either mat manager or mods.
Did you remember this one? That should be what you mean. Paint away = markings away.

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Fiat_G-50_08.jpg

Be patient. All will get well.
perfect.
So why does it look so bad now, in that shot it looks like England, the colours are right, the hedgerows are right, it just needs some trees etc.
it may be that the only thing recent about the screenshots is that they were posted recently, rather than taken recently.
Tree, what is it about the words "work in progress" that you just cannot seem to grasp?

You see one shot you like then another that you don't, and you wrongly come to the conclusion that they have thrown the baby out with the bath water and gone with the one you don't care for.

Now you believe that because Oleg has said they are working on bugs, that the sim is totally done and everything is fixed in place. This is in spite of the fact that Oleg has said that they will be tuning the graphics till the time the code goes to the publisher.

You have the most twisted thought process of anyone I've ever read online.

Or, you work for a competitor and are being paid to raise hell in this forum.

Either way, you should seek help.
all three.
Awesome shots :D Notice the flat bottomed clouds :o
good shots. although not totally pan bottom flat, the cloud base altitude is probably within a 10m variance or so? if that's the difference that you were talking about earlier, then you were correct.

[Igo kyu]

Check out the October 2009 shots. Dense woodland was shown there.
That was possibly before the Speedtree software was bought in. :( :confused:

[JVM]

Concerning the weathering of the G50 marking keep in mind that the original picture in the modeller (the one dug out by Foo'bar) shows a completely weathered skin where obviously the weathering has been applied over the paint + marking layer before merging layers of the skin.
In the last screenshot the marking are of the automatic type as we know them from Il2 and are applied over the basic skin. To avoid to a certtain degree the effect of "newly repainted squadron markings" the markings themselves are made a bit transparent: you can see the weathering below the 'paint" of the marking!

It is certainly not a bug, more like an unfortunate feature :-). To avoid this it would be needed to have the engine applying the weathering after the selection of the auto-markings for this flight...this implies a certain layering structure of the skin which can be applied at starting time by the engine.
Maybe it is intended, as the progressive weathering has been touted a while ago by Oleg, but probably considered as a detail to deal with later!

JV

[Trumper]

On my last trip to England I have done these photos.
Just asking how the terrain and crops have altered since 1940.We now grow rape seed which is not an old crop here,infact filming the film BoB in 1969 was plagued by crops and roads that were not around in the 1940's.

There was more countryside,we are now over populated,less roads and built up areas then and don't forget they were digging to feed the country.
You need to compare to historically correct crops,fields [which will affect the colours] and also weather [was it wet or dry,once again colours] or just the light from the sky.
That Autumnal shot of Surrey is not really an average view,blues too blue,reds and oranges also too powerful.
Don't forget 1940's Britain was smoky and grimy in places ,coal fired industries ,steam railways etc.

[zapatista]

guys, i will ask this once more, if you want to insult me in any way please feel free to 'pm' me rather than do it in the forums, I am more than happy to recieve your insults and trade if you want to go down that route. However much you want to get personal with me wont unfortunately change my view or make me like something that you do, I am open to a discussion though which these forums are designed for.

your a hypocrite and a liar tree, and you can add that to the tittle of coward you rightfully earned here before

a) your a hypocrite for now pretending you are a normal poster here who just contributes by constructive feedback, and pretending you are "misunderstood" in your intentions here. as your proven track record here shows in print for the last year for all to see, you are the exact opposite and deliberately post nothing but whining and bitching about release dates, to which you have now added deliberately offensive remarks to oleg and the updates he is sharing here

b) you'r a liar for posting in this exact thread (a few pages back) that you private msg'd me to try and resolve differences (was funny to see you type that, o the web you weave)

c) and your a coward for backtracking on your proclamation here a couple of months ago, where you said that BoB wouldnt come out for another yr, after which you got called on it by me to put your money where your mouth was, and all you did was to slithered away like a rodent

so no tree, pretending you are a normal contributor here and want to clear personal differences so that the forum can operate normally does not cut the mustard, you'r a phony

ahh, and should i now add "no offense of course" or can you type that yourself instead ?

all that is expected from you, like anybody else here, is that you
1) "contribute" to the forum
2) participate in a civilized constructive and adult manner in giving feedback on the glimpses we get in the regular updates

but you cant do it can you ? you really cant ! ehh because thats not why you are here boyo eh ;) common, tell the good folks why you are really here, some barely know you and still fall for it :)

note to other forum users: sorry folks for all the negativity distracting from savoring your crumpet with your morning coffee, but the hypocrisy of that last post of his is just astounding and is purely aimed at blowing smoke up your..... mmmm well you know where i mean :) some might actually fall for it if their not fully awake on what they are asked to swallow, its called the "tree's slithering act part 1 of his backward peddling opus", and its a load of bull

[philip.ed]

MD, that's exactly what I was talking about earlier. Obviously the bottom won't be ruler straight, but it's very defined. IMO the clouds in SoW just need to be tweaked in shape, and then everything is there for the game to have the most realistic clouds ever. Indeed, it'd be great to see the type of sun reflection on the clouds, as that is something that I've noticed is really strong when flying over clouds. ;) We have yet to see this shown clearly in SoW due to the angle of the shots taken ;)


Zap; this is all virtual. Tree has nothing to give to you and neither do you to him or anyone to you or you to anyone. You bitching to Tree is just as bad as him doing so to you. Just cut it out; it does my head in seeing posts that have nothing to do with the game, but are just about moaning about forum members.

[Richie]

Actually there's a lot of good shots of the ground in the movie I made especially out of the nose of the Heinkle on time 26 seconds


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scZ_1-lhsIE

[Abbeville-Boy]

[QUOTE=philip.ed;186966]MD, that's exactly what I was talking about earlier. Obviously the bottom won't be ruler straight, but it's very defined. IMO the clouds in SoW just need to be tweaked in shape, and then everything is there for the game to have the most realistic clouds ever. Indeed, it'd be great to see the type of sun reflection on the clouds, as that is something that I've noticed is really strong when flying over clouds. ;) We have yet to see this shown clearly in SoW due to the angle of the shots taken ;)(quote)


as a rule clouds base are flat but how do you know that they are not flat in the sim? you complained but have nothing to show us as proof of what you see? i have not seen a pic that lets you see the base i think oleg knows about clouds :rolleyes:

[ElAurens]

Going to be hard to tell what we are seeing in all these work in progress screen shots we've been treated to, don't you think?

