Friday 2010-10-22 Dev. update and Discussion

[albx]

wow Oleg the detail in the cockpit is truly mind-blowing i cant believe someone from eastern Europe made this

this is a very stupid statement...

[JtD]

Can anybody confirm that there is an error here?

And should it be "lean" instead of "weak"?

The Hurricane pilot manual can. British terminology is "weak" and "rich".

[JtD]

Those throttle quadrants didn't have RPM leavers- Hmmm early fixed pich props maybe????????

The pitch control for the airscrew is the round thing mounted on the side of the cockpit right above the throttle / mixture control.

[Skoshi Tiger]

The pitch control for the airscrew is the round thing mounted on the side of the cockpit right above the throttle / mixture control.

Thanks JtD,
Had to zoom in before I noticed the leaver. I was expecting it to be down near the throttle quadrant like the later model Spits.

Cheers!

[Ltbear]

As one who have been away from these forums and the game series for a few years its a big task to look for all the answers there must be from the last few years...

So please point me the right way if my qustions all ready are answered...

1. Will refuel /arming be posible in coops/dogfight mode. One thing i dislikes with the IL2 series is that the two combat choises kinda works against them selfs.

Dogfight, new plane, but static battle (nothing moves only shoots "ground sea air")

Coop, no new plane, but a dynamic moving world..

Will there be a choise for having both dynamic world and new plane/rearm,fuel??

Im a campaign player since 1998 (CFS series) and realy like that part of the a experience. For the online campaign players, the choise of having both modes in one would be awsome...

Im impressed by how the game looks, but....

You se werry hot womans, but if they have no brain it will be a "one ride only" just for bragging rights.....I hope mr maddox have chosen brains for this "looker"....

again im not mad, complaining etc...just werry hard to find information...maby im just doing something wrong and end up looking like a shitzaaa face...lol

[mazex]

Just to show that the work over lighting tuning is still there... and due this tuning was changing textures.

So finally you all will get really close to photorealistic picture.

I really dislike over use of capitalization but...

NOW WE TALK OLEG! :)

[Sutts]

this is a very stupid statement...

Indeed, I think they are the ONLY people capable of showing the vision, dedication and expertise to produce such a work of art in this capitalist age where profit trumps everything else.

Thank goodness we have guys like Oleg. Any western company would have rushed this out and ruined it by now. And how many western companies would have full time experienced aerospace engineers on the team?

[Kozi]

Oleg,

thank you for the weekly updates and your interaction with the community. I appreciate it very much.

These cockpits are truly superb! Such fine details and dynamic lighting make them so life like.
You and your team are setting a new standard in flight sims.:grin::grin:

There is a small mistake with the Hurricane cockpit.

The reflection on the Artificial Horizon gauge is not showing a true 'mirror image' reflection.

To be correct the semi transparent 'reflection graphic' that is overlayed on the gauge should be flipped horizontally.

This is a (rough) edited version showing the reflection around the right way...

Cheers

[Sutts]

Just look at the rendering of that chain from the trim wheel in shot 4 with the glistening links. I really am speechless.

[Sutts]

Regarding the reflections, I do agree that with a flat glass gauge mounted vertically, you wouldn't see your face reflected in it from your normal seated position...you'd probably see your lower chest/stomach region.

I don't agree that there would be no reflections due to the lower cockpit being dark....it can be very bright up there above the clouds and if your stomach area and the back of the cockpit is in sunlight then that is what you'll clearly see in the gauges.

But hey, the reflections look great and really add to the feeling of being in a real cockpit. A nice touch for sure.

[winny]

this is a very stupid statement...

Didn't this guy do the same thing not long ago and get banned for it?

purewophcet = techpowerup

[tourmaline]

Everything is really comming together now. With this kind of detail, oleg and team will be assured a long life product for years to come.:cool:

Compliments to the team for a superb job.

[Damixu]

Will radars be in game? And if so, can we bomb them and deny radar infomation on certain sector?

[tourmaline]

Will radars be in game? And if so, can we bomb them and deny radar infomation on certain sector?

yes, there will be radar stations on the maps. Not sure about knocking down radar info though. You can only bomb them if you fly german side, ofcourse.;)

[tourmaline]

Didn't this guy do the same thing not long ago and get banned for it?

purewophcet = techpowerup

I don't know what's with the guy but i am drooling...

[major_setback]

Ok, thanks. I am confused, though. If the reflections are rendered that way only when your eyepoint really *is* on the seat then that's fine (not that it ever will be).

But it appears that they are prerendered and do not change dynamically.

When you are flying (with your head on top of your neck ;)) you should see no reflections at all, excepting the Bf109 compass which has convex glass.

It is convex glass so you will see reflected more than that which is straight ahead. Not that it matters because it is purely cosmetic, and will take no more computing power than a layer of dirt (dirty glass) placed over the instruments.

[Abbeville-Boy]

so Oleg, I like the information given when the mouse is near a control, this will help many people. You may remember that I was strongly in favor of having the option for complex management in the pit. I think this was the main reason for MS Flight Simulator's success in the market. Taking the 109 as an example, how many steps are required for the engine to start up, and is the outside (hanger) ambient temperature a factor for a smooth attempt at starting? :grin:

[xnomad]

On the Bf109E panel does anyone know what the functions are for the buttons and instruments located at?:

P15
P14

They aren't in any manuals I have. The P15 looks like it controls the armament, but what are the dials for and what do the counters show?

[Sutts]

so Oleg, I like the information given when the mouse is near a control, this will help many people. You may remember that I was strongly in favor of having the option for complex management in the pit. I think this was the main reason for MS Flight Simulator's success in the market. Taking the 109 as an example, how many steps are required for the engine to start up, and is the outside (hanger) ambient temperature a factor for a smooth attempt at starting? :grin:

I'm a complex systems fan too. SoW will be a huge hit if it manages to combine the complexity of MSX add-ons with the great combat environment of the IL2 series - with options to simplify of course. I'm so pleased the team have given us clickable pits with the promise of more complex systems.

If Oleg can tap into the MS study sim brigade as well as the growing IL2 fan base then sales should be strong for the new title.

[dcart]

Hello M Maddox, it's the first time which I write you. First of all, I would like to say to you a great thanks for the legend IL2, a simulator really ahead of its time during its release and still estimated by a big majority of us.
Quality and seriousness seem to me the best definition for the work made by you and your team. I have a big admiration for the alliance of your artistic vision and your pragmatism.
About SOW, if I am impressed by the visual perfection of cockpits and planes that you show us, as well as by the depiction of the luminosity and the reflections, without forgetting the concern of the historic detail (one of your big strengths), the raised question is bound to the configuration which will be necessary to show such a concern of the detail.
I believe that we are in front of the essential point, the big unknown who until now lives without answer. It is nevertheless the almost essential corollary of the future success (that I wish sincerely) for your ambitious simulation.
Cordialy. Kind regards to you and to your team.

[Foo'bar]

indeed, i think they are the only people capable of showing the vision, dedication and expertise to produce such a work of art in this capitalist age where profit trumps everything else.

Thank goodness we have guys like oleg. Any western company would have rushed this out and ruined it by now. And how many western companies would have full time experienced aerospace engineers on the team?

amen!!!

[=69.GIAP=MORAK]

S! Oleg!
This is also the first time I have written to you. I love the screen shots! But I have 2 question what will be the minimum computer to run this and second.......wait for it.......WHEN DO WE GET TO PLAY!!!!:confused:

All of us at the 69.GIAP follow this development and are eager to get our hands on it!

Thanks Ml. Leyt. MORAK

[philip.ed]

I'm a complex systems fan too. SoW will be a huge hit if it manages to combine the complexity of MSX add-ons with the great combat environment of the IL2 series - with options to simplify of course. I'm so pleased the team have given us clickable pits with the promise of more complex systems.

If Oleg can tap into the MS study sim brigade as well as the growing IL2 fan base then sales should be strong for the new title.

Your last point is wrong. Sales WILL be strong for SoW. Factors like this will only make them stronger :D
SoW will capture the whole flight-sim market, and from what I've heard from other people, many others might be inspired too. Whether you like to admit it, graphics does draw many people into games and SoW just looks wonderful.

[He111]

Indeed, I think they are the ONLY people capable of showing the vision, dedication and expertise to produce such a work of art in this capitalist age where profit trumps everything else.

Thank goodness we have guys like Oleg. Any western company would have rushed this out and ruined it by now. And how many western companies would have full time experienced aerospace engineers on the team?

My experience is Russians generally NOW produce quality over quantity, Zvezda produce quality plastic soldiers better than any other brand. And we know IL2 kicked-butt over the competition.

I'm willing to pay a high premium for a quality game because i know I'll be playing it for years hence, but I won't pay a small price for rubbish because it's just a waste of time.

.

[Dimon]

http://s42.radikal.ru/i098/1010/d0/6fe411baedd9t.jpg (http://radikal.ru/F/s42.radikal.ru/i098/1010/d0/6fe411baedd9.jpg.html)
.

[Ekar]

Simply the best cockpits I've ever seen in a flightsim.

Best in business :)


Nothing else to say :grin:

[major_setback]

I'm a complex systems fan too. SoW will be a huge hit if it manages to combine the complexity of MSX add-ons with the great combat environment of the IL2 series - with options to simplify of course. I'm so pleased the team have given us clickable pits with the promise of more complex systems.

If Oleg can tap into the MS study sim brigade as well as the growing IL2 fan base then sales should be strong for the new title.

+1

Even if MS come up with FSXI they will not be able to compete when it comes to the General Aircraft market especially if we see third-party releases including non-combat and modern aircraft (and considering that third-parties will have the possibility to make their own small maps).

I wonder how well it will work as a train sim..I imagine it will be very simplified though, otherwise that would be another nice market. I could just imagine the frustration of online train simmers, constantly being harassed by pesky dive bombers!:-)

[SlipBall]

quote
Even if MS come up with FSXI they will not be able to compete when it comes to the General Aircraft market



If the SU-26 is in the release, look then for MS to loose many followers rather quickly:grin:

[Insuber]

Don't dream, the force of MSFS is the world-wide base of maps, apart thant the thousands of add-ons for long-courrier flights aficionados.
Given the higher quality of the terrain, I'm afraid that SoW will have a very long way to go to reach such a huge square mileage of maps.

[ElAurens]

Apples and oranges isn't it really?

As I have said many times, MSFS in it's countless variations is not a flight sim. It's a flight procedure simulator. A very different market indeed than a combat flight simulation. I doubt that any of the wannabe ATCs and trans Atlantic "pilots" in the Microsoft product have any clue what a proper FM or DM is, nor do they care. It's all about the procedure of flying, following the script (flight plan) of their "flight" to the letter is what is important to them.

The cattle car driver's viewpoint is very different than ours is.

Where SoW can make inroads into the "civilian" flight sim market will be in aerobatic flying and virtual air racing. Both of which depend a lot on proper modeling of the aircraft both structurally and in terms of the performance envelope.

[Hecke]

Oleg:

It would be good to have the dynamic reflections of the gauges as a graphics option. PCs are getting rapidely faster, so i don't think it's far from now that pcs can handle also these reflections without much fps drop.

[SlipBall]

Apples and oranges isn't it really?


Where SoW can make inroads into the "civilian" flight sim market will be in aerobatic flying and virtual air racing. Both of which depend a lot on proper modeling of the aircraft both structurally and in terms of the performance envelope.


I agree, that's why I'm looking forward to the SU-26 and that I believe, will be the talk of many of the MS aerobatic/racing boards:grin:

[philip.ed]

Oleg:

It would be good to have the dynamic reflections of the gauges as a graphics option. PCs are getting rapidely faster, so i don't think it's far from now that pcs can handle also these reflections without much fps drop.

Maybe for the future, but it's only a small feature, isn't it?

[MOH_Hirth]

Fantastic! really is perfect the cockpit/shadows/reflections! Congratulations!

I am very curious about shells efects impact Canons20/30... machineguns, smokes, hidraulic gears damage, were is the dogfigth "Climax".

[Sutts]

Your last point is wrong. Sales WILL be strong for SoW. Factors like this will only make them stronger :D
SoW will capture the whole flight-sim market, and from what I've heard from other people, many others might be inspired too. Whether you like to admit it, graphics does draw many people into games and SoW just looks wonderful.

Agreed, I think I could have phrased that a little better. There is no doubt at all that Sow sales will rock.:grin:

[Hoverbug]

I was thinking the other day and I remembered pictures of the Gyroscope thing - are there still plans to include this aircraft in the game? I read a Commando comic once which featured one of these gyroscopes shooting down a 109 over the S.E. coast with a single .303 gun!!

You mean "Autogiro". Neither the C.30 nor the C.40 had armament. After BoB there was engagement where a C.30 was jumped by a 190 and the C.30 successfully evaded it. The C.30 had such a limited payload that even a light forward-firing machine gun would have been out of the question. The autogiro's nose-up flight attitude would have made engaging targets nearly impossible anyway. That said, I really do hope the C.30 has made it in.

[kedrednael]

Don't dream, the force of MSFS is the world-wide base of maps, apart thant the thousands of add-ons for long-courrier flights aficionados.
Given the higher quality of the terrain, I'm afraid that SoW will have a very long way to go to reach such a huge square mileage of maps.

The poligon grid size of the map from SOW is adjustable. Oleg already said it was possible to make a map of unlimited size (a sphere)

[major_setback]

Oleg:

It would be good to have the dynamic reflections of the gauges as a graphics option. PCs are getting rapidely faster, so i don't think it's far from now that pcs can handle also these reflections without much fps drop.

We have already been shown dynamic reflections of one kind...though not showing real time reflections...maybe a user will find a way to do that in the future.


http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/?action=view&current=Su-26M_light-on-gauges.flv

http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/?action=view&current=Su-26M_light-on-gauges.flv




From:

http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/


.

