Friday 2010-10-01 Dev. update and Discussion

[No601_Swallow]

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.

This is pretty much what ROF does (great boon when you're frustrated by having to peer through a letterbox). In fact ROF allows for assignable camera positions and views in-cockpit (important when the sodding compass is on the floor behind where your left buttock should be). ROF has done this all very well (in my humble). All rather spiffing.

Indeed, there a little hints of IL2 "homage" in ROF (eg. F2 for external views, F1 for internal, etc.) Perhaps Oleg, as far as cockpit views are concerned (even, for example, ROF's continuous zoom) might repay the complement!...

[philip.ed]

I think it could be useful, but I don't like the idea of seeing planes below you.
One feature I like in BoB2 is that the player can press a button (F5 off the top of my head) which draws a triangle on the screen and you can put this over any A/C and padlock it. For (non)TIR users, it can be extremely useful. The triangle disappears unless you have icons on, so doesn't detract from the realism.
Also, in BoB2, if a plane goes under your wing or your plane when padlocked you never lose sight of it. Whether this is real is debateable, but I have always preferred this feature.

[swiss]

For TIR users, it can be extremely useful.


You mean for non-Tir users?

[philip.ed]

Ah, I see what you mean ;)

Yes. I was trying to demonstrate the point that it's easy to move the triangle with ones head, but then TIR itself kind-of negates the need to do this (unless one get's a sore neck...)

Sorry, my mistake. It's easier to do this with the HAT switch (I think it's called) if you have one on your stick ;)
So you're right.

[Buzpilot]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch_851
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!


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


It can also be Skin download, in Network options, that cause invisible planes.
Many servers seem to limit the bandwidth. And those planes are invisible while downloading the skin, and they are deadly.
Try disable it.

[matsher]

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.

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?


Thank you Baron... Artfully said.
Gentlemen... It is noted that most of you view wonderview with utter disstain.
And thats totally fine. No one is prescribing to you how you should fly the sim,
everyone finds their own comfort zone after some time. And it is not our prerogative to prescribe to others how they 'should' play...

What is important though, as IL2 lifers and experienced flyers, is to grow a new
generation of flyers and try and make it as 'easy' to get hooked on the Maddox
drug as possible... There will always be a purists way to fly as well as a casual way ... Just remember the first time you tried to fly IL2 ... Do you remember the pain and suffering you had to endure before some benevolent pilot started giving you a few tips here and a few tips there...

Now with that in mind... Can you tell me how you see my suggestion...

I have to say that XNOMAD's solution is massively simple and probably an excellent way to do it. It keeps the integrity of the cockpit view while providing some additional targeting information... Hmmm Nice one... I'll try and mock it up for you guys to see if it doesn't look too disruptive...

Please lets keep this going I want to collect the best solution for the next friday's update and hopefully present a very well thought out case to Oleg and Team.

Thanks for all the productive input, I feel we are really starting to get somewhere.

[caprera]

I'm so happy to see some Italian planes finally and not the usual single presence of a single one just for background reasons.
I hope some of them will be flyable :rolleyes:

[Blackdog_kt]

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.

Exactly. I like fliying full switch, but in order for "new blood" to come in and stick with flight simming, we need to entice them with relaxed difficulty settings and a way to gradually transition to the higher ones, trying to smooth out the learning curve so to speak.

I always used to fly full switch, except from single player where i like playing with externals on for enjoying the visuals and snapping screenshots. I have been flying full switch since i was 12, now i'm 30. During these 18 years however, there's a whole lot of difficulty and complexity added to what "full switch" means. Flying full switch in Red Baron or Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe which i used to fly on my first 286 PC is probably like flying -20% difficulty in IL2.

I had the fortune to come into the flight sim hobby relatively early, almost from the ground floor. As PCs got stronger the simulators were able to model more complexities and evolve, the main thing being that i could gradually adjust to the changes and learn over the course of months or years...from S.W.O.T.L and Red Baron, to Aces of the Pacific and Aces over Europe, to 1942: the pacific air war, to Red Baron II/3D, European Air War and B17:the mighty 8th to IL2.

It didn't happen overnight and the reason i stuck with it is that initially, as a 12 year old kid, i could fly my Albatross or P47 over finely rendered pixelated and blocky fields and actually win in many occasions, but even if i didn't win it managed to be balanced, encouraging and alluding to what i had read in the history books. This is what draws people in initially.

Today, as a jaded veteran of the sim hobby all i think about is technical accuracy and fidelity. It's ok, we evolve in the course of pursuing a hobby. However, you can't make a convert out of a 12 year old by teaching him about the proper operation of the internal combustion engine. The way you can entice him is by suspending disbelief and making it easy for him to step into the shoes of someone else from the safety of his small, dark room that glows with the flicker of the screen and resonates with the humming of case fans at 3am, sneaking in one more sortie with the headphones on because it's Sunday night, tomorrow is a school day and mom will throw a fit if she finds out you're "playing those pretend-pilot games again".

For me, i want a SoW that is as realistic as possible. I don't want it to default to the lowest common denominator, difficulty-wise. I want to be surprised, frustrated, overwhelmed and scared the first time i fire it up, set everything to 100% and go on my first QMB sortie to sample the goods.

For the survival of flight sims however, i want an options panel that can dumb it down as far as it goes to attract that new generation of the 12 year olds of today's world...the "new blood" will take it upon themselves to start enabling the options as time goes by, learn the proper way to do things and come shoot us down in a few years ;)

[matsher]

Thank you Baron... Artfully said.
Gentlemen... It is noted that most of you view wonderview with utter disstain.
And thats totally fine. No one is prescribing to you how you should fly the sim,
everyone finds their own comfort zone after some time. And it is not our prerogative to prescribe to others how they 'should' play...

What is important though, as IL2 lifers and experienced flyers, is to grow a new
generation of flyers and try and make it as 'easy' to get hooked on the Maddox
drug as possible... There will always be a purists way to fly as well as a casual way ... Just remember the first time you tried to fly IL2 ... Do you remember the pain and suffering you had to endure before some benevolent pilot started giving you a few tips here and a few tips there...

Now with that in mind... Can you tell me how you see my suggestion...

I have to say that XNOMAD's solution is massively simple and probably an excellent way to do it. It keeps the integrity of the cockpit view while providing some additional targeting information... Hmmm Nice one... I'll try and mock it up for you guys to see if it doesn't look too disruptive...

Please lets keep this going I want to collect the best solution for the next friday's update and hopefully present a very well thought out case to Oleg and Team.

Thanks for all the productive input, I feel we are really starting to get somewhere.


Mkay... So here are a couple of mock-ups of Xnomad's solution - it's
pretty simple and eloquent ... It also negates the argument about lessening
FPS with the transparent cockpit having to render more 'sky'...

I have also added some direction and lead markers...
Notice how the direction and lead markers fade the further distance
away the target gets...

Tell me what you guys reckon...

[Azimech]

Brilliant post Blackdog! Great style :)

[Friendly_flyer]

Tell me what you guys reckon...

Probably OK, but I would still prefer the Wonderwoman view if I were a newbie.