;)

I have every reason to believe, based on the trend line of all the screens that have been posted from the first "wire frame" renders of the Hurri to the latest shots, and all that has been said by Oleg, Luthier, and other members of the dev team, that SoW:BoB will be a ground breaking title, and set the standard for all air combat simulation for at least a decade.

It's not about picking apart one or two screen shots folks. It's about the trend line, the distance travelled so far. I realize this is a hard concept for some to grasp, but grasp it you should.

[Sutts]

Oleg,

You probably gave up reading this many pages ago but I'd like to add my appreciation for your efforts to provide an update despite the upheaval caused by the office move.

The Wellington shots are magnificent, they really are photorealistic. I love being able to see the interior detail like the flare tube through the windows.
The clouds look great too.

Please don't be put off by a few immature remarks. Your posts are really valued by the majority of us here.

Hope the move went well.

[Sutts]

In terms of flat cloud bases....Oleg has mentioned that many different cloud types are modelled and I'm sure that his knowledge of weather at least matches the attention to detail we see in the airframes.

I agree that this type of cloud formation is very common in Britain but the fact that we haven't seen it yet doesn't mean it ain't there. I think weather might be one of the items that is still being tweaked....it's pretty complex stuff if you think about it.

As Oddball would say...have a little faith baby...have a little faith.:grin:

[Splitter]

In terms of flat cloud bases....Oleg has mentioned that many different cloud types are modelled and I'm sure that his knowledge of weather at least matches the attention to detail we see in the airframes.

I agree that this type of cloud formation is very common in Britain but the fact that we haven't seen it yet doesn't mean it ain't there. I think weather might be one of the items that is still being tweaked....it's pretty complex stuff if you think about it.

As Oddball would say...have a little faith baby...have a little faith.:grin:

AWESOME reference! I think he would have also said, "Always with he negative waves...".

No negative waves.

ElAurens is right, you have to look at the trend, which is promising.

Splitter

[Skoshi Tiger]

WOW! No I didn't remember that one.

So they had it working and now it is bugged! Damn! Software is a frustrating business!

Thanks.
http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Fiat_G-50_08.jpg
I actually think the weathering is not bad.

On my last adventure to New Guinea, (July this year) I took a few photo 's of 'Bar Fly' a B25A-5-NA (SN43-4450)
She's guarding the airport at Popondetta (North East coast of New Guinea)

http://i1042.photobucket.com/albums/b423/Skoshi_Tiger/Flight%20Sim/Kokoda076.jpg

As you can see the lettering weathers differently to the body of the aircraft, possibly due to the different paints/application methods used to paint them(?)
(bare in mind that this plane has been in the open for 67 years!)

http://i1042.photobucket.com/albums/b423/Skoshi_Tiger/Kokoda083.jpg

Oh! and here is me with a Bren Gun at Efogi.

http://i1042.photobucket.com/albums/b423/Skoshi_Tiger/Flight%20Sim/Kokoda406.jpg

Cheers!

[Richie]

Just for fond memories for you guys who were there this is from the first big movie competition that was help for old IL-2 2001. Here's the 3rd place winner "Fear"


Lighten the mood in here lol.


http://s158.photobucket.com/albums/t91/waffe109/?action=view&current=Fear.mp4

[Blackdog_kt]

your a hypocrite and a liar tree, and you can add that to the tittle of coward you rightfully earned here before

a) your a hypocrite for now pretending you are a normal poster here who just contributes by constructive feedback, and pretending you are "misunderstood" in your intentions here. as your proven track record here shows in print for the last year for all to see, you are the exact opposite and deliberately post nothing but whining and bitching about release dates, to which you have now added deliberately offensive remarks to oleg and the updates he is sharing here

b) you'r a liar for posting in this exact thread (a few pages back) that you private msg'd me to try and resolve differences (was funny to see you type that, o the web you weave)

c) and your a coward for backtracking on your proclamation here a couple of months ago, where you said that BoB wouldnt come out for another yr, after which you got called on it by me to put your money where your mouth was, and all you did was to slithered away like a rodent

so no tree, pretending you are a normal contributor here and want to clear personal differences so that the forum can operate normally does not cut the mustard, you'r a phony

ahh, and should i now add "no offense of course" or can you type that yourself instead ?

all that is expected from you, like anybody else here, is that you
1) "contribute" to the forum
2) participate in a civilized constructive and adult manner in giving feedback on the glimpses we get in the regular updates

but you cant do it can you ? you really cant ! ehh because thats not why you are here boyo eh ;) common, tell the good folks why you are really here, some barely know you and still fall for it :)

note to other forum users: sorry folks for all the negativity distracting from savoring your crumpet with your morning coffee, but the hypocrisy of that last post of his is just astounding and is purely aimed at blowing smoke up your..... mmmm well you know where i mean :) some might actually fall for it if their not fully awake on what they are asked to swallow, its called the "tree's slithering act part 1 of his backward peddling opus", and its a load of bull

Sorry for being direct here, but i'll say it short and simple for a change. So excuse me if i come off as rude because that's not my intention at all, i'm just too bored to reply in a properly sized post with nice words and eloquent structure. Let's go then! :-P

You make some interesting and useful posts in there forums, this is not one of them.
Take it up on PM with him or something, or petition the mods to ban him, put him in your ignore list, whatever, it's your business and not ours. In short, and i say this with the best of possible intentions and no ill will at all directed towards you...





















Dude,








we








don't










care

:grin:



Back on topic,

Going to be hard to tell what we are seeing in all these work in progress screen shots we've been treated to, don't you think?

;)

I have every reason to believe, based on the trend line of all the screens that have been posted from the first "wire frame" renders of the Hurri to the latest shots, and all that has been said by Oleg, Luthier, and other members of the dev team, that SoW:BoB will be a ground breaking title, and set the standard for all air combat simulation for at least a decade.

It's not about picking apart one or two screen shots folks. It's about the trend line, the distance travelled so far. I realize this is a hard concept for some to grasp, but grasp it you should.

I agree on most if not all counts. It's the trends of the whole package that matter to me the most and not isolated features that can be corrected via patching.