[Peffi]

I think the reflections in the instruments should be of the player. You take various pictures of yourself with different expressions that reflect the mood according to the situation. Just shot down a fellow, a grin. Missed a shot, disappointed. Someone on your 6, scared. Looking into the sun, squinting. Needing to take a piss, yellow eyes. Out of ammo, angry, or angry and SCARED!!! if someone is on your 6. Explosions should be so loud that you get a hearing loss and if you get shot down over enemy territory, you should not be allowed to fly again until you have been through a survival-camp for at least 2 months. One should be required to play the game, sorry simulate the BOB, in the shower so that if you ditch the shower is turned on automatically, full cool. Forget getting out within at least 30 minutes. The computer we are playing SOW on, sorry again, SIMULATING on, should be hooked up to a termometer. If it shows a temperature above freezing in the room, sorry the cockpit mock-up, you are sitting in, a warning will sound if you attempt to climb above freezing-level so that you can get into the freezer before you climb any further. All this is essential to a game, sorry again again, a SIMULATOR if it want's to have any credibility what so ever. Oleg, I hope you hear me!

[GOZR]

This is a great news.. Great looking cockpit+ effects and clickable !!! well it gived me faith back into you Oleg ;)

[philip.ed]

Agreed, I think I could have phrased that a little better. There is no doubt at all that Sow sales will rock.:grin:

It's never fealt so good to have phrased your statement wrong :D Not sure how to word this without sounding aggressive though :confused: I hope my eaerlier comment didn't sound too harsh either :D

[Sutts]

It's never fealt so good to have phrased your statement wrong :D Not sure how to word this without sounding aggressive though :confused: I hope my eaerlier comment didn't sound too harsh either :D

Not at all philip. :grin:

[Damixu]

Excellent questions I'd like to get answer too:
1) Multi-Display gaming with adjustable Field-of-View
2) Ability to use DeviceLink and real dials (or other LCD display as dials)

3) And I'd like to know more about plans to introduce other player controlled units to the game (Combined Arms: Anti-Air Artillery, Infantry, Tanks, Ships, etc.)

4) Can SoW game engine to be used to build Massively-Multiplayer-Online game - like on a huge map thousands of player controlled friends or foes on land, sea or air. (Like Battleground Europe: World War II Online game)

this

[Jimko]

Oleg...these beautiful cockpits and panels...nothing I can say that hasn't already been said. The artistry gives them a dimension that should fulfill my wishes for the best cockpit immersion possible with today's technology. If. as well, you have great engine and other device sound effects, then along with the flight modeling the flight experience will be amazing.

These cockpit panels remind me of the kind of work done by Sergey "Araks" Golovachev a few years ago, but these ones are yet even better. I wonder where he is now as I think that he started to work for a flight sim developer...

I wonder if these are the result of one artist's work or have several people collaborated to create these?

Very, very, very well done!

[Friendly_flyer]

When you put the mouse on the lever and press button you may move the mouse... and the lever will also moving.

That will be a very nice feature! It saves me from making separate keyboard mapping for the different planes. Thanks for your attention to details, Oleg!

[Flanker35M]

S!

I remember the Whaa-Whaa when discussing the option of it being clickable. Oleg stated it would be and discussion faded. Now the bandwagon is oohh aaah..Go figure ;) Oleg for sure has put thought to this and not made an half arsed implementation as you can see.

[kalimba]

Just to show that the work over lighting tuning is still there... and due this tuning was changing textures.

So finally you all will get really close to photorealistic picture.

Dear Oleg,

In your statement, is " close to photorealistic" due to the limit of SOW's engine, or actual PC/graphic cards power ?
Do you contemplate a total photorealistic picture, up to your own expectations in a few years with more powerfull PC and SOW's engine at full throtle ? :rolleyes:

Still, I am confident that what we will get at first release will be amazing ! :grin:

SAlute !

[major_setback]

Thanks Oleg for making the cockpit clickable!!! It is a feature I like a lot the few times I fly FSX.

I also like to look around by moving the mouse. I really hope there is some way to have both...maybe by clicking on a mouse button to toggle between an 'activation' mode and a 'view' mode? (The view would have to be locked for activation odf switches).

[Splitter]

Thanks Oleg for making the cockpit clickable!!! It is a feature I like a lot the few times I fly FSX.

I also like to look around by moving the mouse. I really hope there is some way to have both...maybe by clicking on a mouse button to toggle between an 'activation' mode and a 'view' mode? (The view would have to be locked for activation odf switches).

If they implement it like they did in X-Plane, it's just a left click on the mouse to switch between the two modes.

Splitter

[SlipBall]

Thanks Oleg for making the cockpit clickable!!! It is a feature I like a lot the few times I fly FSX.

I also like to look around by moving the mouse. I really hope there is some way to have both...maybe by clicking on a mouse button to toggle between an 'activation' mode and a 'view' mode? (The view would have to be locked for activation odf switches).


I use the CH throttle which has a mini joy stick, that I assigned as a mouse for looking around using their software to configure speed and sensitivity. Naturally I still have my other mouse for the other mundane chores...using my left thumb, the mini stick is actually better and smother than the mouse, I recommend it very highly.:grin:

[Foo'bar]

Is is because of the resolution or do I read "Luftschrauba" here? It should be "Luftschraube" instead.

[Insuber]

S!

I remember the Whaa-Whaa when discussing the option of it being clickable. Oleg stated it would be and discussion faded. Now the bandwagon is oohh aaah..Go figure ;) Oleg for sure has put thought to this and not made an half arsed implementation as you can see.

You're right, and I was wrong. Clickable cockpits look very nice.

Cheers,
Insuber

[Insuber]

Is is because of the resolution or do I read "Luftschrauba" here? It should be "Luftschraube" instead.


On my screen is "e", not "a".

Ins

[dflion]

Indeed, I think they are the ONLY people capable of showing the vision, dedication and expertise to produce such a work of art in this capitalist age where profit trumps everything else.

Thank goodness we have guys like Oleg. Any western company would have rushed this out and ruined it by now. And how many western companies would have full time experienced aerospace engineers on the team?

Following Foo'bars 'Amen' another 'Amen'
DFLion

[Blackdog_kt]

AFAIK the position of the mixture control will be set to get the most efficiency. I've never flown a plane with a CSU or super charging, but I think once your plane is set up at a given RPM/throttle you would alter the mixture to get the correct Exhaust Gas Temperature.

In emergency/combat with full throttle and high RPM's to avoid the possiblity of pre-ignition and detonation, I think you'ld be using full rich mixture most of the time. (less efficient but safer - of course when we're up at 20,000 feet that may be different).

In a light plane it's easy, once you've settled into your cruise you reduce your mixture from rich until you you obtain the highest RMP (indicating the most efficient Fuel/Air mixture) then bump the mixture in a bit so your not running to lean.

[EDIT]
Those throttle quadrants didn't have RPM leavers- Hmmm early fixed pich props maybe????????
[\EDIT



Did you mean shooting down a plane with a Bazooka? or was there another equally impressive scene I missed?

Actually i think they are wondering if the mixture lever operated "backwards". In most planes lever forward=rich. However, i've seen a freeware FSX tiger moth add-on and it too had it backwards (lever back=full rich, while in most cases the full back position is the fuel cut-off). Even more so, if you pulled the throttle back in the Moth it would pull the mixture lever back along with it.

Essentially, it was a crude "auto-mixture" method to ensure that the engine was running rich when at low throttle settings.

As for how mixture is set, it's just like you said. If you have a fixed pitch prop you can do it by leaning for maximum RPM at the given throttle setting. If you have a constant speed prop however the RPMs will be constant. In some cases you can still observe a small jump in the RPM needles until the governor system stabilizes under the new forces.

When this is not possible leaning in general aviation aircraft is done with the help of cokcpit instruments, either a fuel flow/power gauge or an exhaust gas temperature (EGT) gauge. It usually involves leaning for magimum EGT, then enriching just a touch to make sure the engine doesn't run too hot (too lean a mixture can cause somewhat of an overheat).

However, i have absolutely no idea how they did it back then in planes with constant speed props (that don't exhibit enough of an RPM difference to indicate the proper leaning point) but no EGT gauges. It's ok doing it in a civilian aircraft, but when people are shooting at you i guess it's a bit harmful keeping your head inside the cockpit for long periods of time, looking to catch a glimpse of a tiny jump of the RPM needle before it stabilizes again due to the pitch governor. I guess it's one of the reasons that mixture was automated to a large extent early on in many designs, either completely in the German ones, or partially like in the US designs (cut off, full rich, plus two automatic settings, one for auto lean for economy during cruise and one for auto rich to keep temps a bit cooler during climb out and combat).

Maybe it was also done "by ear", listening for changes in the engine's sound? Would be interesting to know.

As for running full rich without taking altitude into account, it won't kill the engine (in fact engines run cooler with richer mixture) but it's generally not advisable if you want to develop any kind of serious power. Restored warbirds run richer than specified in the manuals to preserve their old engines, but back in the day they were more concerned with delivering peak power during combat.
I doubt they would ever go to full rich over 8000 feet or so, unless the engine was starved of fuel/stalling due to battle damage and they tried to keep it running no matter what, at the cost of optimum power.



S!

I remember the Whaa-Whaa when discussing the option of it being clickable. Oleg stated it would be and discussion faded. Now the bandwagon is oohh aaah..Go figure ;) Oleg for sure has put thought to this and not made an half arsed implementation as you can see.

Yeah, i remember that too, almost nobody wanted it :grin:
Just as i was saying at the time, it might not the best interface but it's the easiest one if you want to do in-depth modelling of aircraft systems as we'd be out of available shortcuts (or don't remember them) if we had to map everything to keyboard and HOTAS.
So, it was a question between optionally using the mouse for some controls (i doubt people will be clicking the gun triggers or other vital stuff, things like that will stay on the joystick) in exchange for extra realism, or not using the mouse and not modelling the extra stuff because we lack the controllers for it. The correct answer is of course obvious ;)

[major_setback]

If they implement it like they did in X-Plane, it's just a left click on the mouse to switch between the two modes.

Splitter

I thought you had to hold the spacebar down at the same time as moving the mouse, to look around. I never found a way around that. It meant you needed 3 hands!!
(it's been over a year since I played it - my memory might be bad).

Any tips are welcome.

[major_setback]

Is is because of the resolution or do I read "Luftschrauba" here? It should be "Luftschraube" instead.

You can see it better on another screenshot:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/dial01.jpg

[Skoshi Tiger]

Actually i think they are wondering if the mixture lever operated "backwards". In most planes lever forward=rich. However, i've seen a freeware FSX tiger moth add-on and it too had it backwards (lever back=full rich, while in most cases the full back position is the fuel cut-off). Even more so, if you pulled the throttle back in the Moth it would pull the mixture lever back along with it.

....
However, i have absolutely no idea how they did it back then in planes with constant speed props (that don't exhibit enough of an RPM difference to indicate the proper leaning point) but no EGT gauges. It's ok doing it in a civilian aircraft, but when people are shooting at you i guess it's a bit harmful keeping your head inside the cockpit for long periods of time, looking to catch a glimpse of a tiny jump of the RPM needle before it stabilizes again due to the pitch governor. I guess it's one of the reasons that mixture was automated to a large extent early on in many designs, either completely in the German ones, or partially like in the US designs (cut off, full rich, plus two automatic settings, one for auto lean for economy during cruise and one for auto rich to keep temps a bit cooler during climb out and combat).

Maybe it was also done "by ear", listening for changes in the engine's sound? Would be interesting to know.

As for running full rich without taking altitude into account, it won't kill the engine (in fact engines run cooler with richer mixture) but it's generally not advisable if you want to develop any kind of serious power. Restored warbirds run richer than specified in the manuals to preserve their old engines, but back in the day they were more concerned with delivering peak power during combat.
I doubt they would ever go to full rich over 8000 feet or so, unless the engine was starved of fuel/stalling due to battle damage and they tried to keep it running no matter what, at the cost of optimum power.
...


I found a copy of the MKII Spitfire pilots notes on Zeno's war birds (close as I could find to a MK I)

There is very little said about adjusting mixture except for the pre-start (Mixture Control -RICH), engine test(test cruse power (WEAK mixture) followed by maximum boost (RICH)), and pre-takeoff (Mixture Control - RICH) checklist. Then two paragraphs use WEAK mixture for maximum range and endurance.

The description of the control is as follows
--------------
14 .
Throttle and mixture controls - The throttle and mixture
levers (10 and 11) are fitted in a quadrant on the port
side of the cockpit . A gate is provided for the throttle
lever in the take- off position and an interlocking device
between the levers prevents the engine from being run on
an unsuitable mixture . Friction adjusters ( 8 ) for the
control s are provided on t he side o f the quadrant.
----------------

I guess the pilots had enough on their plates as it was.

I was never quite happy with the mixture in IL-2 which was basically wait for the brown smoke to start coming out and then drop the mixture one step.

Cheers!

[Splitter]

I thought you had to hold the spacebar down at the same time as moving the mouse, to look around. I never found a way around that. It meant you needed 3 hands!!
(it's been over a year since I played it - my memory might be bad).

Any tips are welcome.

Maybe we just have different key assignments?

Splitter

[Zorin]

You can see it better on another screenshot:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/dial01.jpg

Ok, but underneath it reads "Stetlungsanzeige", but it should be "Stellungsanzeige". Duoble l.

[Goanna1]

Artistic, Amazing and very beautiful--
Congratulations and cudos to Oleg and his team

[zapatista]

Just to show that the work over lighting tuning is still there... and due this tuning was changing textures.

So finally you all will get really close to photo realistic picture.

oleg,

that picture looks very very good indeed ! and very nice detail in the scenery seen from lower level altitude (like the other shots from last week, but they were in clearer light).

the in cockpit shots are amazing, bellisimo, magnifico !! pretty stunning detail and realism, the dials and controls look so real its like we can touch them ( and with clickable switches we can :) )

thanks for all the effort and hard work, it's all coming together now it seems !

[Spinnetti]

Love the picture details, HATE that I can't see the pilots arms and legs.. Do Ghosts fly these? When I fly, I can see my arms and legs, why not in game?

[Splitter]

Love the picture details, HATE that I can't see the pilots arms and legs.. Do Ghosts fly these? When I fly, I can see my arms and legs, why not in game?