[Fafnir_6]

I'm so happy to see some Italian planes finally and not the usual single presence of a single one just for background reasons.
I hope some of them will be flyable :rolleyes:

Indeed! BR.20M & G.50 will be flyable with the initial release IIRC. CR.42 will likely become flyable later in SoW's development simply because so many airforces used it (perhaps with the rumoured Med add-on). If you browse through the SoW update listing thread (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=16073) you should be able to find some G.50/BR.20 cockpit shots.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[Tbag]

or here:

http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/?start=704

[major_setback]

or here:

http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/?start=704

...and there's a video too!

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/th_G50_stick.jpg (http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/?action=view&current=G50_stick.flv)

[Richie]

or here:

http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/?start=704



Tbag you are ..."The Dude"

[Friendly_flyer]

Indeed! BR.20M & G.50 will be flyable with the initial release IIRC.


The Br.20 is a very handsome plane! I look forward to give her a go when BoB comes out!

[Richie]

This looks nice.

[Freycinet]

I think a couple of you neglect the fact that this sim actually has to be programmed and has to work with an acceptable number of frames per second on a typical high-end computer.

It isn't possible to just overlay a rendering of the cockpit with a rendering of the full view. Both of those need processor cycles to render and you can't just double processor cycles out of the blue.

Same with adding textures to the clouds. You can't just do that endlessly until you have a photographic rendering. Especially if you want the exact same clouds to be visible from all angles by 25 guys flying online. This is very different from an MSFS add-on hanging big flat photos of clouds up around you as you putter along on your own in a Cessna.

I'd say that before you think of suggesting something that will add complexity to SoW:BoB then try to consider which feature you would want left out. So, you'd have to post "I'd like some more textures in the cloud tops and - to compensate - I think we should give up rendering 50 bombers simultaneously and settle for 40 instead". This is very much the zero-sum game the programmers have to deal with every day.

The major reason why Oleg blew us out of the water with Il-2 was that he employed ingenious programming solutions like the layered textures for great expanses of forests and the twirling one-dimensional smoke for planes going down on fire. You can rest assured that there are a many more ingenious programming solutions in SoW:BoB, but it just isn't possible to keep adding complexity since there is a finite number of processing cycles to work with...

Apart from the finite resources inside the computer there is also the whole issue of a limited programmer team and a clock ticking down to the deadline. By keeping adding to the requests at this moment in time, I think a lot of people are just setting themselves up for a big let-down when they get the sim in their hands. It will be light-years ahead of any other combat sim, but still not live up to impossibly inflated expectations.

Ask yourself if you really want to be jaded and slightly disappointed when you fire up SoW:BoB for the first time, or if you want to fill with boyish joy at the wonderful world opening up to you? - I think it is pretty much up to yourself and to the - possible or impossible - expectations you carry with you.

[SlipBall]

Freycinet good post:grin:...memorable game play should be the main goal. Picture perfect may come down the road as hardware strengthens.

[Azimech]

Yes Freycinet, +1

[ElAurens]

Great post Freycinet. 100% spot on.

:cool:

[brando]

Thank you, Freycinet.

It's good to hear a voice of logical reasoning in amongst the onslaught of requests for visual perfection and total accuracy. <S>

Brando

[Insuber]

Freycinet,

Well said. You argumented very well the opinion of many of us ...

[Baron]

+ 100

[Nattulv]

Exactly. I like fliying full switch, but in order for "new blood" to come in and stick with flight simming, we need to entice them with relaxed difficulty settings and a way to gradually transition to the higher ones, trying to smooth out the learning curve so to speak.

I always used to fly full switch, except from single player where i like playing with externals on for enjoying the visuals and snapping screenshots. I have been flying full switch since i was 12, now i'm 30. During these 18 years however, there's a whole lot of difficulty and complexity added to what "full switch" means. Flying full switch in Red Baron or Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe which i used to fly on my first 286 PC is probably like flying -20% difficulty in IL2.

I had the fortune to come into the flight sim hobby relatively early, almost from the ground floor. As PCs got stronger the simulators were able to model more complexities and evolve, the main thing being that i could gradually adjust to the changes and learn over the course of months or years...from S.W.O.T.L and Red Baron, to Aces of the Pacific and Aces over Europe, to 1942: the pacific air war, to Red Baron II/3D, European Air War and B17:the mighty 8th to IL2.

It didn't happen overnight and the reason i stuck with it is that initially, as a 12 year old kid, i could fly my Albatross or P47 over finely rendered pixelated and blocky fields and actually win in many occasions, but even if i didn't win it managed to be balanced, encouraging and alluding to what i had read in the history books. This is what draws people in initially.

Today, as a jaded veteran of the sim hobby all i think about is technical accuracy and fidelity. It's ok, we evolve in the course of pursuing a hobby. However, you can't make a convert out of a 12 year old by teaching him about the proper operation of the internal combustion engine. The way you can entice him is by suspending disbelief and making it easy for him to step into the shoes of someone else from the safety of his small, dark room that glows with the flicker of the screen and resonates with the humming of case fans at 3am, sneaking in one more sortie with the headphones on because it's Sunday night, tomorrow is a school day and mom will throw a fit if she finds out you're "playing those pretend-pilot games again".

For me, i want a SoW that is as realistic as possible. I don't want it to default to the lowest common denominator, difficulty-wise. I want to be surprised, frustrated, overwhelmed and scared the first time i fire it up, set everything to 100% and go on my first QMB sortie to sample the goods.

For the survival of flight sims however, i want an options panel that can dumb it down as far as it goes to attract that new generation of the 12 year olds of today's world...the "new blood" will take it upon themselves to start enabling the options as time goes by, learn the proper way to do things and come shoot us down in a few years ;)

Absolutly brilliant post
This mirrors my own experiance even if i have a handful of years more under my belt since birth. :) The line of sims he followed is the very same one I progress through too, with a few additions.

[philip.ed]

Freycinet, you neglect the fact that our views on how the sim should look are largely based around current models/sims. IMO, if SoW is to achieve graphically it should be the best in all departments (I'm focusing on graphics here) whilst your post sounds great, it is flawed in this sense.
For example, the current terrain doesn't look as good as RoF (or WoP although this is debateable). It may look different at Oleg's end, but from the shots shown to us that's my opinion. The grass and objects are completely different, they blew me away, but from a distance the terrain lacks realism IMO. I think this is due to the contrast of the tree colour with the texture colour, but also because the textures look quite low-res. I agree with the clouds; but whilst the texture may not need to be changed, the model of the clouds (IMO) is wrong, and based around my scientific evidence this is true. Editing the model should not be too much of a job I don't think, and in any case should not impact on FPS.
I think the FPS issue is a good point, but clearly in SoW it's the FM and DM models which will be limiting fps, as from what you've said they'll be impacting on the eye-candy available ;)

An interesting concept; no doubt about that! :D

[Freycinet]

Most of the above posting was unintelligible to me, but I think I understood the last phrase:


I think the FPS issue is a good point, but clearly in SoW it's the FM and DM models which will be limiting fps, as from what you've said they'll be impacting on the eye-candy available ;)

I think there are some basic issues about making a flight sim that you don't understand.