[zapatista]

Well, you don't actually have to fly, just google

Surrey
http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/20260-1/godstone-surrey-aerial-ba27024.jpg


i think that is probably one of the best real life photo's posted here yet, showing the combination of fields and pockets of dense woodlands that is typical for the south of england (but this photo being from surrey instead of kent)

by all indications in this weeks oleg screenshots, his current ingame performance can display this level of detail from higher altitude (? but we havnt seen medium altitude yet).

the low level screenshots from the last month or 2 however show only a very sparse tree cover on the ground, with a few shrubs and hedges sparingly placed at field boundaries, and near some roads (rather then the typical continues hedges that are present in real life scenery)

so the real questions this raises:
- were olegs low level previous shots done on the medium level pc he/luthier previously mentioned in another thread, and will we be able to get the high density tree-cover/hedges for low altitude eye candy when running a high end current pc at 1920 x 1200 screen rez ?
- or is the sparse hedge/tree cover on a maxed out high end pc, and will the new gfx engine in oleg's current build only be able to show it in a year or 2 with newer/better/faster pc's ?

either way, i dont think its a show stopper or warrants further delays. with the effort/time spent on it so far the most important factor is how many features he can include in the core of his new engine, because that will determine how much it can improve/expand in the next 5 to 10 yrs imho

[Blackdog_kt]

i think that is probably one of the best real life photo's posted here yet, showing the combination of fields and pockets of dense woodlands that is typical for the south of england (but this photo being from surrey instead of kent)

by all indications in this weeks oleg screenshots, his current ingame performance can display this level of detail from higher altitude (? but we havnt seen medium altitude yet).

the low level screenshots from the last month or 2 however show only a very sparse tree cover on the ground, with a few shrubs and hedges sparingly placed at field boundaries, and near some roads (rather then the typical continues hedges that are present in real life scenery)

so the real questions this raises:
- were olegs low level previous shots done on the medium level pc he/luthier previously mentioned in another thread, and will we be able to get the high density tree-cover/hedges for low altitude eye candy when running a high end current pc at 1920 x 1200 screen rez ?
- or is the sparse hedge/tree cover on a maxed out high end pc, and will the new gfx engine in oleg's current build only be able to show it in a year or 2 with newer/better/faster pc's ?

either way, i dont think its a show stopper or warrants further delays. with the effort/time spent on it so far the most important factor is how many features he can include in the core of his new engine, because that will determine how much it can improve/expand in the next 5 to 10 yrs imho

On the other hand, i do care about this. Excellent points in this post. ;)

[zapatista]

On the other hand, i do care about this. Excellent points in this post. ;)

since you seem to need some help with this


Dude,

I

don't

care

if you care or not

:grin:


neither do i specifically seek tree out, i simply treat him in direct proportion to how he behaves at the time i see his "contribution" (which are turds mostly, all he seem to do is "thread crap")). if he makes "normal" post i mostly ignore him, largely because he usually doesnt really contribute anything interesting or topical anyway

if he continues to be so rude and offensive with his constant petulant little snide remarks which are deliberately directed at oleg and the WiP he is sharing here, then i will continue to treat tree-uk accordingly

in case you missed a post from the 1c moderator earlier in this thread

"During discussions about this update, Oleg expressed his disdain of some members expressed attitudes. Oleg made it clear he didn't appreciate the verbal jabs and hinted about ceasing to post."

to which i will add a relevant recent observation posted by a user in another il2 forum where tree-uk sprouts the same constant crap

for the rest of us it (tree's behavior) is extremely damaging and counter productive. i for one not only want to keep getting regular updates, but i also want oleg to stay responsive to feature requests and other content expansion, having little jerks like tree pissing oleg off on purpose is bad for us all (presuming the "us" here is/are genuine il2/BoB fans)

hear hear !!

it isnt a solution for half the people here to simply put tree on ignore and pretend what he is doing suddenly disappears from the universe. worse, by inaction and passive tollerance of it you are complicit to the problems he creates, which in the end will affect us all (and is affecting us already as you can well see).

having oleg's direct interaction with his fanbase (and him being responsive to it, having incorporated many of the previous good suggestions made), is a PRIVILEGE, and not a "right" to be petulantly abused by a few who are CONSTANTLY and DELIBERATELY disruptive and offensive to him (for years now in tree's case)

[zapatista]

turbulence is over, please stay tuned and do not adjust you set !

we shall now resume normal broadcasting in a moment :)

thank you for flying 1C and showing interest in oleg's upcoming creation and new masterpiece

/que music and hostesses serving drinks and light refreshments

[Tree_UK]

Zapatista, please read your PM.

[Il2Pongo]

Thanks for the screen shots devs.
Thanks for demonstrating why no one in the industry does this. Because you get the dredges of geeky internet society feeling they are important and they matter and that they are owed something.
Its amazing, but pathetic.

[reflected]

Oleg,
thanks for the pics! They look amazing! Somehow the landscape colors seem to be a lot more realistic. Is it just me or you guys tweaked them a bit? Anyway, great job, good luck hunting bugs, I really can't wait to finlly jump into a SoW Spitfire! :cool:

[Chivas]

I agree reflected....the colors do look better. Thats the first thing I noticed when I zoomed in on the terrain of the Isle of Wight, in the latest screenshots. I have my concerns, but trust, most of the these concerns will be addressed either before or after release in future addons.

[Sutts]

I hope everyone noticed the beautiful backlit clouds in the wellington shot. Impressive stuff.

[mr71mb0]

Thanks for the Video and Screens. They look fantastic, amazing levels of detail.

[philip.ed]

[QUOTE=philip.ed;186966]MD, that's exactly what I was talking about earlier. Obviously the bottom won't be ruler straight, but it's very defined. IMO the clouds in SoW just need to be tweaked in shape, and then everything is there for the game to have the most realistic clouds ever. Indeed, it'd be great to see the type of sun reflection on the clouds, as that is something that I've noticed is really strong when flying over clouds. ;) We have yet to see this shown clearly in SoW due to the angle of the shots taken ;)(quote)


as a rule clouds base are flat but how do you know that they are not flat in the sim? you complained but have nothing to show us as proof of what you see? i have not seen a pic that lets you see the base i think oleg knows about clouds :rolleyes:

Actually, I do. Check out every update. Look here: http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/category/computerspiele/storm-of-war-computerspiele/screenshots/2010/page/2/

It's really clear. The cloud-base is really profund on cumulus clouds, I posted a scientific review that showed how big a feature the flat-bottoms are, and currently they are missing from SoW. I am not complaining; I'm just asking SoW if this is currently being worked on, as the particle system for the clouds in SoW look amazing; the shape just looks a bit 'off' currently. I'd be interested in what pictures you have seen. I'm not being rude, but it doesn't seem like you've seen much.

I hope everyone noticed the beautiful backlit clouds in the wellington shot. Impressive stuff.


The lighting in this sim looks amazing. If they can capture the reflection that one can see off the top of the 'cauliflower' tops of clouds, I'd be dead-impressed. Remember this :o It gave me goosebumps ;)

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/shot_20100524_104751-copy.jpg

Also, I will add that the only thing i hate more than reading posts from people than either ask for more-updates or slam other users for posting their feelings (unless the poster has been abusive) are messages that are aimed at forum members and try and stir of 'shit'. There's no other word for it; shit-stirrers ruin forums like this. So what if someone said something at another forum? Don't bring the crap from one forum here and vice-versa. ;) Have a nice week all.