As was said a couple Fridays ago, many of us don't care if you get what you are asking for as long as we can turn it off :).

I want to see the plane, not the pilot. And besides, Oleg doesn't have a computer generated foot the size of mine so looking down and seeing a little size 9 would totally kill the immersion for me :grin:

Splitter

[tityus]

Nice Cockpits. Very immersive I can barely wait to hear about devicelink and the possibility to use it to feed data to real/physical gauges.

Another question:

Usually in games, users who lower their resolution and opt for using poorer visuals have the advantage of discerning non-scenery elements more easily than those who go the high end road. Is anything planned on SoW to minimize that?

té mais
tityus

[Blackdog_kt]

I found a copy of the MKII Spitfire pilots notes on Zeno's war birds (close as I could find to a MK I)

There is very little said about adjusting mixture except for the pre-start (Mixture Control -RICH), engine test(test cruse power (WEAK mixture) followed by maximum boost (RICH)), and pre-takeoff (Mixture Control - RICH) checklist. Then two paragraphs use WEAK mixture for maximum range and endurance.

The description of the control is as follows
--------------
14 .
Throttle and mixture controls - The throttle and mixture
levers (10 and 11) are fitted in a quadrant on the port
side of the cockpit . A gate is provided for the throttle
lever in the take- off position and an interlocking device
between the levers prevents the engine from being run on
an unsuitable mixture . Friction adjusters ( 8 ) for the
control s are provided on t he side o f the quadrant.
----------------

I guess the pilots had enough on their plates as it was.

I was never quite happy with the mixture in IL-2 which was basically wait for the brown smoke to start coming out and then drop the mixture one step.

Cheers!

That leads me to believe they had automatic mixture systems similar to the ones found on US aircraft (i know for a fact that later Spits did have it, but i didn't know it was available to the early ones too). In these systems, the lever locks at the pre-determined positions and then the automatic system takes over, leaning for best fuel economy when you place it on "weak" or for smoother engine operation when you place it on "rich". That is, even when you leave it alone it's working in the background, especially if you change altitude.
In a manual control system the lever travels the full range without having any pre-determind notch, each movement of the lever affecting the mixture. Any change of altitude means you'll have to manually readjust it.

If i was to say it in a better way, in the manual system the lever directly affects the fuel flow while in the automatic system the lever selects between two different presets for automatic leaning (normal/economy).

It's actually the non-automatic systems i'm wondering about for the reasons i described above: the RPM gauge doesn't provide enough of an indication due to the constant speed prop and i don't know if there's any EGT instruments to provide an alternative aid to leaning manually.


Love the picture details, HATE that I can't see the pilots arms and legs.. Do Ghosts fly these? When I fly, I can see my arms and legs, why not in game?

Because then with our virtual hands in the way we might be unable to click the switches i guess. I wouldn't mind having the pilot in the cockpit, as long as i could turn him off if i need to click on the fuel selector switch before jettisoning my drop tanks. ;)

[Hunden]

Love the picture details, HATE that I can't see the pilots arms and legs.. Do Ghosts fly these? When I fly, I can see my arms and legs, why not in game?

I felt the same a year ago then I came to relize Oleg knows best. How would you model the movement of the arms and hands when there flipping swithes, turning knobs and the such. Wouldn't be a problem with the left hand on the trottle for example. But other movements would have a delay or be ignored.....

[speculum jockey]

Love the picture details, HATE that I can't see the pilots arms and legs.. Do Ghosts fly these? When I fly, I can see my arms and legs, why not in game?

What's with all the people out there who want to stare at virtual pilot's crotches instead of the beautiful cockpits, planes and scenery? When you fly a real plane you can already see your arms and legs in your peripheral vision. They don't need to be added to the game because they are already visible.

If you can't live without gratuitous crotch-shots, follow these instructions.

Step #1: Take a photo of your crotch (or a stranger's if you prefer).

Step #2: Print the photo of the crotch.

Step #3: Cut the outline of the crotch out from the rest of the photo.

Step #4: Paste the photo of the crotch on to the bottom of your monitor.

VOILA!!! You can now see legs at the bottom of your screen.

[Freycinet]

Ok, but underneath it reads "Stetlungsanzeige", but it should be "Stellungsanzeige". Duoble l.

+1.

I really fear that stupid spelling and grammar errors will undermine this seemingly great sim.

It appears to be the weak spot of all sims coming out of Russia, with the possible exception of the DCS series...

[SaQSoN]

It appears to be the weak spot of all sims coming out of Russia, with the possible exception of the DCS series...

I wish, you could read Russian and understand what actually is often written with Cyrillic in many games (and even sims), coming out of Europe or USA. :cool:

Believe me, a few mis-spelled letters in BoB cockpits is nothing, comparing to that.

PS Besides, I am sure, Maddox will fix such spelling errors, whenever you point to them. It is not possible to know everything and that is what testers and community is for.

[BigPickle]

S! great shots Oleg thank you for the update, I'm going to dancing in the shop queue waiting to buy this the day its released.
It would be great to know about the oxygen masks, are they going to be added to the pilot models?

[Oleg Maddox]

S! great shots Oleg thank you for the update, I'm going to dancing in the shop queue waiting to buy this the day its released.
It would be great to know about the oxygen masks, are they going to be added to the pilot models?

The are already long time. It is more simple thanto have pilots with or without helmets, with different suits, etc...that is already.

[Hecke]

Oleg, have you already read about the little spelling mistake on the gauge told about the last few pages?

Or is it just a matter of resolution, that makes it look wrong?

[NSU]

Hi Oleg

can you show us how big the BoB map is?

[philip.ed]

The are already long time. It is more simple thanto have pilots with or without helmets, with different suits, etc...that is already.

Oleg, is there pilot animation for putting on the oxygen mask? I trust you know how it works. Because for an RAF pilot, the d-mask wasn't the easiest mask to put on whilst flying in formation, let alone being in combat!!!! :D

[Snuff_Pidgeon]

Oleg, just curious about reflections on instrument glass, will it reflect external elements as well? For example other aircraft.

[Hecke]

Oleg, just curious about reflections on instrument glass, will it reflect external elements as well? For example other aircraft.

Oleg told they are not dynamic reflections, they are prerendered.

[Snuff_Pidgeon]

Ok, thanks.

[Oleg Maddox]

Oleg, is there pilot animation for putting on the oxygen mask? I trust you know how it works. Because for an RAF pilot, the d-mask wasn't the easiest mask to put on whilst flying in formation, let alone being in combat!!!! :D

We don't plan any complex animation. I told it already.

All pilots have their animation identical by types, doesn't matter from which country.

In principle, any animations, that are in our sim or in any SIM is just for FUN and don't play serious role in a gameplay. The main things must be placed in absolutely other directions.
Pilot is in principle maybe absent in a cockpit, even from external view, but with this the SIM can't be worse in terms of SIM.

Hope for understanding what I tried to tell - we don't make animation of the oxigen mask itself.

[philip.ed]

We don't plan any complex animation. I told it already.

All pilots have their animation identical by types, doesn't matter from which country.

In principle, any animations, that are in our sim or in any SIM is just for FUN and don't play serious role in a gameplay. The main things must be placed in absolutely other directions.
Pilot is in principle maybe absent in a cockpit, even from external view, but with this the SIM can't be worse in terms of SIM.

Hope for understanding what I tried to tell - we don't make animation of the oxigen mask itself.

OK Oleg, that's great and I can see where you're coming from ;)

[domian]

Ok, but underneath it reads "Stetlungsanzeige", but it should be "Stellungsanzeige". Duoble l.

Are you kidding???

I can read "Stellungsanzeige" i think you have to clean your glasses instead to search for nonexisting faults.

By the way, i wonder how long it will takes until the release. Since months the community gets thrown a couple of pictures ever week. I could not realize much movement in the developement. No Sounds, no videos, nothing to to say something about a soon release.

It is the same as every year, sadly. The promises of Oleg, that the playing community will have thousands of players until Oktober 2010 is not come true, once again.

[Stranzki]

Are you kidding???

I can read "Stellungsanzeige" i think you have to clean your glasses instead to search for nonexisting faults.

I've read the same. Just compare t and the l. It really looks like Stetlungsanzeige:


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/dial01.jpg

[NSU]

yes you are right, must be "Stellungsanzeige"

http://www.rareshop.org/eshop/image.php?src=img/125/Stellunganzeige-704.JPG

[domian]

I've read the same. Just compare t and the l. It really looks like Stetlungsanzeige:


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/dial01.jpg

IT IS "Stellungsanzeige"!

The grid pattern in the instrument has no good quality in this enlargement.

[Oleg Maddox]

Mr. Maddox, I've posted these questions before, so I hope you only missed them.

- Is surround gaming (3 screens) being taken into account in development? Flexible FoV? Or will there be an option for users wit 3 screens, to render the view through 3 viewports, like it was done in the racing simulation rFactor?

FOV
http://www.wsgfmedia.com/JKeefe/THUMB_Subviews_OFF.jpg

3 "viewports"
http://www.wsgfmedia.com/JKeefe/THUMB_Subviews_ON.jpg

- Will it be possible to use real DeviceLink cockpit dials in MP? As a way to avoid what could be considered cheating by others, the dials which are destroyed in the game, the real cockpit dials get deactivated through DeviceLink (data output = 0).

- Will we see raindrops on the windscreen, like in the original IL2 demo?

- Will we see rivets on the wing and would they be bump- or normal-mapped?

Thank you.


BoB is working with 3 screens. This is option of video cards now.


Device link will be added later. It will work online. How it will be working in terms of cheating I don't know yet.

In demo of Il-2 there wasn't rain drops on widescreen


rivets on the wings or anywhere on the external view are present where they should. They are drawn and bumpmapped.
If to make them all in 3D this will decrease completely FPS.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Oleg, just one question: AMD Radeon + SoW = compatible? I am looking at the new 6900-series to replace my room heater nVidia ;) Domian: no matter how you spin the pic, it says Stetlungsanzeige instead of Stellungsanzeige.

I have been drooling over the Bf109E cockpit over the last days and I think my tax refund is going to the new computer :D

[Oleg Maddox]

S!

Oleg, just one question: AMD Radeon + SoW = compatible? I am looking at the new 6900-series to replace my room heater nVidia ;) Domian: no matter how you spin the pic, it says Stetlungsanzeige instead of Stellungsanzeige.

I have been drooling over the Bf109E cockpit over the last days and I think my tax refund is going to the new computer :D

Should be compatible with any modern cards if there is not bugs in their drivers.

[Oleg Maddox]

Clickable cocpits.

1. We are not doing completely clickable cockpits. There isn't any button or switch is clickable. We program only these that are using in flight. We don't program all that are using for only the start procedure. And will not use in future. Too much work for a lot of types of cocpits and a lot of functions different from one plane to another.

2. We did popup tips for each gauge or lever, knob, switch that is using in our code for control of aircraft, canopy, etc.

3. We make clickable by mouse these that are useful with the mouse by clicks or clicks+moving (see also item 1). Or will help some third party to program own code with explanation of principles.




All these functions are useful for different devices as well.
If there in future after the release we will find that some devices are not useful, but popular on the market - we may think about addition of other style of control for something.

[philip.ed]

Oleg, how will smashed/cracked canopy glass be modelled? If a crack appears due to damage, will it spread and cause various bits of glass to break away?

[JG1_Wanderfalke]

Oh man, thats bad :(

[SlipBall]

Clickable cocpits.

1. We are not doing completely clickable cockpits. There isn't any button or switch is clickable. We program only these that are using in flight. We don't program all that are using for only the start procedure. And will not use in future. Too much work for a lot of types of cocpits and a lot of functions different from one plane to another.

2. We did popup tips for each gauge or lever, knob, switch that is using in our code for control of aircraft, canopy, etc.

3. We make clickable by mouse these that are useful with the mouse by clicks or clicks+moving (see also item 1). Or will help some third party to program own code with explanation of principles.




All these functions are useful for different devices as well.
If there in future after the release we will find that some devices are not useful, but popular on the market - we may think about addition of other style of control for something.



Disappointing

[philip.ed]

He said it will be possible for third parties develop this later on. What more can you ask for? Just look at those cockpits. If you want click-able cockpits, play your nancy-pancy MFS. It would be cool to do a whole engine-start-procedure, but if this is possible further down the line then that's great.

[JG1_Wanderfalke]

Yeah, i will play my nancy-pancy mfx and i have gorgeous photorealistic textures all over in europe. ^^

[Foo'bar]

Disappointing

Here we go again. These high quality cockpits is way more we've expected ever, isn't it? Third party can modify such things later. Oleg is concentrating on the important things, thats right and good.

Yeah, i will play my nancy-pancy mfx and i have gorgeous photorealistic textures all over in europe. ^^

Yes, and all others will have combat in the air ;)

[JG1_Wanderfalke]

Touché

[Oleg Maddox]

Disappointing

I never promised starting procedure for each aircraft. Instead I always told other things. No for complete starting procedure, no for clickable cockpits.
When we did as a surprise clickable - then dissapointing. Strange...

I think clickable and staring procedure is some different strory isn't it?.

[Oleg Maddox]

Yeah, i will play my nancy-pancy mfx and i have gorgeous photorealistic textures all over in europe. ^^

You'll never have there photorealistic looking life except the pixelated europe or world.

Don't get the wrong the term photorealistic itself.

Using photos for the maps and term photorealistic is way different things.

[Foo'bar]

Oleg please check email, I have some questions concerning buildings and rail.

[pupo162]

Oleg, is clickable thingy mandatory, or can we jsut map everithing to our keybord and divice and dont have to bother to click ? will we still be able ot use the mosue to pan around and to shoot with mosue buttons?

Dont get me wrong clickables are fun scpecialy for big planes/bombers where you have preatty much all time in the world to click and set everithing up, but in combat in fighters i would just like to keep that "hotas" feeling of il2, of being able to do everithing with my engine and plane witout loosing sight from my opponent


cheers

[Dano]

IT IS "Stellungsanzeige"!

The grid pattern in the instrument has no good quality in this enlargement.