Every single element of the sim takes processor cycles and therefore impacts FPS.

Rendering textures is one thing, FM, DM are other things, and several calculations and processes "under the hood" such as AI impact the fps as well. If we all had Craig supercomputers we could just pile it on, but we don't and we can't.

[philip.ed]

That's exactly what I meant! SoW seems so advanced, that it will probably limit how high we can turn the graphics up. My point is, the terrain we've seen looks worse than RoF, so if this is as high as we can turn it up without limiting the amount of planes etc then IMO this will mean that (in the short term) certain aspects of the game may not live up to everyone's expectations.
Of course, this may not be 100% true (as most of the game is still being worked on and will be post-release) so of course the terrain is by no means final. The same goes for the clouds too.

[Azimech]

I won't mind playing with settings at minimal if I can enjoy full functionality, FM and DM. Someday I'll build a new PC.

At worst it will probably look like IL2.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Lovely clouds in the Wellington shot, btw. Spasiba for this weeks' update!

I'm late to the party here (this is the same Snapper from Air Warrior & Fighter Duel days) -- but I gotta say those clouds ARE breathtaking!!!! :shock:

[Chivas]

That's exactly what I meant! SoW seems so advanced, that it will probably limit how high we can turn the graphics up. My point is, the terrain we've seen looks worse than RoF, so if this is as high as we can turn it up without limiting the amount of planes etc then IMO this will mean that (in the short term) certain aspects of the game may not live up to everyone's expectations.
Of course, this may not be 100% true (as most of the game is still being worked on and will be post-release) so of course the terrain is by no means final. The same goes for the clouds too.

Personally I have no doubt that the SOW terrain will be far superior to the ROF and WOP terrain even though SOW is developing a much larger area. Just the fact that SOW terrain will have elevated riverbanks will make a huge difference to the overall look of the terrrain. We haven't seen a few terrain and cloud features because of bugs yet to be ironed out.

[MD_Titus]

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.;)
thankfully
with the overlay of instruments it will mean that the one handicap for open pit flyers is removed - the lack of instrumentation.
people play this game for fun, and i would hate to dictate to people that they have to only have my kind of fun.
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.
exactly. there's a lot of open pit players out there. and quite a lot of them have flown those settings for years, because that is what they get fun out of.
You should always fly with full real, maybe with speed bar but no icons and and always cockpit enabled, no external views
why? if folk want to fly open pit and labels visible for 15km, who are you to say that it's wrong? with externals you can appreciate the models of the planes, the skins of other players the terrain at angles that you would otherwise only see very fleetingly just before you disintegrate...

the snobbishness of closed pit flyers is sometimes breathtaking.
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.
yep.

[Fafnir_6]

the snobbishness of closed pit flyers is sometimes breathtaking.


+1 I use the "closed 'pit" but I can appreciate the challenges faced by newbies, since I have trained a number of them. I find training works best when you can slowly ramp up the difficulty to full real.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[philip.ed]

Personally I have no doubt that the SOW terrain will be far superior to the ROF and WOP terrain even though SOW is developing a much larger area. Just the fact that SOW terrain will have elevated riverbanks will make a huge difference to the overall look of the terrrain. We haven't seen a few terrain and cloud features because of bugs yet to be ironed out.


Well said ;)

[Freycinet]

My point is, the terrain we've seen looks worse than RoF, so if this is as high as we can turn it up without limiting the amount of planes etc then IMO this will mean that (in the short term) certain aspects of the game may not live up to everyone's expectations.
Of course, this may not be 100% true (as most of the game is still being worked on and will be post-release) so of course the terrain is by no means final. The same goes for the clouds too.

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to compare WIP images of SoW:BoB with the look of a sim already released. The info from the updates is way too incomplete to base anything on.

And again: how many planes can be in the air at once in RoF compared to SoW:BoB? What are the differences in draw distance? How much processor power is dedicated to AI tactics? Which after effects will be used? We lack so many elements of the equation.

I think it is completely valid to give factual criticism of spelling errors in cockpit instruments, remark on squadron code colours, note a wrong antenna position in a Bf-110, etc.

But I just think it is really difficult to conclude anything on general features such as look of the terrain, of clouds, etc, based on the very limited information we get from a few update screenies posted. We don't know the specs of the machine they are taken on, we don't know of any after effects, we don't know of the build, and more importantly we don't know how it will look in motion and whether a screenie is even representative. We're looking through a soda straw at a landscape scene, so what use is it to opine about it?

[philip.ed]

Very good points made there ;)

i do disagree about the clouds though; they look awesome, but there's something that to me didn't look right. If Oleg was under the impression they were amazing, he may not feel the need to change them. I did my research and if the 3D model could be altered they'd look staggering, I am sure.
I was checking out some of the DCS videos, and in the new game the clouds looked quite good to me; as they had a prominant shadow where the sun wasn't shining on them. I will check, but I haven't really noticed this in SoW. Of course; what we're seeing is by no means final ;) But it's worth noting in any case I think.

[robtek]

thankfully
......the snobbishness of closed pit flyers is sometimes breathtaking.


Well, the ability to fight well in a closed cockpit is hard earned!
One should be able to be proud of a achievement and not get called a snob for that!!!
Everybody has the same problems in a closed pit, really no reason to elevate those who go the easy way!

[Fafnir_6]

Well, the ability to fight well in a closed cockpit is hard earned!
One should be able to be proud of a achievement and not get called a snob for that!!!
Everybody has the same problems in a closed pit, really no reason to elevate those who go the easy way!

Pride can easily turn into arrogance. I agree that your pride is justified but please don't put down those who are at an earlier stage of their development as a virtual fighter pilot. This coming from someone who also flies fullreal but wishes to avoid negativity.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[swiss]

Very good points made there ;)

i do disagree about the clouds though; they look awesome, but there's something that to me didn't look right. If Oleg was under the impression they were amazing, he may not feel the need to change them. I did my research and if the 3D model could be altered they'd look staggering, I am sure.
I was checking out some of the DCS videos, and in the new game the clouds looked quite good to me; as they had a prominant shadow where the sun wasn't shining on them. I will check, but I haven't really noticed this in SoW. Of course; what we're seeing is by no means final ;) But it's worth noting in any case I think.

"If Oleg was under the impression..."

Look, he's been in the air before , he knows what clouds look like.
Unlike the hurri cockpit where he didn't know whether it says "wait" or "12volt", but honestly, I wouldn't give a sh1t about either.

If they look they way they look right now, there's a reason for it.
Also the game is almost done and I wouldn't want it delayed just to have some flat bottomed clouds!


Stfu, wait for it's release, complain and help for the 1st patch. :)

[swiss]

Pride can easily turn into arrogance. I agree that your pride is justified but please don't put down those who are at an earlier stage of their development as a virtual fighter pilot. This coming from someone who also flies fullreal but wishes to avoid negativity.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

In fact, robtek is right.
Ever noticed the super doooper flyboys who score a shitload of kills on open cockpit/ext.view servers cannot reproduce these numbers on FR servers?