[Richie]

Forgot about foobars site. I was looking in the other forum for all the older screens.

[philip.ed]

:grin: That must have taken ages.
It's a great site for looking at the pictures. I favourited it the minute I got linked to it.

[Richie]

From

Oleg Moddox's News...is where I got the old ones


http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2040

[philip.ed]

Ah, I see what you mean. Foo'bar's site really is the dogs. As far as I can see, he has every-SoW picture ever posted there, and some shots that I'd never seen posted before too.

[winny]

I hope everyone noticed the beautiful backlit clouds in the wellington shot. Impressive stuff.

Just thought I'd post this.. Same pic but darker.

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/SoW/sow7copy.jpg

Again, I'm not trying to out-do anyone but I've a few of these that I already did. Just shows what you pointed out.

[philip.ed]

Looks quite nice Winny, could job. Would I be alone in saying the clouds could do with a bit more texture? maybe if the 'cauliflower' top-effect of the cumulus clouds could be a bit more defined?

http://images.usatoday.com/weather/photos/clouds/cumulus.jpg

Just an example, these clouds don't best match the ones shown in Oleg's but the representation is clear.

[winny]

Looks quite nice Winny, could job. Would I be alone in saying the clouds could do with a bit more texture? maybe if the 'cauliflower' top-effect of the cumulus clouds could be a bit more defined?

http://images.usatoday.com/weather/photos/clouds/cumulus.jpg

Just an example, these clouds don't best match the ones shown in Oleg's but the representation is clear.

You might have a point, the problem with clouds is they are just so, er.. different. I wouldn't like to say one way or another about the screenshot because I have no idea what the weather is like generally.

I just hope we get lots of variation from thin and wispy to thick and fluffy!

[Hood]

I live in the UK so I'm sick of clouds. Can we discuss something else please?

Hood

ps nice update, can't wait!

[philip.ed]

I live in the UK so I'm sick of clouds. Can we discuss something else please?

Hood

ps nice update, can't wait!

:D Certainly sir.
The weather looks nice today.

[Blackdog_kt]

since you seem to need some help with this


Dude,

I

don't

care

if you care or not

:grin:


neither do i specifically seek tree out, i simply treat him in direct proportion to how he behaves at the time i see his "contribution" (which are turds mostly, all he seem to do is "thread crap")). if he makes "normal" post i mostly ignore him, largely because he usually doesnt really contribute anything interesting or topical anyway

if he continues to be so rude and offensive with his constant petulant little snide remarks which are deliberately directed at oleg and the WiP he is sharing here, then i will continue to treat tree-uk accordingly

in case you missed a post from the 1c moderator earlier in this thread



to which i will add a relevant recent observation posted by a user in another il2 forum where tree-uk sprouts the same constant crap



hear hear !!

it isnt a solution for half the people here to simply put tree on ignore and pretend what he is doing suddenly disappears from the universe. worse, by inaction and passive tollerance of it you are complicit to the problems he creates, which in the end will affect us all (and is affecting us already as you can well see).

having oleg's direct interaction with his fanbase (and him being responsive to it, having incorporated many of the previous good suggestions made), is a PRIVILEGE, and not a "right" to be petulantly abused by a few who are CONSTANTLY and DELIBERATELY disruptive and offensive to him (for years now in tree's case)

I agree with some of your points, although not 100%, and i can see where you're coming from. What makes the two of you similiar in a lot of ways is that Tree is coming off like a backseat-developer and you are coming off like a backseat-moderator. Your winding him up only serves to aggravate things further and get others sucked into your vendetta's debate (just like i'm doing right now) which, for the purposes of SoW, is largely irrelevant and useless to most of the people on this forum. Both you and him make some good points and some noise, like we all do, but when it's the two of you together you both only make noise and nothing else, that's all.

You can't banish him to Alpha Centauri and you can't force him to change his mind, put him on ignore if it vexes you so much and let the moderators deal with it if it needs to be dealt with. It's Oleg's forum after all and i doubt he needs "virtual bodyguards", you think he's so defenceless that he couldn't ask a moderator to ban a few people if he wanted to? ;)


Back on topic, i think we finally managed to come to a bit of an agreement on some things after all this arguing (see, not everything is negative after all). Instead of saying "the terrain is gorgeous" or "the terrain is drawn by a child", we can now pinpoint the strong and weak points. It's very detailed topography-wise with a big draw distance, but not shown with high-res textures which makes the trees stand out too much due to the detail mismatch, plus the varying detail settings applied make it hard to judge it from different altitudes. Amazing it took so many people so long to reach such a simple conclusion, but like a folk saying goes in my country "where a lot of roosters crow, it takes longer for the sun to rise" :grin:

As for the clouds, you guys make the mistake of focusing only on cumulus ones. There's several different types with more subtypes and even more combinations among them and if you can "read" them, it can tell you things about the air flow in the area.

The only thing cumulus tells you is that there's rising air nearby, mostly thermals in which gliders can fly. And for the record, there are infact clouds with a rounded bottom if you know where to look for them ;)

[Tempest123]

I was trying very hard to not get sucked into this but I can't resist anymore.
What a bunch of women.
Is there anyone at all who would like to discuss the sim?
Some of us find logical discourse useful.
Others think 'I'm a celebrity, get me out of here' is highly educational.
Which camp are you in?


Right on, I come here to discuss the sim and aircraft, I get the sense that some folks on here should take a break from this forum and wait until the sim comes out.

[philip.ed]

I'd like to know if flying through clouds will affect the weathering model of the planes. I mean, will we see the planes glisten with water after flying through a rain-cloud (do all clouds carry some form of precipitation?) and if so, if the plane had bits flaking off, would this cause them to stick to the surface? The cloud part of this question is purely coincidental; I am not some clouds nut! :o Also, I doubt what I have said will be able to feature, but the aspect I'm focusing on is the effect of flying through clouds and also the limitations of the weathering system.

Did Oleg ever answer whether the terrain would be affected by the weather? I'd love to fly a sortie when the sky is clear and return to a saturated airfield (with the grass visibly darker due to the rain).

Also, if you're flying a bomber, can the crew vomit? A bit of an odd question, I know, but I am sure that I read somewhere that due to seating arrangement in some bombers, the chaps could be in for a rough ride if violent manoevures were taken. Certainly this could affect the mission, say if a gunner was sick. It could be part of the animation too.