It quite clearly is not. Even at the resolution of that shot the two L's would be identical in height, which they clearly aren't.

[JG1_Wanderfalke]

But it looks really nice, we have moving cars ships, trees, many many placed buildings, Ai´s...
water and clouds are great with rex2

[Oleg Maddox]

Oleg, is clickable thingy mandatory, or can we jsut map everithing to our keybord and divice and dont have to bother to click ? will we still be able ot use the mosue to pan around and to shoot with mosue buttons?

Dont get me wrong clickables are fun scpecialy for big planes/bombers where you have preatty much all time in the world to click and set everithing up, but in combat in fighters i would just like to keep that "hotas" feeling of il2, of being able to do everithing with my engine and plane witout loosing sight from my opponent


cheers

Don't worry! When these that will use clickable by mouse feature will be shot down so many times in air because of unrealistic using mouse comparing to the mapped to functions buttons, they will switch off the feature for the normal things - button mapped.

They simply still don't understand the real things. There are not on the market the sims that to compare it on WWII aircraft...
For example.... simple example - Fire button :):):):):):) Hope they will not map it on the function of mouse.

[Oleg Maddox]

But it looks really nice, we have moving cars ships, trees, many many placed buildings, Ai´s...
water and clouds are great with rex2

And still not photorealistic in right terms.

AI? Sorry, except ground control AI and speeches I can't see there the work over AI in principle, comparing to Il-2 of the first release in 2001.

Cars... If you want you may add cars with AI in our sim anywhere...

Clouds, yes - there isn't bad if do do not look for them in the everning or from the very close look

Water? I didn't saw maybe last various, however the Il-2 water was for a long time the best in any fligth sim on maxed out settings in OpenGl.

[Dano]

They simply still don't understand the real things. There are not on the market the sims that to compare it on WWII aircraft...
For example.... simple example - Fire button :):):):):):) Hope they will not map it on the function of mouse.

Couldn't agree more, it's far more realistic to reach out and press a button the keyboard or controller than to use a mouse to click a button on a screen.

[JAMF]

Thank you for the answers, mr. Maddox.BoB is working with 3 screens. This is option of video cards now.In rFactor, the developer created 3 rendering rectangles (view-ports). The outside rectangles are at an angle to the centre rendering rectangle. (very visible in image by the 'bend' in the concrete wall) As far as I know, rFactor is the only sim with this method. All others have one large rectangle. I am hoping for 3 rendering rectangles, but I can understand that there aren't enough "man hours" for this method yet.

Device link will be added later. It will work online. How it will be working in terms of cheating I don't know yet.That is good news.

In demo of Il-2 there wasn't rain drops on widescreen My mistake. I had in memory the rainy P-39 mission, with the raindrops on the glass. :) Nostalgia made the old memory better than it was.

rivets on the wings or anywhere on the external view are present where they should. They are drawn and bumpmapped. Nice! Looking inside and out of the cockpit will be like being in the real plane. It's looking like a beautiful work of art. 8)

[Oleg Maddox]

Oleg please check email, I have some questions concerning buildings and rail.

I did answer them from my new office email.
Maybe it is lost due to this facrt.
Ok, will try to find or write again

[philip.ed]

Oleg, with the parachutes, if I bailed out and drifted towards a wooded area would my pilot simply fall through the invisible trees and land on the ground, or would the parachute get stuck in the trees(s)?

[Hecke]

Oleg, when will your event with nvidia be?^^ I hope you can show us a gameplay video then with as much as possible maxed out graphics settings and AA turned on. I'm so excited. :grin:

[Oleg Maddox]

Oleg, with the parachutes, if I bailed out and drifted towards a wooded area would my pilot simply fall through the invisible trees and land on the ground, or would the parachute get stuck in the trees(s)?

Currently with its animation fall through without additional animation and special clipping.

[BG-09]

Oleg, would you implement direct relation between the fire temperature and the speed of the burning aircraft, because of strong oxygen supply in to the fire on board of the burning aircraft? Extreme temperatures must destroy the aircraft way much faster, than if the aircraft is just burning as a log in to the fireplace on the ground. Dependences must be:

Higher air speed=more oxygen in to the fire=extreme temperatures=faster destruction of the aircraft.

I have read, the memoirs of Johannes Steinchoff, and he wrote, that the propellers of the Bf-109 in Sicily were shining at the sun as a mirror, because they where polished as mirrors from the dust picked in to the air by the aircraft starting in front of the next Bf-109. The dust in to the air have polished the air propeller, because of the rotation of the propeller in to the dusty air full with sand. The mix of dust and sand acts just as sandpaper at the paint and the metal. Please consider this effect, and implement it in SoW.

~Regards!

[philip.ed]

Thanks Oleg. Is it possible for the parachute to get caught? So does this mean the trees are just invisible objects?

[mazex]

I've read the same. Just compare t and the l. It really looks like Stetlungsanzeige:


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/dial01.jpg

Well, whatever the text, the instrument itself has as many polys as a T34 in IL2 ;)

[Oleg Maddox]

Thanks Oleg. Is it possible for the parachute to get caught? So does this mean the trees are just invisible objects?

No it doesn't means.
It means just for parachutes. We don't plan to make the hanged trooper on a chute, that was hooked on a tree.

[Oleg Maddox]

Well, whatever the text, the instrument itself has as many polys as a T34 in IL2 ;)

Something like this. Yes.

[Oleg Maddox]

Oleg, would you implement direct relation between the fire temperature and the speed of the burning aircraft, because of strong oxygen supply in to the fire on board of the burning aircraft? Extreme temperatures must destroy the aircraft way much faster, than if the aircraft is just burning as a log in to the fireplace on the ground. Dependences must be:

Higher air speed=more oxygen in to the fire=extreme temperatures=faster destruction of the aircraft.

I have read, the memoirs of Johannes Steinchoff, and he wrote, that the propellers of the Bf-109 in Sicily were shining at the sun as a mirror, because they where polished as mirrors from the dust picked in to the air by the aircraft starting in front of the next Bf-109. The dust in to the air have polished the air propeller, because of the rotation of the propeller in to the dusty air full with sand. The mix of dust and sand acts just as sandpaper at the paint and the metal. Please consider this effect, and implement it in SoW.

~Regards!

We have some modeling depending of altitude....

As for prop, when we will probably model conditions of aircraft use in Sakhara, then probably shinning of such type maybe present.

[SaQSoN]

Thanks Oleg. Is it possible for the parachute to get caught? So does this mean the trees are just invisible objects?

He said above that trees do not affect paratroopers, they just fall through. The trees are quite well visible, or so it seems from the screenshots, at least.

PS Too late. :)

[mazex]

Love the picture details, HATE that I can't see the pilots arms and legs.. Do Ghosts fly these? When I fly, I can see my arms and legs, why not in game?

Hate is a strong word when talking about minor cosmetic features of a consumer simulator that you will buy for 50$ ;)

My personal opinion: As there is no game to date that I know of that has done this good combined with stuff like TrackIR (name one if you have a good example) it will rather lower the immersion for me having it included. I would rather see the "bonus feature" time spent on stuff like animated ground crew pulling the chocks away and giving a thumbs up before take off etc...

[winny]

Hi Oleg, I have a quick question about the terrain.

Did you use satllite images and then 'fix' them to match with 1940 or did you start from scratch? just wondering. Thanks.

[Osprey]

I never promised starting procedure for each aircraft. Instead I always told other things. No for complete starting procedure, no for clickable cockpits.
When we did as a surprise clickable - then dissapointing. Strange...

I think clickable and staring procedure is some different strory isn't it?.

I agree. Who wants to sit there going through a painful pre-check each time.

DCS Blackshark had a 40+ point procedure to start the engines, it was the singular reason I binned it

[Allen63]

I love the cockpits.

Could it be that the finish on the instruments mirrors NOT the reality of the actual Battle of Britain but what one sees in MUSEUMS?

I do wonder about the "wear", "paint fading", "discolorations" shown.

The wear shown seems to indicate months or years in the weather or months of being "banged on" by pilots and ground crew. Presumably, at the BoB, many aircraft were new or only in service a matter of many weeks. Of course, a different theater would be different -- e.g. desert conditions.

I have several antique, original WW2 fighter cockpit instruments on display in my office (from Pacific and European theaters). After 65 years, their finishes don't look any worse than the SoW instruments -- maybe better in some ways.

If time permits, it would be nice to have some textures representing aircraft or individual instruments recently off the production line.

[Hecke]

I love the cockpits.

Could it be that the finish on the instruments mirrors NOT the reality of the actual Battle of Britain but what one sees in MUSEUMS?

I do wonder about the "wear", "paint fading", "discolorations" shown.

The wear shown seems to indicate months or years in the weather or months of being "banged on" by pilots and ground crew. Presumably, at the BoB, many aircraft were new or only in service a matter of many weeks. Of course, a different theater would be different -- e.g. desert conditions.

I have several antique, original WW2 fighter cockpit instruments on display in my office (from Pacific and European theaters). After 65 years, their finishes don't look any worse than the SoW instruments -- maybe better in some ways.

If time permits, it would be nice to have some textures representing aircraft or individual instruments recently off the production line.

+1

That's exactly what I was thinking. I think Oleg's artists overdid it quite a bit.

[Insuber]

You're right, and I was wrong. Clickable cockpits look very nice.

Cheers,
Insuber

Now I'm right again, because clickable cockpits only in flight (not for startup) are pretty much useless, as I said then and now. Maybe 1% of people will use it.

Cheers,
Insu

[Hecke]

For example here. Why is there circular abrasion? The stick never touches it?
I so much hope we will have less worn cockpits also.

[zapatista]

Thank you for the answers, mr. Maddox.In rFactor, the developer created 3 rendering rectangles (view-ports). The outside rectangles are at an angle to the centre rendering rectangle. (very visible in image by the 'bend' in the concrete wall) As far as I know, rFactor is the only sim with this method. All others have one large rectangle. I am hoping for 3 rendering rectangles

Jamf,

you make a very good point there, but hard to understand for non-english natives

can you make that same point but with illustrations to document what you mean ? for your previous comparison picture maybe add some arrows etc

i think it is a very important question for multi monitor users, and if oleg understands the issue i am sure he will check for it (or reply its to late to change if he cant)

[philip.ed]

Is the cockpits wear and tear such a huge deal? I'm sure if they looked pristine, a similar amount of people would complain that they look like plastic and are too new and shiney. If we are starting the campaign as sergeant pilots, we'll get the oldest bus anyway :P

[Foo'bar]

For example here. Why is there circular abrasion? The stick never touches it?
I so much hope we will have less worn cockpits also.

I can imagine that the pilot's glove would do that. For me that kind of slight abraison is truely credible.

Is the cockpits wear and tear such a huge deal? I'm sure if they looked pristine, a similar amount of people would complain that they look like plastic and are too new and shiney. If we are starting the campaign as sergeant pilots, we'll get the oldest bus anyway :P

True words.

[Sutts]

I am disappointed about no startup procedure. Hopefully third parties can deliver the goodies at a later date. I'm quite happy to wait.

I think many folk have got the wrong idea about these procedures. On most fighters they are very straight forward with very few steps to remember. It's the little details that sometimes give the immersion. For instance the way the engine behaves when you over/under prime it...makes it feel like you're operating a real engine.

I do hope we don't have instant oil pressure and engine temperature. Things like that really kill it for me. I'm hoping the days of hitting the start key, firewalling the throttle and taking off are well and truly over.

At the end of the day I can live without the fully clickable pit but it would be nice to see most systems modelled correctly, either by Oleg or third parties.

[JtD]

Now I'm right again, because clickable cockpits only in flight (not for startup) are pretty much useless, as I said then and now. Maybe 1% of people will use it.

Probably the same 1% that will use a clickable cockpit for startup procedure.

[rollnloop]

I intend to use the mouse for every "no need instinctive access" function.

I' ll most probably will use keyboard for gear, flaps, guns, bombs, and so on, but if there are advanced functions like "select fuel tank", "select preset radio frequency" "switch magnetos on", "press ignition buttons", "use boost pumps", "set reticle lighting" "switch windshield deicing" and so on, i'll use the mouse for these, just to know where the levers and buttons are and when and why use them is extremely immersive imho.

I am very happy to know cockpits are clickable and hope 3rd party will add many clicking functions.

[Antoninus]

Dito. There is plenty of time to use the mouse when you're not engaged in combat; and no need to access many functions during a dogfight.

[Foo'bar]

Oleg, we think that we've found an error at the oil temp gauge (Fl20343). The Emil did have a switchable gauge wich can indicate both incoming and outgoing oil temp. For this one have to press the knob in upper right. Those switchable gauges have a description on it "drücken: Eintr.-Temp." (press: incoming temp) I know that the drawing is from 1942, anyway the description on the gauge is missing.

Beside that the scale has to be from 0 to 160°C imho. Please see the attached picture for further informations.

[Sutts]

I intend to use the mouse for every "no need instinctive access" function.

I' ll most probably will use keyboard for gear, flaps, guns, bombs, and so on, but if there are advanced functions like "select fuel tank", "select preset radio frequency" "switch magnetos on", "press ignition buttons", "use boost pumps", "set reticle lighting" "switch windshield deicing" and so on, i'll use the mouse for these, just to know where the levers and buttons are and when and why use them is extremely immersive imho.

I am very happy to know cockpits are clickable and hope 3rd party will add many clicking functions.

Well put rollnloop. I don't think anyone is arguing we should be using mouse clicks while in a combat situation...that would be madness.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Thank you for the answer Oleg. So it seems I can safely buy the new high end Radeons next month :D Their drivers have improved a lot and in DirectX 11 they are working just fine and in new OpenGL versions 3.2 and above. For some people it is just easier to blame the driver maker rather than bug in a game code..compare to the FPS games where both nVidia and AMD have problems due bad coding so they have to make own hotfixes or workarounds.