See? ;)

[robtek]

There is definitively no "putting down" the beginners, it is just generally speaking that choosing the easy way is the way to the dark side :-D
If someone really is interested in the simulation part this person should switch to the cockpit view asap.
For fun -> everybody can choose.
my 2 cents
and now: BTT

[SlipBall]

Very good points made there ;)

i do disagree about the clouds though; they look awesome, but there's something that to me didn't look right. If Oleg was under the impression they were amazing, he may not feel the need to change them. I did my research and if the 3D model could be altered they'd look staggering, I am sure.
I was checking out some of the DCS videos, and in the new game the clouds looked quite good to me; as they had a prominant shadow where the sun wasn't shining on them. I will check, but I haven't really noticed this in SoW. Of course; what we're seeing is by no means final ;) But it's worth noting in any case I think.


You really need to go away till the game is released:grin:...come back in one year;)

[Richie]

Tree you'll like this. There's one thing and it's a big thing that I hate about this sim. The arena! Back and forth back and forth, what is it 15 minutes to get over there? You have to fly the slowest ugliest 109 in the war....pooey. I hope to god North Africa comes quickly because I suck in that E.

[Richie]

This is what I'm waiting for!

[Tree_UK]

Tree you'll like this. There's one thing and it's a big thing that I hate about this sim. The arena! Back and forth back and forth, what is it 15 minutes to get over there? You have to fly the slowest ugliest 109 in the war....pooey. I hope to god North Africa comes quickly because I suck in that E.

A North African campaign would be fantastic, and the F4 is also my favourite 109 to fly (well within Il2). The camo schemes do it for me as well :grin::grin:

[Richie]

A North African campaign would be fantastic, and the F4 is also my favourite 109 to fly (well within Il2). The camo schemes do it for me as well :grin::grin:

Tree that's great .......we agree :)

[Chivas]

I'm looking forward to flying a lone Ju-88 nap of earth to targets deep inside the UK and back, hopefully. Or a Blenheim bombing missions into Northern France, just for a break in fighter ops.

[Richie]

Imagine this scene Tree on SOW's North Africa map.

[Blackdog_kt]

Actually, i think that just because of the limited endurance the primary fighter types have, we'll see extended use of other aircraft and that's actually a good thing.

Bombers will be a blast to fly, especially online in well orchestrated and cunning sorties, thanks to the multi-level AI. Imagine for example if we can be radar vectored online, by AI or even human players.

Flights of Jabo 110s go nap of the earth, blow a few holes in the radar cover and the 111s and 88s stream through one of them. The map is big enough for the fighters to be unable to cover it easily or even effectively (fuel issues), the speed discrepancy between fighters and bombers of the time is not that big, etc. I think we'll see a lot of frustrated fighter pilots :-P

[ElAurens]

I'm really hoping to fly an Anson.

An Airfix 1/72 Anson 1 was one of my first seriouis attempts at painting a model plane. I still have the poor thing somewhere.

[KOM.Nausicaa]

I think a couple of you neglect the fact that this sim actually has to be programmed and has to work with an acceptable number of frames per second on a typical high-end computer.

It isn't possible to just overlay a rendering of the cockpit with a rendering of the full view. Both of those need processor cycles to render and you can't just double processor cycles out of the blue.

Same with adding textures to the clouds. You can't just do that endlessly until you have a photographic rendering. Especially if you want the exact same clouds to be visible from all angles by 25 guys flying online. This is very different from an MSFS add-on hanging big flat photos of clouds up around you as you putter along on your own in a Cessna.


+1 Freycinet

Listen to that man, he speaks the truth. That semi transparent cockpit idea is technically very naive.

Same goes for the clouds. People forget too that those clouds-behaviors are probably linked to Oleg's new dynamic weather system. You have to find a way to find different forms that can shape-shift real time and be seen alike by all players, from all sides. Complex "true life" -like clouds would eat your computers alive.

[JVM]

That semi transparent cockpit idea is technically very naive.


Keep in mind not everyone is informed about real time programming constraints as well as you are...I understand you did not want to be pedantic and yet some may feel that way!


Same goes for the clouds. People forget too that those clouds-behaviors are probably linked to Oleg's new dynamic weather system. You have to find a way to find different forms that can shape-shift real time and be seen alike by all players, from all sides. Complex "true life" -like clouds would eat your computers alive.

It is quite true but so far the shape of the clouds we saw are still very much Il2-like and we can only hope at least their shape will be good (aaah the flat bottoms!) but I have no worries there as OM already stated they were many more shapes and that we did not see them yet!
One thing we can be sure will be glorious is the lighting (like in SC one of this update) which together with the very well made close-by "fluffy" effect literally transfigures the cloud aspect such that some did not remark that we still have 2nd gen Il2-type clouds!

It would be very interesting to see if OM is going to integrate dynamic weather at release, and how the cloud positions and statuses (shape, development) will be transmitted over the network...
logically in the same way than other objects like airplanes and their position, speed or damage status except that it can be done at a lot slower rate than for an airplane.
It can be imagined that each cloud type has been developed around a set of parameters (type, basic shape in type, position, orientation, development state...) which allows quasi exact rebuilding on each player machine locally...and Oleg has already proven how good his team was at writing netcode!

JV

[major_setback]

I'm really hoping to fly an Anson.

An Airfix 1/72 Anson 1 was one of my first seriouis attempts at painting a model plane. I still have the poor thing somewhere.

+1

I think it a wonderful looking plane. There is enough information around on the internet (see SimHQ's SoW forum, and SaQson's request for information 'While we are waiting for BoB') to easily make it flyable by a third party, though it would be nice if it was flyable by default in the original game release, or as an add on made by the development team.
I'm actually a little surprised it wasn't made flyable.
It would make a great bomber trainer, and allow for sub-hunting missions.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/anson_c09.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/fa_18342sanson.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/fa_17764sanson.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Anson_c02.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/anson_c04.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/anson_c03.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/anson_c08.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/anson_c06.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/anson_c05.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/ansonPL-3765.jpg

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/airplane/museum/cl-pln3/images4/TH022.jpg

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/aircraft/trainer/avro-anson-trainer/avro-anson-trainer-03.png

http://pducos61.free.fr/Maquettes/a_box_art/AVRO%20ANSON.JPG

[philip.ed]

"If Oleg was under the impression..."

Look, he's been in the air before , he knows what clouds look like.
Unlike the hurri cockpit where he didn't know whether it says "wait" or "12volt", but honestly, I wouldn't give a sh1t about either.

If they look they way they look right now, there's a reason for it.
Also the game is almost done and I wouldn't want it delayed just to have some flat bottomed clouds!