[Tree_UK]

Ok I would like to withdraw my comment about the terrain looking like its been painted by a child, i guess it was a bit harsh, if that as upset any of the devs then i apologise.

[philip.ed]

Ok I would like to withdraw my comment about the terrain looking like its been painted by a child, i guess it was a bit harsh, if that as upset any of the devs then i apologise.

;) Well, I'd say that was the right thing to do. Well done ;)

Now can we please all just get along?

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/4/5/128834096052988426.jpg

[JVM]

That would not be needed: when you are flying trough water laden clouds your A/C is not really glistening 1) because most of the water is running fast 2) because you need some specular reflection to see glistening and in a cloud that would be more like diffuse, and not that much.
The same would go for flying across rain out of the clouds (no not all clouds have rain in them, far from it...but if the temperature is right most of them will have some ice in it, and this is where the fun begins (and sometimes, ends fast enough).

Now like you say it would be quite formidable to see rain and its effects rendered; what do we need:

- rain as showers seen from afar: the kind of whitish diffuse "bands" falling down the clouds (in this case cumulus, especially for you!)
- rain as British drizzle, on the ground:
1) loss of visibility a bit like haze except that the sky will be in many nuances of gray, depending of cloud thickness and regularity
2) a certain increase in color saturation (the "wet landscape" effect) which will be really visible mainly if sunlight comes back: otherwise the lack of light typical of rainy days will not make it as obvious but it should be there (no dusty film everywhere when it rains!)
3) puddles in the proper places, and if possible some falling water from roofs or A/C surfaces...
4) glistening of surfaces like wings, roofs, cars, etc to represent the water layer
4) at close range a representation of more or less driving rain
- rain in the air
1) loss of visibility if out of the clouds
2) increase in ambient noise
3) some representation of fast running rivulets on front glass and lateral glass (for a computer screen it will resemble white/gray 1 or 2 pixel segments all over the lateral and front surfaces, changing position and length randomly
4) The BoP representation of rain is grossly overdone: rain is water, not glycerin, and not all clouds have rain...

All of that is technically quite possible I think, but is linked to weather representation, and may have an impact on the FPS...

And we did not talk about snow yet (granted, during BoB we can live without it)

JV

[fireflyerz]

I'd like to know if flying through clouds will affect the weathering model of the planes. I mean, will we see the planes glisten with water after flying through a rain-cloud (do all clouds carry some form of precipitation?) and if so, if the plane had bits flaking off, would this cause them to stick to the surface? The cloud part of this question is purely coincidental; I am not some clouds nut! :o Also, I doubt what I have said will be able to feature, but the aspect I'm focusing on is the effect of flying through clouds and also the limitations of the weathering system.

Did Oleg ever answer whether the terrain would be affected by the weather? I'd love to fly a sortie when the sky is clear and return to a saturated airfield (with the grass visibly darker due to the rain).

Also, if you're flying a bomber, can the crew vomit? A bit of an odd question, I know, but I am sure that I read somewhere that due to seating arrangement in some bombers, the chaps could be in for a rough ride if violent manoevures were taken. Certainly this could affect the mission, say if a gunner was sick. It could be part of the animation too.


I would be very surprised if we saw such subtle effects in the initial release but you never know, every week there is an update I just get the sneakin suspission that Oleg and team are holding back on the goodies, I think what we are shown is just enough and not too much as to give anything away to any possible competition , he has on a few ocasions of late hinted that what is coming will blow us away and im inclined to beleive that , will we see intricacies such as wet grass glistening , wing icing , wake in the clouds tubulance and so on in the initial release I think not , but hey ... my fingers are crossed;)


Ill ignor the puke question for now, but ill be shure to ask my dad later:grin:

[nearmiss]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=186847&postcount=384

The pictures of translucent instrument faces on the HUD amuse me.

It is beyond me why the instruments are so big, real instrument views and have the mounting screw attachment brackets.

The instruments should be able to be placed anywhere on the screen, resized, with adjustable translucence and colors with no mounting screws. Then of course we could use some ability to create some highlight points on the instruments...i.e., mark for overspeed, mark for low fuel, low ammunition, no oil pressure,etc. or what about programmable idot lights that would come on at certain pre-set or range pre-set.

THe full real players naturally will want the old dull authentic instrument faces...placed on their wonderwoman views. Gotta get that full real feel. LOL

Then of course, it will be done as the developer wants it. LOL

[Igo kyu]

1)
2)
3)
4)

5) Rainbows :grin:

[philip.ed]

Thanks for the answers.

JVM, how about when the A/C is static...? The effect in WoP/BoP is overdone (I can see what you mean now) but when the A/C is static the rain will have an effect. I was at Hawkinge at the weekend, unfortunately it rained, but I got to see the (repro) Hurricanes outside get wet. It was quite a sight I must say. ;)

[BadAim]

It yet amazes me how inane the discourse can be here. Try the f****ing ignore button. It works for me. I sure as hell hope that Oleg and Luthier try it, it will cut down on their stress around here immensely.

[philip.ed]

Can we drop that subject?

[Blackdog_kt]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=186847&postcount=384

The pictures of translucent instrument faces on the HUD amuse me.

It is beyond me why the instruments are so big, real instrument views and have the mounting screw attachment brackets.

The instruments should be able to be placed anywhere on the screen, resized, with adjustable translucence and colors with no mounting screws. Then of course we could use some ability to create some highlight points on the instruments...i.e., mark for overspeed, mark for low fuel, low ammunition, no oil pressure,etc. or what about programmable idot lights that would come on at certain pre-set or range pre-set.

THe full real players naturally will want the old dull authentic instrument faces...placed on their wonderwoman views. Gotta get that full real feel. LOL

Then of course, it will be done as the developer wants it. LOL

I think they just wanted to create a look more suited to the time period in question for the instruments, as the IL2 no-cockpit instruments are too modern-looking.

I'd seen that picture when it was first released but seeing it again now got me thinking. Since it's been said that they will be resizable and able to be repositioned on the screen, it reminds me of the "panel" system in the MS flight sims. I fly FSX on a friend's PC every now and then and while i always use the virtual cockpit, in many cases of flying complex aircraft in MSFS there are either 2d pop-up panels or custom camera angles to assist with keeping everything into view. I don't think full switch servers would use 2d panels as it would permit players to keep an eye on both the instruments and the outside world during combat, which defeats the puprose of properly simulating a pilot's workload with the advanced systems modelling.