As of the clickable cockpit. Fair enough on the start-up. But the bandwagon should remember that even we have clickable cockpit to a degree, MOST do NOT use the important things with mouse but on a HOTAS or similar. I will use the least needed functions with mouse and program most critical ones to the HOTAS as I've done with IL-2. So really no use to make mouse control look bad. And there is a plethora of simulation stuff(extra switch/rotary boards, multithrottles etc) you can buy to make a cockpit like environment ;)

Soon I run out of time, RoF, SoW, IL-2 and EVE Online..aaargh!!:D

[6S.Manu]

Now I'm right again, because clickable cockpits only in flight (not for startup) are pretty much useless, as I said then and now. Maybe 1% of people will use it.

Cheers,
Insu

LoL, ora ti firmi Insu!!! :D

Hi everyone,
For sure I won't use the clickable cockpit option (I've tried in other games but I can't stand the micro movement of my TIR) but I would like to be forced to use the instruments during the flight/fight more than we do in IL2.

Infact I would like to not have the istant alert on screen (overheat!, flap jammed, ect);

There were many little episodes that could you make you lose SA: for example there is an chapter in "The big show" where the author was to kill a 190 when he had an issue with the gunsight: after he manually checked it the german was gone until he found it behind himself.

So it would be nice if Oleg had found out a good compromise; swearing against a little moving arrow because your head keep moving and you can't aim correctly is not really realistic, but at the same time controlling the entire airplane controls without having to search them with your eyes is not really realistic too.

The right thing should be, IMO, that is you press a particular control that is needed to be ID on the cockpit panel (so not the controls on stick nor the throttle) then your sight will automatically move on the controls for 1 or 2 seconds after the key has being pressed.

In that 1-2 seconds you could have lost sight with the enemy. So more advance planes who don't need switching between 20 levers to stay inflight (chargers, mixtures ect) could take an real advantage even ingame.

I wish Oleg could take in consideration this idea for the next step on the SoW engine.

[Azimech]

Oleg, would you implement direct relation between the fire temperature and the speed of the burning aircraft, because of strong oxygen supply in to the fire on board of the burning aircraft? Extreme temperatures must destroy the aircraft way much faster, than if the aircraft is just burning as a log in to the fireplace on the ground. Dependences must be:

Higher air speed=more oxygen in to the fire=extreme temperatures=faster destruction of the aircraft.


Higher airspeed means more oxygen but also more cooling. It doesn't always work that way, it's the difference between blowing out a candle or trying to blow out your gas stove which is burning at max. Not every fire has the same intensity. Hydraulic oil, engine oil and fuel all have different properties.


I have read, the memoirs of Johannes Steinchoff, and he wrote, that the propellers of the Bf-109 in Sicily were shining at the sun as a mirror, because they where polished as mirrors from the dust picked in to the air by the aircraft starting in front of the next Bf-109. The dust in to the air have polished the air propeller, because of the rotation of the propeller in to the dusty air full with sand. The mix of dust and sand acts just as sandpaper at the paint and the metal. Please consider this effect, and implement it in SoW.


That's bad news for wooden props.

[Azimech]

Infact I would like to not have the istant alert on screen (overheat!, flap jammed, ect);


Agreed.



So it would be nice if Oleg had found out a good compromise; swearing against a little moving arrow because your head keep moving and you can't aim correctly is not really realistic, but at the same time controlling the entire airplane controls without having to search them with your eyes is not really realistic too.

The right thing should be, IMO, that is you press a particular control that is needed to be ID on the cockpit panel between (so not the controls on stick nor the throttle) then your sight will automatically move on the controls for 1 or 2 seconds after the key has being pressed.

In that 1-2 seconds you could have lost sight with the enemy. So more advance planes who don't need switching between 20 levers to stay inflight (chargers, mixtures ect) could take an real advantage even ingame.


Bad idea.

Pilots were trained to know and operate every important control without looking. I've seen training films with pilots blindfolded on the ground in their cockpits while the instructor was testing them.

It's the same what I do, I have six levers and 12 buttons for my left hand. I don't look, I just operate them from memory.

[Insuber]

Probably the same 1% that will use a clickable cockpit for startup procedure.

I for one would be happy to use a clickable procedure for startup, not in-flight ... not very practical to leave the stick alone and use the mouse ...

[Insuber]

The right thing should be, IMO, that is you press a particular control that is needed to be ID on the cockpit panel (so not the controls on stick nor the throttle) then your sight will automatically move on the controls for 1 or 2 seconds after the key has being pressed.

In that 1-2 seconds you could have lost sight with the enemy. So more advance planes who don't need switching between 20 levers to stay inflight (chargers, mixtures ect) could take an real advantage even ingame.

I wish Oleg could take in consideration this idea for the next step on the SoW engine.

+1 that's really a good idea! switching the view to the particular gauge or light for 1 or 2 seconds after pressing the relevant key is a very realistc rendering of the real thing!

Bravo Manu!

[Azimech]

I for one would be happy to use a clickable procedure for startup, not in-flight ... not very practical to leave the stick alone and use the mouse ...

Replace "not very practical" with "ludicrous".

[bolox]

first off fantastic job on the cockpits:grin::grin::grin:
the reflections are really good- compliments to the artist
little errors:-

the P type compass in British fighters- fantastic you've put the correct parralel lines in but the cardinal points are marked in 'white' with North under a red square(triangle for bombers)
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff27/bolox00/brit%20gauges/P4compass3400.jpg

hurricane asi appears to have 2 needles

oxy regulator labelling should be a type VIIIA
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff27/bolox00/brit%20gauges/1AMKVIIOxyReg001.jpg
(but your gauge faces are more typical;) )

spitfire clock has been discussed before- you appear to have a smaller, later pattern clock. a larger more flush mounted type was 'standard' fittment
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff27/bolox00/brit%20gauges/Spitclock1large.jpg
tho 12hr pattern was more typical.

spit rudder pedals- again discussed previously- should not be the later 'double step' pedals but the earlier pattern for both MK I and II (source MKII pilots notes)

may i also add to the chorus of pleas for any information possible on devicelink with a little example of what is possible with this in IL2
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff27/bolox00/devicelink/brit-gen1.jpg

hoping to be able to do more in SOW

[6S.Manu]

Bad idea.

Pilots were trained to know and operate every important control without looking. I've seen training films with pilots blindfolded on the ground in their cockpits while the instructor was testing them.

It's the same what I do, I have six levers and 12 buttons for my left hand. I don't look, I just operate them from memory.

Infact I stated that it should work only for controls who need to be ID on the panel. I know that a pilot must be trained to use basic controls without looking at.

But where are controls that, IMO, needs to be checked manually.
Look at the right panel on this mig3 cockpit: look at the number of levers.. IF I have to switch something I can't believe that a pilot could do it blindfolded.

http://www.avsim.com/pages/0102/il-2/mig3cockpit2.jpg

An extreme example: if you have to change the light bulb of your gunsight I would like to have the complete animation. I'm scared by the "press SHIFT+G key" to instant change the light bulb.

[JAMF]

Jamf,

you make a very good point there, but hard to understand for non-english natives

can you make that same point but with illustrations to document what you mean ? for your previous comparison picture maybe add some arrows etc

i think it is a very important question for multi monitor users, and if oleg understands the issue i am sure he will check for it (or reply its to late to change if he cant)
Sure Zapatista, here is my attempt at a graphical explanation:

One viewport, extreme left and right have stretched objects and stretched textures
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8238/thumbsubviewsoff.jpg


http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/5131/3renderviewports.jpg

3 viewports, extreme left and right objects with very little distortions.
http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/1965/thumbsubviewsonedges.jpg


I do hope this rendering will happen more in the future, as I do believe 3 displays (or more) is the future. Much like TrackIR was a big jump in immersive gaming, the so-called "surround gaming" is the next big step in immersiveness.

(We don't have affordable high-res head-mounted-displays yet, to put us "in" the cockpit.)

[JVM]

Oleg, we think that we've found an error at the oil temp gauge (Fl20343). The Emil did have a switchable gauge wich can indicate both incoming and outgoing oil temp. For this one have to press the knob in upper right. Those switchable gauges have a description on it "drücken: Eintr.-Temp." (press: incoming temp)

Beside that the scale has to be from 0 to 160°C imho. Please see the attached picture for further informations.


Hello Foo'bar!

You sure about that? Your drawing is from 1942 and you are mentioning what presumably is the most recent instrument (1043A). Apparently the variant completely on the left 1042S is indeed 120°C. It would not struck me as impossible that the 109E DB601A or N which was comparatively less powerful and running less hot than a 1942 109G2, with its quite more powerful DB605?

Just wondering...

JV

PS Did you see my little K5 work?

[Foo'bar]

Hello Jean-Valéry,

the gauge has a knob to switch and imho therefore there's a description missing, no matter if a 1942 or 1940 built gauge. About 120°C or 160°C indeed I'm not shore though.

About the kmz file I first have to install Google Earth first because I've assambled a new rig recently. As soon I got GE I will comment it at Foo'rum. Thanks so long, mate! :)

[Hunden]

For example here. Why is there circular abrasion? The stick never touches it?
I so much hope we will have less worn cockpits also.

thats from the right hand glove :grin:

[JG1_Wanderfalke]

Nice Details

[SaQSoN]

Nice Details

Photographic textures... What a pathetic look.

[Antoninus]

I for one would be happy to use a clickable procedure for startup, not in-flight ... not very practical to leave the stick alone and use the mouse ...

You still have two hands. In some real fighters pilots had to manually raise the landing gear with their right hand directly after take off and other stuff do to. Might not be practical but WW2 weren't the most ergonomic crates.

You can (and should) trim your plane.

[Avimimus]

Photographic textures... What a pathetic look.

Go easy on it ;)

Compared to Oleg's technique - yes it is dramatically weaker.

However, back in the old days - when few objects could be rendered and textures were low detail - it was a good and even superior technique. I remember Jane's IAF - you could actually recognise individual valleys by their erosion patterns! Each pixel was unique - that has got to count for something)

[speculum jockey]

For example here. Why is there circular abrasion? The stick never touches it?
I so much hope we will have less worn cockpits also.

The circular abrasion is from the semi-skilled labourer who installed it in the Messerschmitt factory with leather gloves covered in metal shavings. He wasn't that worried about scratching the paint on the inside of the cockpit since his shift-boss made it quite clear they were 15% behind on their monthly quota, "and maybe he could be replaced by some skilled French machinists who get paid 1/2 as much as he does". The rest of the interior wearing is from him and other similar labourers hurriedly climbing in and out of the cockpit a few hundred times while installing and connecting instruments and controls, all the while scraping their boots and tools around the inside of it.

Christ! Do you want this game to be released some time within the next three years, or are you willing to wait for Oleg to have the "dynamic mud" aspect ironed out so that the cockpit floor is extra dirty if the airfield was wet that morning?

Incorrect gauges and marking are one thing, but . . . wait! You've never kissed a girl have you?

[Insuber]

The circular abrasion is from the semi-skilled labourer who installed it in the Messerschmitt factory with leather gloves covered in metal shavings. He wasn't that worried about scratching the paint on the inside of the cockpit since his shift-boss made it quite clear they were 15% behind on their monthly quota, "and maybe he could be replaced by some skilled French machinists who get paid 1/2 as much as he does". The rest of the interior wearing is from him and other similar labourers hurriedly climbing in and out of the cockpit a few hundred times while installing and connecting instruments and controls, all the while scraping their boots and tools around the inside of it.

Christ! Do you want this game to be released some time within the next three years, or are you willing to wait for Oleg to have the "dynamic mud" aspect ironed out so that the cockpit floor is extra dirty if the airfield was wet that morning?

Incorrect gauges and marking are one thing, but . . . wait! You've never kissed a girl have you?

LOL! As I said before, "the perfect is the enemy of the good". If Oleg listens to someone here, we will get SoW in 2025 ... Go on Oleg, finish the job and pass to your next project ...

[Blackdog_kt]

I agree. Who wants to sit there going through a painful pre-check each time.

DCS Blackshark had a 40+ point procedure to start the engines, it was the singular reason I binned it

Blackshark is a modern aircraft. Most WW2 fighters need 5-10 button presses and guess what, since all of them use piston engines the sequence is pretty much identical. It's not a question of what's best, it's a question of what floats your boat and how you want to play your game.
So, just because all some people want to do is point and shoot doesn't mean they should force their preferred difficulty level on the rest.

I'm slightly disappointed that we won't have complete start-ups, but i understand that things like that take time. I won't hold it against the developers, especially since they say we'll be able to modify things and model it ourselves down the road. It's just a minor incovenience for me.

The important part is to have the dependencies between aircraft systems modelled. This IS a big deal because it affects damage models and tactical considerations for the player. For example, cascading system failures...you get hit, suffer a blown up oxygen tank and have to dive to lower altitudes in order not to die of hypoxia...however, your generator is also smashed and you're running on battery power, temperature changes also affect your battery life and temperature can change with altitude, so what do you do? That's the stuff i'm talking about, not having to click for start-up per se. The bottom line is, point and shoot is not enough in this time and age and it seems team Maddox understands that, even if not everything is modelled due to time constraints.


I am disappointed about no startup procedure. Hopefully third parties can deliver the goodies at a later date. I'm quite happy to wait.

I think many folk have got the wrong idea about these procedures. On most fighters they are very straight forward with very few steps to remember. It's the little details that sometimes give the immersion. For instance the way the engine behaves when you over/under prime it...makes it feel like you're operating a real engine.

I do hope we don't have instant oil pressure and engine temperature. Things like that really kill it for me. I'm hoping the days of hitting the start key, firewalling the throttle and taking off are well and truly over.

At the end of the day I can live without the fully clickable pit but it would be nice to see most systems modelled correctly, either by Oleg or third parties.

Fully agree.


I intend to use the mouse for every "no need instinctive access" function.

I' ll most probably will use keyboard for gear, flaps, guns, bombs, and so on, but if there are advanced functions like "select fuel tank", "select preset radio frequency" "switch magnetos on", "press ignition buttons", "use boost pumps", "set reticle lighting" "switch windshield deicing" and so on, i'll use the mouse for these, just to know where the levers and buttons are and when and why use them is extremely immersive imho.