Stfu, wait for it's release, complain and help for the 1st patch. :)

STFU? Slightly harsh, I'm only posting my opinion. I wouldn't care if the clouds were improved 2 updates down the line. I'm just posting my opinion based on what I see everyday, and also around scientific fact. Just because Oleg sees it a certain way doesn't make it right. Il-2 was awesome, but if one knit-picked it, there are areas that aren't necessarily 100% accurate (like the clouds...)
I'm not saying that SoW should be perfect in every-way; my point is that I think the cloud model could be improved to make the game look a bit more awesome :D That's all; I don't even think the job would be that hard, but then I'm only guessing.
I, too, don't want the game delayed for this reason. I'm just giving Oleg ideas for post-release patches ;)

That's all ;)

[MD_Titus]

Well, the ability to fight well in a closed cockpit is hard earned!
One should be able to be proud of a achievement and not get called a snob for that!!!
Everybody has the same problems in a closed pit, really no reason to elevate those who go the easy way!
if you feel it is something to be proud of then go for it, no need to trash other people's idea of fun.

however.

i challenge you to go into an open pit server (where everyone also has the same "problems") and do as well as you would in closed pit. there is nothing "easy" about this game, whatever settings you choose, when you are flying against competent opponents.
Pride can easily turn into arrogance. I agree that your pride is justified but please don't put down those who are at an earlier stage of their development as a virtual fighter pilot. This coming from someone who also flies fullreal but wishes to avoid negativity.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6
commendable attitude fafnir.
In fact, robtek is right.
Ever noticed the super doooper flyboys who score a shitload of kills on open cockpit/ext.view servers cannot reproduce these numbers on FR servers?

See? ;)

well... i get kills on FR (ha! full switch - it's not real) servers as well. not as many, because finding bandits is that much harder, but not a huge amount less. and nor do i die all that much less. the majority of pilots in FS servers don't manoeuvre as hard to evade you as they do in more relaxed settings, so once you've seen them, and as long as you can keep track of them... equally, without the cockpit framing and gunsight my gun accuracy drops like a dewinged 190. can't do the open pit view, even if i'm flying on an open pit server i have cockpit on.

i find it hilarious when people try and claim kudos for playing in a specific way, usually with little appreciation of the different flying styles required to succeed in both schools. really, try flying full switch style in an open pit server, you'll die. and vice versa. neither way is better than the other, but having spent hours acclimatising to full switch settings seems to breed this oft-seen snobbishness. weird.

the transparent instruments will add a level of complexity that i imagine will be enjoyed by a large portion of open pitters. at a wild guess the lack of complex engine management in some open pit servers is mostly down to the lack of instrumentation afforded in that view.

[ElAurens]

Thanks major_setback.

Some great pics there.

:cool:

[Hecke]

Can't wait to get a big friday update tomorrow.

[ElAurens]

I have a feeling that we are not going to see anymore updates for a while.

Sadly.

[Hecke]

That's not a good solution.

[MD_Titus]

a perfectly reasonable one though.

[furbs]

Of course we will get a update if Oleg is able...hes a adult, not a 10 year old child.

[Richie]

Dx11 Dirt 2


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo4ziyuYRTA&feature=related

[chiefrr73]

Hi,
first of all i want to say my english is not so good, but i want to trie to explane what i mean:
I watched this video that was showen somewhere, a while ago, don t know anymore where and when.., i find it interesting. I found it at youtube. Looked it again and again, very often and there is showen a part where Ilya is flying a stucka ( the view from the cockpit), he is using trackIR. Then he is in a bomber ( i think it is a bomber.. don t know which one??, also cockpit view), He moves his body (top part) to the right and back, all at the same moment, like he is zooming out. This happens very fast. First you see the front of the cockpit and as he moves, like i explaned, you see something that i couldn t imagine what this could be. So i stop the video at the moment he begins to move ( at ca. 0:59 min.)
I was and i m still surprised what i saw/see. You can see the copilot or a crewmember, he is sitting next to the pilot. In my eyes the details of the pilot and all around him is very high, expecily the seat he is sitting on, more than i saw here in the screenshots. The only problem to see what i mean is, that you have to lean your head to the right, because the sight of view on the monitor, Ilya looks at, is up side down as he zoomes out. I hope you understand and see what i mean.

[chiefrr73]

sorry forgot to give the link of the video. Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xoz1Kb2wkPE&feature=related

[jippy13]

Hi Oleg,

I had the impression from reading your last messages that you were upset about posting some video or screenshots on Friday.

I can easily understand your position because of a lot of good reasons (pressure, stress, some cutting posts, etc).

Anyway, if you dont plan to post a video or pictures tomorrow, it would be great if you give us (your fans) some important information about BOB.

Read you tomorrow :)

[lbuchele]

Yes, we promise to be good boys...:rolleyes:
Ok,just kidding.
We are just passinate about your work.Take it as a compliment.
If people are rude , just allow the moderator to ban the offender for 1 day,2,a week until he becomes more polite in the way of express himself.
But your Friday update is becoming a tradition for us, your fans and I risk to say that for most of us they turn the Friday a even more pleasure day than it used to be...:)

[chiefrr73]

Yes, we promise to be good boys...:rolleyes:
Ok,just kidding.
We are just passinate about your work.Take it as a compliment.
If people are rude , just allow the moderator to ban the offender for 1 day,2,a week until he becomes more polite in the way of express himself.
But your Friday update is becoming a tradition for us, your fans and I risk to say that for most of us they turn the Friday a even more pleasure day than it used to be...:)



+1

[Tree_UK]

We will get an update, Oleg is not upset, you will be telling us next that he's refusing to sell the game to us because of some negative feed back.

[Freycinet]

)
I was and i m still surprised what i saw/see.

He is using a program called TrackIR, from a company called Naturalpoint:

http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/

[chiefrr73]

He is using a program called TrackIR, from a company called Naturalpoint:

http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/


I know, but this is not what i mean. Did you watch the video and stopt it at 0:59 min ?

[Richie]

Hi,
first of all i want to say my english is not so good, but i want to trie to explane what i mean:
I watched this video that was showen somewhere, a while ago, don t know anymore where and when.., i find it interesting. I found it at youtube. Looked it again and again, very often and there is showen a part where Ilya is flying a stucka ( the view from the cockpit), he is using trackIR. Then he is in a bomber ( i think it is a bomber.. don t know which one??, also cockpit view), He moves his body (top part) to the right and back, all at the same moment, like he is zooming out. This happens very fast. First you see the front of the cockpit and as he moves, like i explaned, you see something that i couldn t imagine what this could be. So i stop the video at the moment he begins to move ( at ca. 0:59 min.)
I was and i m still surprised what i saw/see. You can see the copilot or a crewmember, he is sitting next to the pilot. In my eyes the details of the pilot and all around him is very high, expecily the seat he is sitting on, more than i saw here in the screenshots. The only problem to see what i mean is, that you have to lean your head to the right, because the sight of view on the monitor, Ilya looks at, is up side down as he zoomes out. I hope you understand and see what i mean.

Hi chieff.

I think I know what you mean at 59 seconds. That effect can be done with a Trackir 4 and 5 but not with a 3 pro. I still have a 3 pro. The game also has to be set up for the trackir 4 or 5 software for this effect to work. I hope that helps.

[swiss]

because the view is upside-down?

Freetrack bug - happens at extreme angles, can be reduced by fine tuning FT.

[Richie]

It also looks like he may have hit the "C" key to go to another seat position in the aircraft at the last moment?