However, having the ability to define pre-set camera views in the full cockpit view would be useful and probably be used by full switch players, as it doesn't let you see the gauges while looking outside the cockpit the way 2d pop-up panels do. In fact, these views actually limit situational awareness as they usually consist of views fully zoomed in over a particular console or set of instruments. Their advantage comes from not having to bend your neck all over the place to pan to the right place with TrackIR, or fiddling with all sorts of keyboard controls, while still having the drawback of reduced SA to balance it out.

Of course nobody would fly the plane from such a view, but they are very useful for utility stuff and secondary controls. For example, i'm flying through clouds so i want to turn on my formation lights, check the outside temperature and possibly turn on the de-icing equipment. One way to do it is to pan with TrackIR or keyboard/joystick hats, then zoom in. The other way would be to save a pre-set of custom views for each aircraft (i think RoF does this too), so i could set them up once, map them to the numeric keypad and they'd be aircraft specific.

Cockpits are different and the cockpit side consoles would not be at the same coordinates for each aircraft, but with aircraft specific views (possibly saved as a coordinate set in the aircraft's .ini file or something similar) the problem could be overcome. This way, i could map keypad 4 to a close up of the left cockpit console and keypad 6 to a close up of the right cockpit console for all planes. I'd also add keypad 8 as the zoomed-in gunsight view, keypad 5 as the center/default view and keypad 2 as the zoomed-in instrument panel view. Then maybe they could work like IL2, where we can change from pan to snap views. In this way, you could take a quick look at your instruments by choosing snap views and pressing keypad 2 (the view reverts back to normal when you release the key), or you could choose pan views and press keypad 2 to fly by instruments for extended periods of time (the view doesn't revert back to default after releasing the key), for example when flying in bad weather.

I don't know how the view system will be in SoW, but i trust they've made several improvements. I think the one i described is a good mix of what's possible in RoF, IL2 and FSX and gives a wide range of possibilities without becoming so easy that it would clarify as a separate difficulty option. In fact, 2d pop-up instruments could be tied to wonder woman view in a common difficutly setting, while custom in-cockpit camera angles could function in conjunction with the closed cockpit view and we'd be set.

What do you guys think?

[Osprey]

On my last trip to England I have done these photos.


That's nice but do you know where this is? We've also lost a lot of woodland since 1940

[Osprey]

I live in the UK so I'm sick of clouds. Can we discuss something else please?

Hood

ps nice update, can't wait!

You welsh should be used to it by now ;)

[JVM]

Thanks for the answers.

JVM, how about when the A/C is static...? ...but when the A/C is static the rain will have an effect.


You are absolutely right...when static you should see plain drops and occasional rivulets...

Now I do not know if how far OM will be willing to push toward realism, and certainly not when...lot of food for future updates/patches!

[philip.ed]

+1 to that last comment. I am confident that even if the release of SoW doesn't contain everything that Oleg would have wanted, the game will be able to expand (amazingly so) via patches ;)

[matsher]

I don't know how the view system will be in SoW, but i trust they've made several improvements. I think the one i described is a good mix of what's possible in RoF, IL2 and FSX and gives a wide range of possibilities without becoming so easy that it would clarify as a separate difficulty option. In fact, 2d pop-up instruments could be tied to wonder woman view in a common difficutly setting, while custom in-cockpit camera angles could function in conjunction with the closed cockpit view and we'd be set.

What do you guys think?[/QUOTE]


Hi Blackdog,
Thats sounds like a sound plan to me... Let me see if I got you right though. A predefined set of views for any or all relevant instruments - assigned to user defined button...

That doesn't sound too difficult to achieve... May I suggest a simpler (Hopefully) solution?

My issue with incockpit view is that when I look down to view instruments,
I normally have to also zoom in as well to clearly read them. This is because I usually have the widest possible incockpit view (90Deg) on so I can have the most Sit awareness as poss. thats why wonderview is so nice cause it totally eliminates that problem. SO in my mind, it needs a 2 stage solution.

1. Custom snap to view of the instrument panel AND,
2. Custom zoom function coupled with snap view...

So my recommendation is to be able to create a series of custom cameras.
For eg. I use my mouse to find the right angle I want and THEN zoom into desired distance from said instrument/s with the mouse scroll and hit the "Make custom camera" button which I can assign to either number keypad 2 or maybe the Joystick hat.

I hope I am making sense...

I am hoping Oleg has already thought of stuff like this, cause these kind of improvements (GamePlay), for me, is a million times more important than having silly freakin' flat bottomed clouds.

Also, having custom in cockpit cameras can serve another vital function.
And that is to be able to widen the Max FOV from 90Deg to 105Deg, which
would really really REALLY add to the Sit Awareness and give you a much greater sense of space and bring it all little closer to human peripheral vision.

Thank you by the way for your warm welcome... Its a shame no one else could give me an opinion about the semi transparent cockpit, it seems most people want to talk about clouds.

Maybe I'll try and create an example of what I mean and put it up so other can understand what I mean...

[Hood]

You welsh should be used to it by now ;)

The only difference between those from Wales and those from Glaaaacester is that we wear wellies when chasing sheep.

And you can never ever get used to the clouds in the UK. To paraphrase what Clostermann said US pilots used to say - "If you get lost oer Europe just look for the biggest blackest cloud and that goddamn island will be right beneath it."

Thinking about it, if sheep aren't modelled correctly I'll have a hissy fit.

Hood

[ATAG_Dutch]

And you can never ever get used to the clouds in the UK. To paraphrase what Clostermann said US pilots used to say - "If you get lost oer Europe just look for the biggest blackest cloud and that goddamn island will be right beneath it."Hood

Not wanting to necessarily resurrect the cloud debate, but here's a Catalina in typical British cloudscape, plus a few shots I took at 5.45pm tonight over another famous English river estuary.
Whoops! The cat is sideways, sorry.

[philip.ed]

Not wanting to necessarily resurrect the cloud debate, but here's a Catalina in typical British cloudscape, plus a few shots I took at 5.45pm tonight over another famous English river estuary.
Whoops! The cat is sideways, sorry.

Great pictures. Looking back at the previous updates, I think the really high clouds could do with some work too... :-P

[matsher]

Right, onto the real reason I wanted to post. This posting thing is pretty new to me so please excuse any babbling...

I have one development question / wish / request that has always been on my mind, and I have never come across anyone else asking about it... So here it is

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.

To Oleg- Will/can there be a player defined option to set the in-cockpit view at 65% (or so) opacity, to make it semi-transparent?
So pilots can still have more "sky" but also can have the feeling that they are still flying in a beautifully rendered fighter plane?

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.

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

Please give me feedback guys, I am interested to know your opinions on this request...



HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT...


Please give me some opinions and feedback.

[philip.ed]

Right, onto the real reason I wanted to post. This posting thing is pretty new to me so please excuse any babbling...

I have one development question / wish / request that has always been on my mind, and I have never come across anyone else asking about it... So here it is

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.

To Oleg- Will/can there be a player defined option to set the in-cockpit view at 65% (or so) opacity, to make it semi-transparent?
So pilots can still have more "sky" but also can have the feeling that they are still flying in a beautifully rendered fighter plane?

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.

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

Please give me feedback guys, I am interested to know your opinions on this request...



HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT...


Please give me some opinions and feedback.

I think that this is an excellent idea. Your pictures are great; the last one would be great for me. I don't know if I'd use it all the time, but I think it's a really neat concept. I know it's been talked of before, but I can't remember Oleg commenting on it. I'm sure it could implemented in the future...

[T}{OR]

Right, onto the real reason I wanted to post. This posting thing is pretty new to me so please excuse any babbling...

I have one development question / wish / request that has always been on my mind, and I have never come across anyone else asking about it... So here it is

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.

To Oleg- Will/can there be a player defined option to set the in-cockpit view at 65% (or so) opacity, to make it semi-transparent?
So pilots can still have more "sky" but also can have the feeling that they are still flying in a beautifully rendered fighter plane?

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.

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

Please give me feedback guys, I am interested to know your opinions on this request...



HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT...


Please give me some opinions and feedback.

Unfortunately I have to say I dislike it. But that is my opinion.

Far better and simpler to do would be IMO to just disable the 'wonderwoman' view, and keep the external view of your own plane on. This is something I have been requesting for IL2 ages ago...

Having cockpit always forced on and without the help of the F6 command (in IL2) would help with the transition to the locked pit servers for rookie pilots.

[Rueckwaertsflieger]

Originally Posted by Rueckwaertsflieger
On my last trip to England I have done these photos.
That's nice but do you know where this is? We've also lost a lot of woodland since 1940

They were made on the flight to London. Some shortly before the landing in Stansted.

[Avala]

On my last trip to England I have done these photos.

This must be remodeled. The sky is too dark! :P Maybe you can fix this in 41.11?

[matsher]

Unfortunately I have to say I dislike it. But that is my opinion.

Far better and simpler to do would be IMO to just disable the 'wonderwoman' view, and keep the external view of your own plane on. This is something I have been requesting for IL2 ages ago...

Having cockpit always forced on and without the help of the F6 command (in IL2) would help with the transition to the locked pit servers for rookie pilots.

Thanks for feedback Thor and Phil-Ed...
Thor- I am not sure I understand your answer though, do you mean to say that we should only have full cockpit or external views? or am I getting it wrong all wrong...

If I am correct, how would that be helping people transition into full cockpit?

[Sutts]

Right, onto the real reason I wanted to post. This posting thing is pretty new to me so please excuse any babbling...

I have one development question / wish / request that has always been on my mind, and I have never come across anyone else asking about it... So here it is

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.

To Oleg- Will/can there be a player defined option to set the in-cockpit view at 65% (or so) opacity, to make it semi-transparent?
So pilots can still have more "sky" but also can have the feeling that they are still flying in a beautifully rendered fighter plane?

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.

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

Please give me feedback guys, I am interested to know your opinions on this request...



HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT...


Please give me some opinions and feedback.


Sorry but I can't see why a simulation needs a feature like this. Flying around like this will just lead to bad habits and folk will never learn to operate with an engine in the way. I think it would be better in Over-G fighters or something like that.

People will be asking to see through clouds and hills next.

Just my opinion of course.;)

[Blackdog_kt]

I don't know how the view system will be in SoW, but i trust they've made several improvements. I think the one i described is a good mix of what's possible in RoF, IL2 and FSX and gives a wide range of possibilities without becoming so easy that it would clarify as a separate difficulty option. In fact, 2d pop-up instruments could be tied to wonder woman view in a common difficutly setting, while custom in-cockpit camera angles could function in conjunction with the closed cockpit view and we'd be set.

What do you guys think?


Hi Blackdog,
Thats sounds like a sound plan to me... Let me see if I got you right though. A predefined set of views for any or all relevant instruments - assigned to user defined button...

That doesn't sound too difficult to achieve... May I suggest a simpler (Hopefully) solution?

My issue with incockpit view is that when I look down to view instruments,
I normally have to also zoom in as well to clearly read them. This is because I usually have the widest possible incockpit view (90Deg) on so I can have the most Sit awareness as poss. thats why wonderview is so nice cause it totally eliminates that problem. SO in my mind, it needs a 2 stage solution.

1. Custom snap to view of the instrument panel AND,
2. Custom zoom function coupled with snap view...

So my recommendation is to be able to create a series of custom cameras.
For eg. I use my mouse to find the right angle I want and THEN zoom into desired distance from said instrument/s with the mouse scroll and hit the "Make custom camera" button which I can assign to either number keypad 2 or maybe the Joystick hat.

I hope I am making sense...

I am hoping Oleg has already thought of stuff like this, cause these kind of improvements (GamePlay), for me, is a million times more important than having silly freakin' flat bottomed clouds.

Also, having custom in cockpit cameras can serve another vital function.
And that is to be able to widen the Max FOV from 90Deg to 105Deg, which
would really really REALLY add to the Sit Awareness and give you a much greater sense of space and bring it all little closer to human peripheral vision.

Thank you by the way for your warm welcome... Its a shame no one else could give me an opinion about the semi transparent cockpit, it seems most people want to talk about clouds.

Maybe I'll try and create an example of what I mean and put it up so other can understand what I mean...

Actually, that's exactly what i meant initially. I didn't mean pre-defined cameras mapped to custom keys, but custom cameras mapped to custom keys just like the ones you describe.

Example:

Let's say i fly a twin engined bomber on full difficulty settings. I use the default view from the pilot's seat in wide mode when flying. However, i need to be able to see the engine instruments from time to time and these are on the co-pilots or even the flight engineer's panel.
I move my camera so that it looks at the appropriate panel via keyboard commands, mouse or TrackIR, set the preferred amount of zoom, pick numkey6 as the key to assign it to (starboard cockpit panel, so i map it to numkey6 because it's on the right of the numeric keypad) press and hold the "save view button" and then press the key to which i want to map the view. So, if the "save view button" is control, i press ctrl+numkey6 and the view is saved to that key.

Now, whenever i want to check the instruments i simply press numkey6. If i want the view to remain there, i set it up as a "sticky" view, if i want the view to revert back to default when i release the key, i set it up as a snap view. Or alternatively, a single press of the numkey equals a snap view but a shift+numkey equals a sticky view.