I am very happy to know cockpits are clickable and hope 3rd party will add many clicking functions.

That's exactly my idea. Critical things stay on keyboard and stick buttons, secondary controls that you fiddle with while not in combat are nice to operate with the mouse and not have to memorize a bazillion keyboard commands.

[Foo'bar]

but . . . wait! You've never kissed a girl have you?

Or already enough :D

[Azimech]

But I like to memorize a bazillion keyboard commands!

;)

[Peffi]

Photographic textures... What a pathetic look.

Cheeses kraist! What's wrong with you...! :confused:

[Peffi]

Go on Oleg, finish the job and pass to your next project ...

Hear hear! The paint is just about dry and the tanks are full. It's time to scramble and get the bird in the air!

[Oleg Maddox]

Hi Oleg, I have a quick question about the terrain.

Did you use satllite images and then 'fix' them to match with 1940? just wondering. Thanks.


Yes, but not everywhere.

[philip.ed]

I hear that WoP used 1940 satellite images for the Dover area. Did you do this too, Oleg?

[zapatista]

Sure Zapatista, here is my attempt at a graphical explanation:

One viewport, extreme left and right have stretched objects and stretched textures
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8238/thumbsubviewsoff.jpg


http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/5131/3renderviewports.jpg

3 viewports, extreme left and right objects with very little distortions.
http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/1965/thumbsubviewsonedges.jpg


I do hope this rendering will happen more in the future, as I do believe 3 displays (or more) is the future. Much like TrackIR was a big jump in immersive gaming, the so-called "surround gaming" is the next big step in immersiveness.

(We don't have affordable high-res head-mounted-displays yet, to put us "in" the cockpit.)

oleg,

could you please look at that question for a moment ?

for many of us that are starting to use multiple monitors in games in the last few years, this is a critical question !

particularly since what you are deciding on right now could lock BoB-SoW into one or the other way of dealing with the viewpoints, and might be much harder to change later

will BoB be able to provide the better "3 viewports" type of view that e-racer (car racing game) now provides ? this is technically the much better option for using multiple monitors around you (like 3 x 24' for ex ).

the "bad" way, like is doing by most other older games now, is to mimic a big flat screen in front of you, with all monitors next to each other in a line. placing those monitors in a V shape around you is the natural and best position for flightsim's and car driving sims (so you can keep viewing distance from your eye to each screen the same on all 3 monitors, otherwise for ex the "dots" of distant il2 aircraft would shrink in size to much by placing the left and right monitor further away from your eye then the centre one).

please consider this technical point :)

[Oleg Maddox]

B.

I think that we are modeling so many things in each aircraft that never was modelled in any single aircraft sim.

Start procedure do not affect these systems and complexity of modelling.

Each aircraft in our sim may have from 300 to 500+ parameters of modeling.

Say me is there the sim that would model the work of the piston compressor in a cockpit of bomber?
Or is there any sim that would model the work of each cylinder of engine?
Or various of propellers and its reductors?
various of pitch mechanisms?
The work of carburauter? Its diameter of airintake that calculate the airflow dencity in there?
Or maybe you can name the flight sim where in the damage is included the case of tires pinhole and its result?
Where, like in Il-2 for the first time in the world, then now in our sim modelled on the new very high level of precise and phycically (in 3D) all the trip rods to ailerons, elevator, rudder, etc? That can be all damahged separately with its result to control and flight?
Where in a sim modelled some (not all) eletrical wires that can be also damaged in a system of DM?

Can you sayme where in other game is modelling many of these thigns in 3D that to get right place of the hit result instead of randome program table of switchable failure?


Resume:
Complete starting procedure doesn't means the modeling of the things described above.... Trust me
We did way more complex work in general.
Like we did for the first time in the world the co-called in the past Complex Damage Model in Il-2 series.

[Oleg Maddox]

I hear that WoP used 1940 satellite images for the Dover area. Did you do this too, Oleg?

Please read what you wrote.... Gagarin started in space in 1961. Just to remind.

[philip.ed]

Please read what you wrote.... Gagarin started in space in 1961. Just to remind.

Sorry, I see what you mean. :o

They used aerial images :oops: My mistake.

There were a large number of aerial images taken around the time of 1940 (and before as well) and these were used by the team behind WoP extensively. Have you used these too?

[Oleg Maddox]

1. On most fighters they are very straight forward with very few steps to remember. It's the little details that sometimes give the immersion.


2. For instance the way the engine behaves when you over/under prime it...makes it feel like you're operating a real engine.

3. At the end of the day I can live without the fully clickable pit but it would be nice to see most systems modelled correctly, either by Oleg or third parties.

1. I think you didn't read starting procedures of WWII time figters... and bombers...Its not very few. Usually more than 20 steps.

2. You'll get more immersion with what we are modeling.

3. Systems and starting procedure is different thing. We model the system(s), instead of table for the start of engine.

[Trumper]

Clickable cocpits.

1. We are not doing completely clickable cockpits. There isn't any button or switch is clickable. We program only these that are using in flight. We don't program all that are using for only the start procedure. And will not use in future. Too much work for a lot of types of cocpits and a lot of functions different from one plane to another.

2. We did popup tips for each gauge or lever, knob, switch that is using in our code for control of aircraft, canopy, etc.

3. We make clickable by mouse these that are useful with the mouse by clicks or clicks+moving (see also item 1). Or will help some third party to program own code with explanation of principles.







All these functions are useful for different devices as well.
If there in future after the release we will find that some devices are not useful, but popular on the market - we may think about addition of other style of control for something.

That is a backward step if i understand this properly.I think the translation may not be very clear [hopefully].
You have seen BoB11 WOV ,some of the switches and controls are clickable or moveable by dragging your mouse over it,it adds a HUGE amount of immersion to the sim.
You can use either the mouse /and or switches you have mapped to your joystick
It is not perfect by all means as some of the hit boxes on the switches are not always 100% accurate BUT it is there if you want to try it.
I hope it will be worked on in the future,after all BOB pilots didn't have multi switched joysticks as we do,they had separate prop pitch levers,fuel cocks,magnetos,they had to do it and fight to survive.
I hope it will be looked into in the future it is a basic ingredient.

[Oleg Maddox]

Sorry, I see what you mean. :o

They used aerial images :oops: My mistake.

There were a large number of aerial images taken around the time of 1940 (and before as well) and these were used by the team behind WoP extensively. Have you used these too?

When I was asking them for the photos of Dover that they were using they only said that they used the sattelite map... That wasn't interesting for me. And they didn't give me even that photo.
Next time I will think about other forms of business when I'll give the source code and all our own models to third parties for their projects.

I have a lot of photos of Dover from different altitudes and views how it was looking in 1930-40.
There is so many things in reality.... that we even can't model for that time... but it is a bit more detailed that you may find in any other sim.

[Oleg Maddox]

That is a backward step if i understand this properly.

Please read above couple of my posts what is clickable cockpit switches instead of serious modeling of the systems or program table starting procedure VS modeling of real systems work :)

[The Kraken]

I hope it will be worked on in the future,after all BOB pilots didn't have multi switched joysticks as we do,they had separate prop pitch levers,fuel cocks,magnetos,they had to do it and fight to survive.

And did they operate those with a mouse?

[Stachel]

Mr. Maddox,

The cockpit images are stunning. I think they are even more realistic than the A2A team which creates excellent FSX aircraft. I eagerly await release date.

[Osprey]

I think that we are modeling so many things in each aircraft that never was modelled in any single aircraft sim.

Start procedure do not affect these systems and complexity of modelling.

Each aircraft in our sim may have from 300 to 500+ parameters of modeling.

Say me is there the sim that would model the work of the piston compressor in a cockpit of bomber?
Or is there any sim that would model the work of each cylinder of engine?
Or various of propellers and its reductors?
various of pitch mechanisms?
The work of carburauter? Its diameter of airintake that calculate the airflow dencity in there?
Or maybe you can name the flight sim where in the damage is included the case of tires pinhole and its result?
Where, like in Il-2 for the first time in the world, then now in our sim modelled on the new very high level of precise and phycically (in 3D) all the trip rods to ailerons, elevator, rudder, etc? That can be all damahged separately with its result to control and flight?
Where in a sim modelled some (not all) eletrical wires that can be also damaged in a system of DM?

Can you sayme where in other game is modelling many of these thigns in 3D that to get right place of the hit result instead of randome program table of switchable failure?


Resume:
Complete starting procedure doesn't means the modeling of the things described above.... Trust me
We did way more complex work in general.
Like we did for the first time in the world the co-called in the past Complex Damage Model in Il-2 series.

And this is what I want, I would sacrifice any startup procedure for this any day of the week, especially as many RAF aircraft were pre-started by ground crew while the pilots were running across the airfield toward them anyway.

With a damage model like this I no longer need to worry about maintaining a full 2 seconds into the same place of a 109 in order to get it to fall apart. Now, wherever I hit will be a broken part. :D

[JG1_Wanderfalke]

Why is it dramatically weaker?
Ok cockpit sucks
For me Terrain textures look much better then what we have seen in SOW

For example look at the Switzerland x addon
its impossible to outperform that.

[mazex]

And did they operate those with a mouse?

And did they have a plastic cone like the ones sick dogs have with 70 degrees vision of the world with a pixelation raster attached to it? ;)

In a real plane you take a microsecond glimpse down at the temp meter and then look ahead... You reach for the gear lever,throttle or flaps without even looking down, and zeroing the altimeter is done in a second. Being on final having to "look down" and messing around with the mouse to go to full flaps when in danger of overshooting the runway is a no no for me immersion wise... Having said that I understand that some people like it, probably the persons that think that "full real" is imposing that completely unrealistic cone on your head instead of allowing padlock etc to overcome the problems of simulating the impressive control a real person has of his head and vision with 180+ degrees of FOV (for motions at least).

For me, I play games like IL2 to simulate WWII dogfighting and I like it best on the servers that even allow external views but with good missions like UK Dedicated 1. For "full real" I go fly for real instead...

[Oleg Maddox]

after all BOB pilots didn't have multi switched joysticks as we do,they had separate prop pitch levers,fuel cocks,magnetos,they had to do it and fight to survive.
I hope it will be looked into in the future it is a basic ingredient.

Did read you with more attention:
And what the problem with what we are modelling using mouse control?
It seems that you and most didn't understand my sentence that we are modeling these that are using for the flight... all you listed above is for the flight! We have it with possibility to control by the mouse.

We haven't all the switches clickable in the cockpit using for starting proceduere or so. This is other thing than the control in the fligth isn't it?

I think all is clear now?

[Hecke]

I still don't get it what is and what is not. Sry Oleg.

[Oleg Maddox]

especially as many RAF aircraft were pre-started by ground crew while the pilots were running across the airfield toward them anyway.
:D

This is for Russians and for Germans actual. I have read about it a lot in the past. And I told it in Il-2 time of life, I told it when we started really new sim....
With no modeling starting procedure we really is more close to reality than to model it.
The most important to model the systems that are working in fligth. And to model them by the way that are not random table failure with the great size hit box for the full aircraft or its couple of parts... Even in Il-2 had most complex things of this modelled for its time.
I hope people will understand it :)

[Oleg Maddox]

I still don't get it what is and what is not. Sry Oleg.

Then you simply should learn real aircraft systems and its control and then to compare what is using in fligth(some time also different for different aircraft type) and what is ONLY for starting procedure.

We model the first.

[Oleg Maddox]

And did they have a plastic cone like the ones sick dogs have with 70 degrees vision of the world with a pixelation raster attached to it? ;)

In a real plane you take a microsecond glimpse down at the temp meter and then look ahead... You reach for the gear lever,throttle or flaps without even looking down, and zeroing the altimeter is done in a second. Being on final having to "look down" and messing around with the mouse to go to full flaps when in danger of overshooting the runway is a no no for me immersion wise... Having said that I understand that some people like it, probably the persons that think that "full real" is imposing that completely unrealistic cone on your head instead of allowing padlock etc to overcome the problems of simulating the impressive control a real person has of his head and vision with 180+ degrees of FOV (for motions at least).

For me, I play games like IL2 to simulate WWII dogfighting and I like it best on the servers that even allow external views but with good missions like UK Dedicated 1. For "full real" I go fly for real instead...

All well said.

[Hecke]

so nothing clickable for start procedure?

[Oleg Maddox]

so nothing clickable for start procedure?

First of all I can't write here manual....
Second - Starting procedure we have just very small part common for all aircraft.
Third - we pay attention for more important things of the fligth simulation than the simulation of the cockpit on the ground. We leave it for others who can't do other the most important things on the level that is neccessary for the succes on the market.

[Blackdog_kt]

I think that we are modeling so many things in each aircraft that never was modelled in any single aircraft sim.

Start procedure do not affect these systems and complexity of modelling.

Each aircraft in our sim may have from 300 to 500+ parameters of modeling.

Say me is there the sim that would model the work of the piston compressor in a cockpit of bomber?
Or is there any sim that would model the work of each cylinder of engine?
Or various of propellers and its reductors?
various of pitch mechanisms?
The work of carburauter? Its diameter of airintake that calculate the airflow dencity in there?
Or maybe you can name the flight sim where in the damage is included the case of tires pinhole and its result?
Where, like in Il-2 for the first time in the world, then now in our sim modelled on the new very high level of precise and phycically (in 3D) all the trip rods to ailerons, elevator, rudder, etc? That can be all damahged separately with its result to control and flight?
Where in a sim modelled some (not all) eletrical wires that can be also damaged in a system of DM?

Can you sayme where in other game is modelling many of these thigns in 3D that to get right place of the hit result instead of randome program table of switchable failure?


Resume:
Complete starting procedure doesn't means the modeling of the things described above.... Trust me
We did way more complex work in general.
Like we did for the first time in the world the co-called in the past Complex Damage Model in Il-2 series.

1. I think you didn't read starting procedures of WWII time figters... and bombers...Its not very few. Usually more than 20 steps.