[Richie]

No body likes my Dx11 Dirt 2 :..(

[chiefrr73]

hmm, i m wondering if someone knows what i mean, or you do, and i don t understand you. I think my english is not so good to explain. I have TrackIr 4, and i know what it can do, and how. I don t mean the move of Ilya. So you stopt the video at 0:59min. Can you see the crewmember/pilot in the cockpit who is sitting there on the seat? For me the man sitting there looks very realistic, more than those we were showen on screenshots and the level of details in the cockpit. I hope someone sees what i mean

[Dano]

hmm, i m wondering if someone knows what i mean, or you do, and i don t understand you. I think my english is not so good to explain. I have TrackIr 4, and i know what it can do, and how. I don t mean the move of Ilya. So you stopt the video at 0:59min. Can you see the crewmember/pilot in the cockpit who is sitting there on the seat? For me the man sitting there looks very realistic, more than those we were showen on screenshots and the level of details in the cockpit. I hope someone sees what i mean

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/daniel.clarke17/crew.jpg

Should help get your point across :)

[Dano]

I'd also like to post this image in response to the whole flat bottomed cloud debate...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/daniel.clarke17/clouds.jpg

I think Oleg knows what he's doing...

Bloomin thing, first flight in ages and I managed to bag one in that foul weather and finish the mission only to have Il2 crash when I was saving the track, mission lost :(

[chiefrr73]

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/daniel.clarke17/crew.jpg

Should help get your point across :)

;););), yeah this is what i mean, thank you very much !!!
You also think that it looks good, for me it does.

[Dano]

Yes, I think it looks pretty darn good too!!! (Sorry, I should have mentioned that!!!)

[chiefrr73]

I think this picture shows how good BOB will/could be. In my openion OM is holding back a lot, for good reasons.

[chiefrr73]

[QUOTE=Dano;187945]I'd also like to post this image in response to the whole flat bottomed cloud debate...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/daniel.clarke17/clouds.jpg

I think Oleg knows what he's doing...

+1 and more

[zapatista]

;););), yeah this is what i mean, thank you very much !!!
You also think that it looks good, for me it does.

chief2273,

thx for picking up on that, i hadnt noticed that brief glimpse :)

looks very good indeed, pretty amazing in fact. makes the whole cockpit come to life so to speak.

hope it means at release time all multicrew'ed aircraft will have similar figures in them, and that they will move/act rather then just sit passive/still

[Richie]

Holy smokes ..59 pages, we've been busy beavers.

[Chivas]

chief2273,

thx for picking up on that, i hadnt noticed that brief glimpse :)

looks very good indeed, pretty amazing in fact. makes the whole cockpit come to life so to speak.

hope it means at release time all multicrew'ed aircraft will have similar figures in them, and that they will move/act rather then just sit passive/still

I believe the short video shown by Oleg in this thread shows the crew moving to different gun positions.

[zapatista]

We will get an update, Oleg is not upset, you will be telling us next that he's refusing to sell the game to us because of some negative feed back.

is that really you'r best effort at rational thought ? or have you instantly slipped back to your old behavior and have no intention to ever try and communicate like a civilized human being

yes Oleg was/is upset at some of the constant previous negative posts and deliberate offensive behavior, to which you personally contributed a large part. its exactly the type of response you wanted from oleg after all these month/year, you'r now going to pretend it didnt happen and doesnt matter ?

and no, he doesnt have to give updates here or interact with his fanbase either, at this late stage there is very little creative or commercial need for it [/b](since the game is very close to release now and no further major significant changes in content will be made). Oleg can also instead just selectively release a page of information on updates with a few screenshots in it to one of the main aviation websites, to keep the crowd's appetite and interest for his project alive (most of us would go there and hang on every word). add to that some glitzy website a few weeks before release (so that prospective new customers who hear about it can look up some information on it before purchasing), and with those 2 acts there is then no commercial benefit for him to do it in such a personal and direct method in this forum

does oleg want to give weekly updates here and keep us (his fanbase) at the edge of our seats in the final months before release ? yes of course he does, he's like the proud parent of a new creation and want s to show it of and get feedback and recognition for how extensive his efforts have been, but there is little commercial benefit for him to do so. 98% of the people that regularly attend this forum will buy it anyway, no matter what his end product will be (based on what we have currently seen so far)

only a few days have past since your constant deliberate thread crapping here cause a major incident that clearly upset oleg and Co, being personally offensive to him ass well as ungrateful for him feeding us updates. when you drop your turds tree, you'r mum will still love you unconditionally and give you a lolly when you cry, for the rest of the world you are just a smelly whiny little kid with poop in his pants who is deliberately disruptive. if oleg continues to make updates here it is not because of you, it is in spite of you, dont confuse the two, he just now does it with a clothes peg on his nose so he doesnt have to smell you

[Hunden]

No body likes my Dx11 Dirt 2 :..(

lol i'll check it out . Just checked it out, looks pretty good but there were no clouds with flat bottoms. The plant life looks well............ life like.

[Romanator21]

Bloomin thing, first flight in ages and I managed to bag one in that foul weather and finish the mission only to have Il2 crash when I was saving the track, mission lost

You have to be aware of what characters you type in to name your track when saving it. It's happened to me before because I used some punctuation that the game can't handle (like "!"), causing it to crash. I can't remember every character that causes this so to avoid the problem I only use letters and numbers. If you go into the track folder and rename your track to include these characters, the game pretends it doesn't exist, if Windows doesn't give you an error message first.

[Exothermos]

I just bought my first new computer in years specifically in anticipation of this game. The last computer I bought was specifically to play Il-2. See a trend here? :grin:

I'm very grateful for the Friday updates, and enjoy whatever is presented. The last couple months have been especially exciting, as I can see the Sim I always wanted to make finally taking form in front of me. Please, Oleg, don't let a few annoying internet nerds ruin it for everyone. Just ignore them as you please, and realize that 98% of us are quietly wringing our hands in anticipation.

The series of progressive screenshots showing the altitude effects had me and my friend (both pilots IRL) talking for days. Great job!

[Osprey]

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 just don't get it really. All the fuss about how realistic things must be but then people want to turn off the cockpit.

Nice pics btw

[Osprey]

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

That explains a few things. It becomes flatter as you approach East Anglia. Those north of London counties aren't the same as the south of London ones.

[Osprey]

You should always fly with full real, maybe with speed bar but no icons and and always cockpit enabled, no external views

You n00b ;) Our internal campaigns have speedbar off, a 'HUD off' mod so we have to use temp and boost/RPM guages plus wind on the map - it's all instruments buddy. I've even changed the chat log bar to RAF language lol

[Osprey]

Most of the above posting was unintelligible to me, but I think I understood the last phrase:



I think there are some basic issues about making a flight sim that you don't understand.

Every single element of the sim takes processor cycles and therefore impacts FPS.

Rendering textures is one thing, FM, DM are other things, and several calculations and processes "under the hood" such as AI impact the fps as well. If we all had Craig supercomputers we could just pile it on, but we don't and we can't.