I hope i cleared it up :grin:

Also, good work on the screenshots presenting your idea. I still wouldn't use it but i believe it's useful on the grand scale of things. It would help people gradually transition from no-cockpit view to higher difficulty settings, instead of having to do it in one go.

[major_setback]

Right, onto the real reason I wanted to post. This posting thing is pretty new to me so please excuse any babbling...

I have one development question / wish / request that has always been on my mind, and I have never come across anyone else asking about it... So here it is

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.

To Oleg- Will/can there be a player defined option to set the in-cockpit view at 65% (or so) opacity, to make it semi-transparent?
So pilots can still have more "sky" but also can have the feeling that they are still flying in a beautifully rendered fighter plane?

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.

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

Please give me feedback guys, I am interested to know your opinions on this request...



HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT...


Please give me some opinions and feedback.

Personally speaking (!!!!) I used to use the Wonder Woman view all the time with great success, then decided to try it the realistic way. I couldn't hit a thing after turning the cockpit on...now I'm having to re-learn how to: yaw in order to see the enemy in front; dip and turn in order to keep him in my sight; anticipate where he is when out of sight; predict where he is when he's 'behind' the dashboard; predict where to aim/shoot based on the latter.
The WW view is unrealistic very many more ways than are obvious.

[ATAG_Dutch]

To Oleg- Will/can there be a player defined option to set the in-cockpit view at 65% (or so) opacity, to make it semi-transparent?
So pilots can still have more "sky" but also can have the feeling that they are still flying in a beautifully rendered fighter plane?

It's an excellent idea in my opinion, but I also have a feeling that it's been asked whether this was possible before, and the answer came back in the negative.

Certainly when playing on-line, I like to go on the servers that allow 'no cockpit view', but it's a bit disorientating when using TrackIR.
The 'ghosted' cockpit would be a real boon in these situations, and as you say, still gives you a view of all the gorgeous cockpit detail.

Offline I don't think it's quite so necessary, and in IL2, the AI aren't so 'I'.
Of course, we've no idea how 'I' the AI is in SoW.
Great demo shots by the way.:grin:

[ATAG_Dutch]

Great pictures. Looking back at the previous updates, I think the really high clouds could do with some work too... :-P

Actually, I was deliberately hunting for flat bottoms.
Perhaps you were thinking of Kentish girls?:rolleyes::grin:

[albx]

Unfortunately I have to say I dislike it. But that is my opinion.

Far better and simpler to do would be IMO to just disable the 'wonderwoman' view, and keep the external view of your own plane on. This is something I have been requesting for IL2 ages ago...

Having cockpit always forced on and without the help of the F6 command (in IL2) would help with the transition to the locked pit servers for rookie pilots.

I don't like it (the transparent view), but also I don't think is a good idea have the cockpit always forced on, people builds cockpits and if you can't disable it in the game doesn't seem a good idea to me...

Alberto

[swiss]

Certainly when playing on-line, I like to go on the sites that allow 'no cockpit view', but it's a bit disorientating when using TrackIR.

That's bad habit.
I had the steepest learning curve when switched to full real.

Try it.
:grin:

[Richie]

It's funny I've been flying full real for years. When a subject like this comes up I think who will care but Spit VS 109s isn't the only server in Hyperlobby is it.

[xnomad]

Rather than a see through cockpit, if you want continuous target tracking, then a simpler option would be to allow the target icons to continue tracking inside the cockpit. This way you would know where the targets are. Perhaps have a target dot with the icon as well so you can line up your deflection shot.

I don't know why people fly Wonder Woman view but I'm guessing if they had the above they might stick to cockpit on settings?

[T}{OR]

Thanks for feedback Thor and Phil-Ed...
Thor- I am not sure I understand your answer though, do you mean to say that we should only have full cockpit or external views? or am I getting it wrong all wrong...

If I am correct, how would that be helping people transition into full cockpit?


All three. :) No cockpit, cockpit with externals and wonder woman on / off, and full pit. ... wait a minute - thats four. :)


I don't like it (the transparent view), but also I don't think is a good idea have the cockpit always forced on, people builds cockpits and if you can't disable it in the game doesn't seem a good idea to me...

Alberto

My reply to matsher should explain what I thought.

[ATAG_Dutch]

That's bad habit.
I had the steepest learning curve when switched to full real.

Try it.
:grin:

Yeah, I know you to be right. Most of the closed cockpit stuff on HL seem to need a variety of erm, well, mods though. I have standard v4.09 and the old AAA 1.2.
All seem to be having problems with invisible planes and other anomalies.
I'm not sure I can be bothered getting UP, just to get shot down by an invisible plane whether cockpit is on or off.

Any suggestions for which servers to go for?

But all of that is another reason to look forward to SoW.
I promise I'll always fly full real when that comes along.
Anything else would be a waste!:grin:

[Qpassa]

You should always fly with full real, maybe with speed bar but no icons and and always cockpit enabled, no external views

[swiss]

Yeah, I know you to be right. Most of the closed cockpit stuff on HL seem to need a variety of erm, well, mods though. I have standard v4.09 and the old AAA 1.2.
All seem to be having problems with invisible planes and other anomalies.
I'm not sure I can be bothered getting UP, just to get shot down by an invisible plane whether cockpit is on or off.

Any suggestions for which 'room' to go for?

But all of that is another reason to look forward to SoW.
I promise I'll always fly full real when that comes along.
Anything else would be a waste!:grin:


1. Get UP 2.01
2. Get IL serverlibrary - enables mods automatically

3. invisible planes: happens(on some servers) if ppl decide to pick a different country than default.
Good thing: invisible planes can't cause any damage. You'll hear the noise but no damage.

4. SoV, KV13, BoB(currently down), Warclouds, Spitvs109Mod

[philip.ed]

Actually, I was deliberately hunting for flat bottoms.
Perhaps you were thinking of Kentish girls?:rolleyes::grin:

:grin:heheh
I think the type of Cumulus is clear in your picture. The only issue is that it proves that there are so many types of this cloud it would be murder to model it in the sim.
I think this is what Oleg and co experienced with the trees, so they opted to go the route of speed-tree. There are a few 3rd party cloud-applications which I think could be used to great advantage in SoW, but we'll see ;)
those pictures you posted are beautiful though.

[Baron]

On the transparent cockpit issue.

Its not everyones job here to make sure new players play the game the "right" way, it is however Olegs job to make sure as many "newbies" as possible buys SoW and more importantly, sticks with it.