2. You'll get more immersion with what we are modeling.

3. Systems and starting procedure is different thing. We model the system(s), instead of table for the start of engine.

Thanks for the answers. I still would like to have a complete cockpit experience (some time in the future maybe, thanks to the built-in mod support in SoW), but i know what you mean and it's the same thing i was talking about: having the start-up is a nice touch to have but not critical, however the systems are the important part.

That's exactly what i was hoping to hear, thanks for modelling all that.

No more instant pressure build-up, no more firewalling the throttle right after engine start, no more 110% throttle all day long, etc etc...i can wait for the little details now that all the rest of the important stuff has been confirmed :grin:


For the people that don't understand it, the way i read mr Maddox's comments it looks to me like this:

1) Not all controls will be working or modelled. Controls will be modelled if the corresponding systems are used by the game engine. So, if your aircraft is equipped with intercoolers and the game engine models carburetor icing, you will get working intercooler controls. If there's no complex engine start however, you won't get a working starter button.

2) However, there will still be a higher amount of controls needed to operate the aircraft properly than there was in IL2. Things like intercoolers, carbuteror heaters, even canopy de-icers, etc.

3) All of these systems will be damageable with appropriate consequences, due to enemy fire or improper operation by the pilot. For example, carburetor icing builds up if you don't work your intercoolers correctly, the engine loses power and finally stops.

4) You will be able to control these systems either by mapping them to joystick/keyboard, by clicking on them in the virtual cockpit, or using a mixed system, whatever way you prefer. This way, people with expensive HOTAS sets can map it all to their sticks, but people with simpler sticks will also be able to fly at full difficulty by assigning the most important functions to their sticks and using the mouse for the non-critical ones.

I'd say it's a very good start and highly promising for the future. I would still like to have the entire thing modelled 100% at some time, but i have no problem accepting compromises when the final result is looking to be so well balanced.

[kalimba]

When I was asking them for the photos of Dover that they were using they only said that they used the sattelite map... That wasn't interesting for me. And they didn't give me even that photo.
Next time I will think about other forms of business when I'll give the source code and all our own models to third parties for their projects.

I have a lot of photos of Dover from different altitudes and views how it was looking in 1930-40.
There is so many things in reality.... that we even can't model for that time... but it is a bit more detailed that you may find in any other sim.

So, if I read you correctly Oleg, a team that built its brand new game on YOUR engine code, (and I am sure that you did give them good advice from time to time), and got lots of good reviews and good sales, turned Oleg Maddox down when he asked for a picture ? :( And we all dream of a "sim community" that would be "friendly competitive" so this genre will be living for a long time....:confused:
That's beyond disapointment...

Anyway, you do like you allways did, raise the bar so high that it will be easier for others to just crawl under !

Salute !

[Splitter]

May I try a short summation of what is being written?

- Not all things seen in a cockpit will be clickable. Some will.
- Clickable items will also have keyboard shortcuts. The player can choose which to use with those items.
- The team has modeled systems in the planes. If a bullet hit your fuel line, you have a fuel leak (these are no longer random occurrences as in IL-2 where what the damage might be is determined by a percentage chance).
- No complicated start up procedures, at least at release.

How did I do?

Splitter

[kammo]

Gotta love your approach and the manner you keep answering all of these questions Oleg! Big THANK YOU for that.
Some of these posters attitude would make bit angry and make me stop answering in such in a informative and polite way. Think that just shows that you are a really nice man Oleg and because of this you will have/have allready very loyal customer base. :)

Cheerious
Kammo

[whatnot]

First of all: a truly fantastic update! The pits look stunning.. unlike anything seen before in a flight sim! Seeing them combined with the scenery shot made me ecstatic! I also assumed the tooltips and mouse control on throttle etc ment clickable pits and passed out of the awesomeness of the update!

Now hearing the clickable pits is not actually included was a clear cooler for me. Not that Oleg you would have specifically said that everything would be clickable, just because I drew that conclusion out of the update and the messages.

I agree. Who wants to sit there going through a painful pre-check each time.

DCS Blackshark had a 40+ point procedure to start the engines, it was the singular reason I binned it

I think this thread alone makes it clear that following an accurate procedure is indeed something people DO want to do. Not all of us, but some so please cut the condecending attitude towards it. It would be especially cool for bombers etc where the technical part of the flight is a big thing as there is no dog fighting!

I was also ready to build my own 'power glove' to implement the touchscreen aspect which would have taken the immersion to new heights for me!

Probably the same 1% that will use a clickable cockpit for startup procedure.

And it's probably <1% of people that would know that the 110's antenna is wrong, but that's not the point now is it? The point is to get it right and accurate and for me (and to quite a few others here) startup procedure and clickable cockpits would fall in to the same category.

And I hope this isn't taken the wrong way: I know that SOW BOB is and will be the greatest sim out there and is already modelling a million things that others don't. And I rather get the sim out asap than wait for another x months for the clickable pits and start-up procedures.
However what I do want to say is that following the procedures is a big thing for a lot of flight sim aficionados! I love it in BS and FSX but have always preferred Oleg's sims because of the other features and the WW2 era.

I would like to do my sorties as they did them back in the day from start to finnish whether it's about getting the FM, DM or the startup accurate.

But hey, I'll be a happy camper when I get my hands on this baby whether I start my missions by igniting my engines with one press of a key or not. It just would have been a kilo of sugar on the top of I would have been able to start up and close down as it was done in real life.

But anyhow this was one of the best updates I've seen, thanks a million for it!! And even bigger thanks for having such a dialogue with the scene, this is unheard of!! :cool:

[Splitter]

Start up procedures:

If they were available, I would use them a few times for each aircraft I flew. Once I got the procedure down, I would then just use the "quick start" option. The fun for me is from the time I push the throttle forward to take off until I cut the engine in front of the hangar.

That they are not included at release is no big deal to me. I'm sure if they ever become available in a future update I will learn them and then just go back to quick start.

THANK YOU to Oleg for answering the questions that have been posted on here. Above and beyond the call of duty.

Splitter

[philip.ed]

When I was asking them for the photos of Dover that they were using they only said that they used the sattelite map... That wasn't interesting for me. And they didn't give me even that photo.
Next time I will think about other forms of business when I'll give the source code and all our own models to third parties for their projects.

I have a lot of photos of Dover from different altitudes and views how it was looking in 1930-40.
There is so many things in reality.... that we even can't model for that time... but it is a bit more detailed that you may find in any other sim.

What horrible people; no wonder the development process of WoP is so poor.

You've done excellent work with this Oleg though; thanks for sharing so much with us ;) At Hawkinge Battle of Britain Museum here in Kent, they have a large number of period aerial shots of various airfields and countryside IIRC. Unfortunately, one can't take pictures here, however if you e-mailed the museum they might be able to supply copies of the pictures. If you are interested, that is ;)

[mazex]

Start up procedures:

If they were available, I would use them a few times for each aircraft I flew. Once I got the procedure down, I would then just use the "quick start" option. The fun for me is from the time I push the throttle forward to take off until I cut the engine in front of the hangar.

That they are not included at release is no big deal to me. I'm sure if they ever become available in a future update I will learn them and then just go back to quick start.

THANK YOU to Oleg for answering the questions that have been posted on here. Above and beyond the call of duty.

Splitter

+1

[Trumper]

And did they operate those with a mouse?
??? i would love to own an authentic cockpit but unfortunately a computer and joystick is the nearest most if not all of us will get to.

[Trumper]

:) Thank you for the answers Oleg ,i do think that people don't understand quite what you mean at the moment,several posts from different people since you posted have tried to clear it up but i guess we will find out in time.
All i ask is please don't stifle whatever could be made workable in the future,it is a popular request.:)

[SlipBall]

I never promised starting procedure for each aircraft. Instead I always told other things. No for complete starting procedure, no for clickable cockpits.
When we did as a surprise clickable - then dissapointing. Strange...

I think clickable and staring procedure is some different strory isn't it?.


I have always been against "clickable", The ability to program key's/buttons for all controls/switches was my hope for this sim. Some what accurate starting procedure was also a big hope of mine, but it will not be in the release it seems. I will most likely hold off on the release version, and see what developes down the road.:grin:

[Chivas]

I have always been against "clickable", The ability to program key's/buttons for all controls/switches was my hope for this sim. Some what accurate starting procedure was also a big hope of mine, but it will not be in the release it seems. I will most likely hold off on the release version, and see what developes down the road.:grin:

Luckily most people will still buy it, even if there favorite feature isn't readily available, as they understand that nothing will be developed down the road if initial sales are off.

[ElAurens]

Slipball, you are serious?

You would not buy the initial release simply because you cannot operate the primer pump and manually test the hydraulics?

Our genre is already very small. Not buying the best WW2 air combat simulator just because you cannot push a few levers and twist some knobs is just petty.

And childish.

[Chivas]

Why is it dramatically weaker?
Ok cockpit sucks
For me Terrain textures look much better then what we have seen in SOW

For example look at the Switzerland x addon
its impossible to outperform that.

I don't have the x addon for FSX, but I much prefer SOW's developers terrain building. FSX's idea of putting trees and buildings on Satellite images looks like crap.

[Oleg Maddox]

May I try a short summation of what is being written?

(these are no longer random occurrences as in IL-2 where what the damage might be is determined by a percentage chance).
- No complicated start up procedures, at least at release.


Splitter

In IL-2 is two types of damage models:

1. Tha has percentage model in some square of the hit that was in a first version.
2. Co-called complex damage model which include the first one and the modeling of internals up to 40 units in some planes. This model was introduced with the Forgotten Battles forthe new flyable aircaft and in time has been added in most non AI aircraft.

In a model 2 is modelled hit boxes for engine, reductor, supercharger, fuel tanks, etc repeating actual sizes of modelled devices.
It is also included the 3D models of some elevator, rudder, etc control
that also possible to damage by hits and its based on the durability terms.

In Sow we have only the model 2 with way more advaced calculation and several separate hit boxes even for some single devices... say for the engine... I told about modeling of cylinders already for example.

[Former_Older]

The option to have clickable or nonclickable cockpits must be the course of action

Making players click who don't want to or making players assign controls when they don't want to is simple foolishness in my opinion. The choice is always the proper path. We aren't talking about SWOTL here; this is the 2010

Since it appears the choice is actually present, I can't imagine what the complaint is about

[Splitter]

In IL-2 is two types of damage models:

1. Tha has percentage model in some square of the hit that was in a first version.
2. Co-called complex damage model which include the first one and the modeling of internals up to 40 units in some planes. This model was introduced with the Forgotten Battles forthe new flyable aircaft and in time has been added in most non AI aircraft.

In a model 2 is modelled hit boxes for engine, reductor, supercharger, fuel tanks, etc repeating actual sizes of modelled devices.
It is also included the 3D models of some elevator, rudder, etc control
that also possible to damage by hits and its based on the durability terms.

In Sow we have only the model 2 with way more advaced calculation and several separate hit boxes even for some single devices... say for the engine... I told about modeling of cylinders already for example.

Thank you for the clarification.

Clickable cockpits: Slipball and others, I think Oleg has said that cockpits will be clickable (some controls) but that doesn't mean you MUST click. I am sure there will be corresponding keyboard shortcuts if you don't want to click.

Does that make sense?

Splitter

[Oleg Maddox]

I have always been against "clickable", The ability to program key's/buttons for all controls/switches was my hope for this sim. Some what accurate starting procedure was also a big hope of mine, but it will not be in the release it seems. I will most likely hold off on the release version, and see what developes down the road.:grin:

Then you will not by this sim in principle. Because we dodn't plan to make all switches available in the cockpit clickable or mapped to the buttons. Not now, not in future. This wasn't our goal now, not in future.
If some year later third party will be able to make one plane with this feature, then this will be just one plane for this sim with the complete starting procedure... because they will spend half of the time for modeling and escpecially for programming of a completely new module for just one aircraft... to make all switches clickable in 3D models (that we did from the beginning for some) doesn't means automaic work it in a sim. For this should be created additional progam module.

As for your wish: except the starting procedure all neccessary things for the fligth, dropping bombs, etc are present and in most cases fully authetic.

[Bolelas]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry to ask again...
Can Mr. Oleg tell me if BOB SOW will have the possibillity of adding on/of switches instead of having only the momentary switches like the ones on the keyboard? Or it will only be possible to do it by using a program to map keys?
I know some games that have it, some RC games (radio controled sim.)
Its very usefull to people who want to build pannels or simply to add a switch (e.g.) to easy remind gear position. I hope it includes that possibillity...
I enjoy all your team work, and tank you for the updates.

[Hunden]

so nothing clickable for start procedure?

Brickwall comes to mind:confused: talking to it that is..

[major_setback]

Here we go again. These high quality cockpits is way more we've expected ever, isn't it? Third party can modify such things later. Oleg is concentrating on the important things, thats right and good.



Big +1

[Hunden]

I have always been against "clickable", The ability to program key's/buttons for all controls/switches was my hope for this sim. Some what accurate starting procedure was also a big hope of mine, but it will not be in the release it seems. I will most likely hold off on the release version, and see what developes down the road.:grin:

You can't be serious. :confused: I'm going to hold off until this thing actually flies thats what I'm going to do. I'll show them.....

[SlipBall]

Slipball, you are serious?

You would not buy the initial release simply because you cannot operate the primer pump and manually test the hydraulics?

Our genre is already very small. Not buying the best WW2 air combat simulator just because you cannot push a few levers and twist some knobs is just petty.

And childish.


OK, I was a little pissed...of course I will buy the release, probably 3 of them, me, my son, and a friend who I think would enjoy it very much...please excuse me Oleg, I quess that I mis-understood your past words on this subject, my error:grin:;)

[Baron]

Damned if he do, damned if he dont.


U should be ashamed of your selfes.


Ungratefull childishnes (is that a word?)is a gross understatment.

[Triggaaar]

genuine lol

[Zappatime]

I reckon Oleg knows best what's worth spending his time on and what isn't he's proved that with il2 - I've played that thousands of hours and still am playing it - that's down to it being a wonderfully entertaining sim, yes I've bought other flightsims - some with clickable cockpits that have an half hour start up procedure if you want it, but I return to il2 again and again. I, like most people here, can't wait for SOW:BOB (or whatever its finally called) its the most anticipated software out there as far as I'm concerned and what I've seen and read from Oleg here only fuels that anticipation more.