Cuda

http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_home_new.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA

[Qpassa]

You n00b ;) Our internal campaigns have speedbar off, a 'HUD off' mod so we have to use temp and boost/RPM guages plus wind on the map - it's all instruments buddy. I've even changed the chat log bar to RAF language lol

lol:grin:

[Dano]

You have to be aware of what characters you type in to name your track when saving it. It's happened to me before because I used some punctuation that the game can't handle (like "!"), causing it to crash. I can't remember every character that causes this so to avoid the problem I only use letters and numbers. If you go into the track folder and rename your track to include these characters, the game pretends it doesn't exist, if Windows doesn't give you an error message first.

Ah, I did indeed attempt to use '!' in my track name, that must have been it, noted and thank you :)

[matsher]

You n00b ;) Our internal campaigns have speedbar off, a 'HUD off' mod so we have to use temp and boost/RPM guages plus wind on the map - it's all instruments buddy. I've even changed the chat log bar to RAF language lol


nOOB - Priceless

Osprey, thats shits funny... :grin:

[Ctrl E]

fingers crossed for a video with some sound from oleg today.

asking nicely:-)

[matsher]

Thank you Baron... Artfully said.
Gentlemen... It is noted that most of you view wonderview with utter disstain.
And thats totally fine. No one is prescribing to you how you should fly the sim,
everyone finds their own comfort zone after some time. And it is not our prerogative to prescribe to others how they 'should' play...

What is important though, as IL2 lifers and experienced flyers, is to grow a new
generation of flyers and try and make it as 'easy' to get hooked on the Maddox
drug as possible... There will always be a purists way to fly as well as a casual way ... Just remember the first time you tried to fly IL2 ... Do you remember the pain and suffering you had to endure before some benevolent pilot started giving you a few tips here and a few tips there...

Now with that in mind... Can you tell me how you see my suggestion...

I have to say that XNOMAD's solution is massively simple and probably an excellent way to do it. It keeps the integrity of the cockpit view while providing some additional targeting information... Hmmm Nice one... I'll try and mock it up for you guys to see if it doesn't look too disruptive...

Please lets keep this going I want to collect the best solution for the next friday's update and hopefully present a very well thought out case to Oleg and Team.

Thanks for all the productive input, I feel we are really starting to get somewhere.

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...

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.

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:

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.

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.

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?

You should always fly with full real, maybe with speed bar but no icons and and always cockpit enabled, no external views

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.

This is pretty much what ROF does (great boon when you're frustrated by having to peer through a letterbox). In fact ROF allows for assignable camera positions and views in-cockpit (important when the sodding compass is on the floor behind where your left buttock should be). ROF has done this all very well (in my humble). All rather spiffing.

Indeed, there a little hints of IL2 "homage" in ROF (eg. F2 for external views, F1 for internal, etc.) Perhaps Oleg, as far as cockpit views are concerned (even, for example, ROF's continuous zoom) might repay the complement!...

Exactly. I like fliying full switch, but in order for "new blood" to come in and stick with flight simming, we need to entice them with relaxed difficulty settings and a way to gradually transition to the higher ones, trying to smooth out the learning curve so to speak.

I always used to fly full switch, except from single player where i like playing with externals on for enjoying the visuals and snapping screenshots. I have been flying full switch since i was 12, now i'm 30. During these 18 years however, there's a whole lot of difficulty and complexity added to what "full switch" means. Flying full switch in Red Baron or Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe which i used to fly on my first 286 PC is probably like flying -20% difficulty in IL2.

I had the fortune to come into the flight sim hobby relatively early, almost from the ground floor. As PCs got stronger the simulators were able to model more complexities and evolve, the main thing being that i could gradually adjust to the changes and learn over the course of months or years...from S.W.O.T.L and Red Baron, to Aces of the Pacific and Aces over Europe, to 1942: the pacific air war, to Red Baron II/3D, European Air War and B17:the mighty 8th to IL2.

It didn't happen overnight and the reason i stuck with it is that initially, as a 12 year old kid, i could fly my Albatross or P47 over finely rendered pixelated and blocky fields and actually win in many occasions, but even if i didn't win it managed to be balanced, encouraging and alluding to what i had read in the history books. This is what draws people in initially.

Today, as a jaded veteran of the sim hobby all i think about is technical accuracy and fidelity. It's ok, we evolve in the course of pursuing a hobby. However, you can't make a convert out of a 12 year old by teaching him about the proper operation of the internal combustion engine. The way you can entice him is by suspending disbelief and making it easy for him to step into the shoes of someone else from the safety of his small, dark room that glows with the flicker of the screen and resonates with the humming of case fans at 3am, sneaking in one more sortie with the headphones on because it's Sunday night, tomorrow is a school day and mom will throw a fit if she finds out you're "playing those pretend-pilot games again".

For me, i want a SoW that is as realistic as possible. I don't want it to default to the lowest common denominator, difficulty-wise. I want to be surprised, frustrated, overwhelmed and scared the first time i fire it up, set everything to 100% and go on my first QMB sortie to sample the goods.

For the survival of flight sims however, i want an options panel that can dumb it down as far as it goes to attract that new generation of the 12 year olds of today's world...the "new blood" will take it upon themselves to start enabling the options as time goes by, learn the proper way to do things and come shoot us down in a few years ;)

Mkay... So here are a couple of mock-ups of Xnomad's solution - it's
pretty simple and eloquent ... It also negates the argument about lessening
FPS with the transparent cockpit having to render more 'sky'...

I have also added some direction and lead markers...
Notice how the direction and lead markers fade the further distance
away the target gets...

Tell me what you guys reckon...

thankfully
with the overlay of instruments it will mean that the one handicap for open pit flyers is removed - the lack of instrumentation.
people play this game for fun, and i would hate to dictate to people that they have to only have my kind of fun.

exactly. there's a lot of open pit players out there. and quite a lot of them have flown those settings for years, because that is what they get fun out of.

why? if folk want to fly open pit and labels visible for 15km, who are you to say that it's wrong? with externals you can appreciate the models of the planes, the skins of other players the terrain at angles that you would otherwise only see very fleetingly just before you disintegrate...

the snobbishness of closed pit flyers is sometimes breathtaking.

yep.

+1 I use the "closed 'pit" but I can appreciate the challenges faced by newbies, since I have trained a number of them. I find training works best when you can slowly ramp up the difficulty to full real.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

You n00b ;) Our internal campaigns have speedbar off, a 'HUD off' mod so we have to use temp and boost/RPM guages plus wind on the map - it's all instruments buddy. I've even changed the chat log bar to RAF language lol


Morning chaps, Well I for one am excited, its Friday and its nearly update time.
Well that is if Mr. Maddox is going to post today after the harassment of last fridays post... I have prepared my thoughts as well as many of yours on the Wonderview vs full cockpit question... I hope Mr. Maddox can answer... I'm pretty excited about all this clearly I am new to all this posting stuff...

I will post excerps from this thread as well as the first pics I posted with the transparent cockpit (which you guys said would be technically much more difficult) and Xnomads simpler suggestion with the full cockpit -no transparency- but with plane idents and the added outlines I added...
This multi quote thing doesn't seem to include the pics... I'll find them again and put it all together.

[krz9000]

dude are u telling me that the FM is CUDA supported? man thats would be first-in-industry!!! i habe an ati card so would hope for openCL support but nevertheless that would be totally awsome :)

can u give more information about this osprey?

[fireflyerz]

:grin:-Tick-tock--Tick-tock--Tick-tock--Tick-tock--Tick-tock--Tick-tock-:grin:

[matsher]

can anyone of you experienced posters tell me how to include images form older posts with my replies...

I need to attach some pics form pages 49 to my post... Any suggestions???

Thanks

[_RAAF_Stupot]

You n00b ;) Our internal campaigns have speedbar off, a 'HUD off' mod so we have to use temp and boost/RPM guages plus wind on the map - it's all instruments buddy. I've even changed the chat log bar to RAF language lol


Bah! Amateur!

Our squad mandates wearing full flight kit, Mae West, mask, chute and the rest.

[Insuber]

In my squad if you're killed you must unistall Il2 ... forever.

[Hood]

I play in my underpants in case I get shot down over the channel and have to swim for it.

Actually I play in my underpants just for the hell of it and because I like the sticking sensation of hot skin on a leather chair.

Hood

[Tree_UK]

is that really you'r best effort at rational thought ? or have you instantly slipped back to your old behavior and have no intention to ever try and communicate like a civilized human being

yes Oleg was/is upset at some of the constant previous negative posts and deliberate offensive behavior, to which you personally contributed a large part. its exactly the type of response you wanted from oleg after all these month/year, you'r now going to pretend it didnt happen and doesnt matter ?

and no, he doesnt have to give updates here or interact with his fanbase either, at this late stage there is very little creative or commercial need for it [/b](since the game is very close to release now and no further major significant changes in content will be made). Oleg can also instead just selectively release a page of information on updates with a few screenshots in it to one of the main aviation websites, to keep the crowd's appetite and interest for his project alive (most of us would go there and hang on every word). add to that some glitzy website a few weeks before release (so that prospective new customers who hear about it can look up some information on it before purchasing), and with those 2 acts there is then no commercial benefit for him to do it in such a personal and direct method in this forum

does oleg want to give weekly updates here and keep us (his fanbase) at the edge of our seats in the final months before release ? yes of course he does, he's like the proud parent of a new creation and want s to show it of and get feedback and recognition for how extensive his efforts have been, but there is little commercial benefit for him to do so. 98% of the people that regularly attend this forum will buy it anyway, no matter what his end product will be (based on what we have currently seen so far)

only a few days have past since your constant deliberate thread crapping here cause a major incident that clearly upset oleg and Co, being personally offensive to him ass well as ungrateful for him feeding us updates. when you drop your turds tree, you'r mum will still love you unconditionally and give you a lolly when you cry, for the rest of the world you are just a smelly whiny little kid with poop in his pants who is deliberately disruptive. if oleg continues to make updates here it is not because of you, it is in spite of you, dont confuse the two, he just now does it with a clothes peg on his nose so he doesnt have to smell you

zap, your fasination with poop and children is very disturbing, i ask you again, 3 times now, please pm me your insults rather than post it here.

[Abbeville-Boy]

zap, your fasination with poop and children is very disturbing, i ask you again, 3 times now, please pm me your insults rather than post it here.

so you see criticism can be disruptive to each of us, oleg included :grin:

[Hecke]

Hm, I hope Oleg shows that he is grown-up and not in a snit now like a small child.

Because this is not the kindergarten.

[Trumper]

:sad: well ,when i was a kid it was "it's Friday,it's 5 oclock and it's crackerjack" now it is Friday and update day - - only no update - - so far :(

[Hecke]

Yeah man, Oleg is OK and he posted an update.

[Osprey]

dude are u telling me that the FM is CUDA supported? man thats would be first-in-industry!!! i habe an ati card so would hope for openCL support but nevertheless that would be totally awsome :)

can u give more information about this osprey?


I'm not saying that at all mate, in fact I'd doubt it is. The point I was trying to make is that cuda opens up a huge amount of processing power compared to what is generally used now and I was indicating to my learned friend that he was only looking at current mainstream technology. I'm not an expert on this, quite the opposite really, but as far as I understand the newer technologies of PhsX, Cuda and 64 bit memory are pretty much untapped in the gaming industry at the moment, but I hope in the future it'll get unlocked.

To any gamer i would recommend having a read up on cuda and looking at some of the benchmark tests if you want to get all excited about the future of gaming.

Wait until memristors come into play, just developed by HP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor) - let's give it another 10 years :D

[major_setback]

+1

I think it a wonderful looking plane. There is enough information around on the internet (see SimHQ's SoW forum, and SaQson's request for information 'While we are waiting for BoB') to easily make it flyable by a third party, though it would be nice if it was flyable by default in the original game release, or as an add on made by the development team.
I'm actually a little surprised it wasn't made flyable.
It would make a great bomber trainer, and allow for sub-hunting missions.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/anson_c09.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/fa_18342sanson.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/fa_17764sanson.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Anson_c02.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/anson_c04.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/anson_c03.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/anson_c08.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/anson_c06.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/anson_c05.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/ansonPL-3765.jpg

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/airplane/museum/cl-pln3/images4/TH022.jpg

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/aircraft/trainer/avro-anson-trainer/avro-anson-trainer-03.png

http://pducos61.free.fr/Maquettes/a_box_art/AVRO%20ANSON.JPG



Sorry, I meant this thread at SimHQ, showing requests for information for aircraft model making:

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2615727/1.html

[He111]

wasn't the Anson used to train bomber crews? what does that have to do with BOB? .. unless we need to fly our whimpys to attack an invasion force!:grin:

.

[major_setback]

wasn't the Anson used to train bomber crews? what does that have to do with BOB? .. unless we need to fly our whimpys to attack an invasion force!:grin:

.

It was used by Coastal Command, for sub hunting amongst other duties.

"In its original coastal reconnaissance role, it was designed to disable submarines. It was not expected to fight it out with enemy aircraft, but to run for home with a top speed of 300 km/hr. Nevertheless there were occasions when it had a more attacking role. It was used during the Dunkirk evacuation, on 1 June 1940 an Anson of 500 squadron was attacked by three Messerschmitt Bf109s and managed to shoot down two of them, and in the same mode there is an apparently reliable report of three Ansons being attacked by 10 Messerschmitt 109s with the Ansons managing to shoot down three of them."

"Ansons (equipping 21 squadrons) and Sunderlands were the mainstay of Coastal Command at the start of the war. The Command always thought its role was neglected in comparison with other Commands, and that consequently its aircraft were not updated as regularly. Later on the Command began to receive aircraft that could really halt the U-Boat menace (especially to convoys) but for the time being the Ansons were required to do their best. Already on the third day of war, an Anson had scored a probable hit on a U-Boat "

from:

http://www.scramble.nl/wiki/index.php?title=AVRO_Anson




Also, interestingly:

" During the Battle of Britain, Ansons from Detling continued with their patrol of the English Channel. However, they were also given a new night-time role – flying over London to ensure that blackout regulations were being kept. "

From:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/detling_world-war_two.htm




.