And what a guy Oleg is, its gone 1 .00 AM in Moscow and he's still here answering questions with undying patience when it comes to 'clickable cockpits'. Build yourselves a switch box its much more fun, and please please don't hold off buying what will be the greatest flightsim out there just because you cant flick virtual cockpit switches for an age to get the engine fired up, just pretend your groundcrew prepped it !

[SlipBall]

Damned if he do, damned if he dont.


U should be ashamed of your selfes.


Ungratefull childishnes (is that a word?)is a gross understatment.


You are very wise!:grin:

[Baron]

You are very wise!:grin:



Wasnt referring to u in perticullar, at least u came to your sences and changed your mind, lol ;)

[Baron]

I remember quite well the debate about clickeble cockpits and Oleg said they wouldnt do it and here he is saying "we`v done the most important parts clickable", i can only assume they did it because people asked for it, to be nice, because lets face it, they wouldnt lose sales if they simply didnt, would they.


Well, what can one say really?


Top noch :)

[JG1_Wanderfalke]

What the heck are u talking about? The trees are awsome. No sim can beat this. Pls show me otherwise!

[major_setback]

Photographic textures... What a pathetic look.

Don't get me wrong. I only played the demo of WoP a few times, and I'm not saying it is better or best etc.

However, photographic textures can add a degree of clutter and randomness that you don't get otherwise, and houses placed on that texture in the correct places look naturally spaced, giving towns an authentic appearance. Roads have varied textures, rather than being uniform ribbons of grey. Gardens can be seen.


Personally I find this imperfect screenshot pleasing to look at. From WoP:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/shot20100909112511.jpg

[Insuber]

Flying houses ? LOL !

[reldnisch]

@Oleg and Team

great work, i love you guys !

cant wait for release :-P

[DuxCorvan]

Cheeses kraist! What's wrong with you...! :confused:

Peffi, despite his often acerbic style, Vladimir "SaQSoN" worked (works?) very closely with Oleg's team and is an expert modeler who knows his stuff too well.

And he's right: satellite textures often look terrible, specially at low height. However, I'm one of those who'd like the SoW team to improve this aspect of the game -if it's similar to what's been depicted up until now.

On the other hand, I'd like to point again to that small bug present on the pre-rendered reflections: some of them don't seem to present the reflection flipped horizontally as a mirror.

[Blackdog_kt]

Start up procedures:

If they were available, I would use them a few times for each aircraft I flew. Once I got the procedure down, I would then just use the "quick start" option. The fun for me is from the time I push the throttle forward to take off until I cut the engine in front of the hangar.

That they are not included at release is no big deal to me. I'm sure if they ever become available in a future update I will learn them and then just go back to quick start.

THANK YOU to Oleg for answering the questions that have been posted on here. Above and beyond the call of duty.

Splitter

Actually that's a good attitude towards the whole deal. I too can wait for extra detail to be added. Like i always like to say, we didn't have water=3 in the original IL2, but we got it someday ;)

As for me, i think i would use the manual mode every time and it would be especially rewarding if there was a bonus to it.
For example, the way Black Shark does it is good. You can press left windows key + home key and the chopper starts up all by itself but not as if by magic. It still goes through all the steps required. The advantage to learning how to do it yourself is that experienced users can start it faster than the auto-start feature can. So, pressing left win + home might start the chopper in 40 seconds, but an experienced user doing it manually might be able to do it in 25 seconds.

I think that's a very good compromise. It allows people who want full difficulty FM/DM without the hassle of extreme systems management to fly on the same server as people who want 110% difficulty (which prevents further diluting the community and spreading us thin across a billion servers with different difficulty settings), while also providing a reward and an incentive for those who take the time to learn how to do a few things extra.

In any case, the most important part for me is that we have a confirmation from mr. Maddox that even if checklists are not included, the consequences of improper system operation are there. That's the first and most important step and it will change and revolutionize the way people fly and fight online.
I just went back and read another one of his posts 1-2 pages back and it pretty much says that almost everything will work except the start procedure. That's good enough for me and a steep evolutionary curve from the IL2 way of doing things. I would still like to have it all modelled, but i know that this one must get to release sometime and money must be generated if we want to see more features ;)

Also, Splitter's explanations about what won't work, what will work and how is pretty much the way i understand it as well. I doubt people will be forced to use either interface, the most probable thing to happen is that they will be able to use both at the same time according to what they like best.

I think that a lot of people are not familiar with clickable sims and that's why they think that clicking on things is mandatory in such sims. To my knowledge, there's not a single flight sim out there that forces you to click everything. Taking Black Shark as an example once again, i've never flown that but i downloaded the manual when it was made available before release. Every single switch and function in that chaotic cockpit can be mapped to a keypress or stick button, scratch that, they are even mapped by default the moment you install it. The reason people click stuff is that they can remember which button drops the gear and which lever changes the collective, but they can't remember that ctrl+shift+alt+> is used to select the fourth softkey in the bottom row of the MFD...for things like that it's simpler to just point at it and press the mouse button.

The important thing is to look at the forest and not just the tree. Most of us lack the interface and input devices to simulate everything the best way. Some have pedals, some have dual throttle HOTAS, some have head tracking, some have custom sim-pits, but very few people have everything.
In order for a title to succeed we need a strong user community. In order to build and sustain a community, all these people must have a means of flying together in the same environment, regardless of their hardware setup. In order for them to be able to fly the same software in the same environments, some things have to be designed to work with the most common PC interfaces that everyone is sure to have...keyboards and mice. If customized cockpits were cheap we wouldn't be having this discussion, but these things are not cheap at all.

So, the defining question ends up being this. Can we compromise to use less than ideal interfaces in order to have more advanced modelling of aircraft features, or will we throw the baby out with the bath water and miss out on a bunch of realism because we don't like the interface that much? I think the answer is obvious here. People who say that complex systems management should be neglected because clicking on stuff or remembering complex keymap assignments is unnatural are the equivalent of a real WWII pilot saying "i refuse to drop flaps for landing because i don't want to take my hands off the throttle and stick". :rolleyes:

I'm glad the developers understand this and are giving us choices, instead of "railroading" the gameplay for everyone involved.

[Sutts]

When Oleg says no startup procedures it really isn't as bad as it sounds.....we already have most of the items referred to in the startup procedures. In fact we already do in IL2.

Here's a quick extract from the Hellcat pilot notes I have to hand:


Set throttle approx 1/5 open - WE HAVE THIS

Mixture - Idle Cut-Off - WE HAVE MIXTURE (I hope Idle/Cutoff is selectable)

Supercharger - Neutral - WE HAVE THIS

Battery Switch - On - PROBABLY DON'T HAVE THIS

Auxiliary fuel pump - On - PROBABLY DON'T HAVE THIS

Hold primer switch on for 3-5 seconds - ALMOST CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE THIS

Ignition switch - on "Both" - WE HAVE THIS

Starter switch "On" - WE HAVE THIS

When engine fires advance mixture control to "Auto Rich" - WE HAVE MIXTURE - I hope Auto Rich and Auto Lean are now properly modelled.

Do not exceed 100 RPM until oil temperature reaches at least 40 degrees C
- I HOPE OIL TEMP TAKES A LITTLE TIME TO RISE

If the oil pressure gauge does not indicate 40 p.s.i. within 30 seconds, the engine should be stopped.
- I HOPE THERE IS A REALISTIC DELAY IN OIL PRESSURE


So as you can see, we have most of the ingredients already.

The battery switch must be quite universal to aircraft of the day and would be very easy to model. I'm sure electrical failure is already modelled.

Other things referred to in pre-start check lists include cowl flap and landing flap position, propeller controls, intercooler and oil cooler doors, tail wheel lock, fuel selector, oxygen supply and flow, trim settings.

Again, we should have almost all of those controls too. I'm hoping fuel tank selectors are included.

So not bad at all really. Now, once the engine is started there are a few additional checks that include testing mags, supercharger and propeller controls. I don't know how many of you have compared the results of these tests with the real pilot's notes in IL2 but I can tell you they are very close already in IL2 - I remember being amazed when I switched magnetos in IL2 and got an accurate mag drop. Same with exercising the propellor.

A small feature that would be REALLY NICE is being able to enter the cockpit without all the controls already being correctly set for takeoff - as an option of course. This would enable those who like to follow procedures to follow them. There was a small utility created for IL2 that enabled this cold start procedure to be followed.

I hope the above puts some of our minds at rest.:grin:

[sorak]

Today update is about cockpits.
Details, how it looks.
Using mouse is possible to get additional info, or, say, use throttle....
If you'll find any errors - let me know (pay attention: texture with "wait" on Hurricane is not replaced yet on my PC).


WOW.. I never knew a cockpit could look so good! simply amazing. I love the way how you use all the new effects out today in such a smoooth way. SOW, I think i love you

[Catseye]

Oleg,
Thank you very much for taking the time to provide updates and for the fine work you and your team are doing.

Can you provide an update regarding the sound engine?

For me, the fly-by sounds and different cockpit sounds that unofficially made their way into the IL2 product gave me much pleasure and provided a greater sense of immersion than the original sounds (even though they were not technically as complex).

Could you tell us a bit about any differences in the sound engine versus the last official Forgotten Battles version? Perhaps how much closer to perceived reality?

Best regards,
Thanks,
Catseye

[xnomad]

In IL-2 is two types of damage models:

1. Tha has percentage model in some square of the hit that was in a first version.
2. Co-called complex damage model which include the first one and the modeling of internals up to 40 units in some planes. This model was introduced with the Forgotten Battles forthe new flyable aircaft and in time has been added in most non AI aircraft.

In a model 2 is modelled hit boxes for engine, reductor, supercharger, fuel tanks, etc repeating actual sizes of modelled devices.
It is also included the 3D models of some elevator, rudder, etc control
that also possible to damage by hits and its based on the durability terms.

In Sow we have only the model 2 with way more advaced calculation and several separate hit boxes even for some single devices... say for the engine... I told about modeling of cylinders already for example.

Hi Oleg,

What will the DM be like with AI planes? I can't imagine that every AI plane will have it's pistons etc. modelled. Am I right that the complex DM is just for your own plane? This is fine online as everyone's own PC will be doing the DM calculations but what about offline with AI?

The reason I ask is that I used to fly online all the time when I was living in Europe. 6 years ago I moved to Australia and I now don't play online at all as I find it impossible to find a server under 350 ms ping here in Australia.

Yes there are some Australian servers, but nobody is ever on them when I play on weekends. So for me offline AI plane's DM and FM have become very important.

I wish internet technology/infrastructure would improve rapidly so that ping times to the US were 100ms or so; either that or that more Australians would play these sims :-D

[Bearcat]

I have always been against "clickable", The ability to program key's/buttons for all controls/switches was my hope for this sim. Some what accurate starting procedure was also a big hope of mine, but it will not be in the release it seems. I will most likely hold off on the release version, and see what developes down the road.:grin:

Yeah right... You believe that huh ... I sure don't.. I'd be willing to bet that 95-99% of the folks on this forum will have SoW within the first week of it's release.. including you (I see where you corrected that..;)) if not the first day.. especially once the reviews start coming in.. regardless to how much moaning and groaning and nit picking about misspelled this and unclickable that..

I agree with you Slip.. but I also believe that whatever 1C has in store for us on final release will be good.. and more immersive than IL2 was..

BTW, here's the officially prescribed engine start procedure from Air Publication 1565B (July 1940): Supermarine Spitfire Pilot's Notes.

Starting the Engine and Warming Up
(i) Set:

Both fuel cock levers ON
Throttle ½ Inch open
Mixture control RICH
Airscrew speed control Fully back DH 20º
Rotol 35º Propeller Lever fully forward
Radiator shutter OPEN
(ii) Operate the priming pump to prime the suction and delivery pipes. This may be judged by a sudden increase in resistance of the plunger.
(iii) Prime the engine, the number of strokes required being as follows:

Air temperature ºC: +30 +20 +10 0 -10 -20
Normal fuel: 3 4 7 13
High volatility fuel: 4 8 15

(iv) Switch ON ignition and pull out the priming pump handle.
(v) Press the starter push-button and at the same time give one stroke of the priming pump. This push-button also switches on the booster coil and should be kept depressed until the engine is firing evenly.
Note: If the engine fails to start on the first cartridge, no more priming should be carried out before firing the second, but another stroke should be given as the second cartridge is fired.
(vi) As soon as the engine is running evenly, screw down the priming pump.
Testing Engine and Installations
(i) While warming up, exercise the airscrew speed control a few times. Also make the usual checks of temperature, pressure and controls. Brake pressure should be at least 120 Lb/Sq. In.

(ii) See that the cockpit hood is locked open and that the emergency exit door is set at the "half-cock" position.

(iii) After a few minutes move the airscrew speed control fully forward.

(iv) After warming up, open the throttle to give maximum boost for cruising with WEAK mixture and test the operation of the constant speed airscrew.

(v) Open the throttle to give maximum boost for cruising with RICH mixture and check each magneto in turn. The drop in rpm. should not exceed 150.
(vi) Open the throttle fully momentarily and check the static R.P.M boost and oil pressure.
(vii) Warming up must not be unduly prolonged because the radiator temperature before taxying [sic] out must not exceed 100º C.
"When engines are being kept warm in readiness for immediate take-off, de Havilland 20º C.S. propeller should be left in fine pitch - control lever fully forward."
Final Preparation for Take-Off - Drill of Vital Actions

Drill is "T.M.P., Fuel, Flaps and Radiator"
T Trimming Tabs Elevator about one division nose down from neutral
M Mixture control RICH
P Pitch Airscrew speed control fully forward
Fuel Both cock levers ON and check contents of lower tank
Flaps UP
Radiator shutter Fully open


And you're ready to fly. Simple, isn't it? Even in CFS there was a startup procedure.. but it was simplified and dumbed down from this which is what I believe Oleg is saying when he says that systems will be modelled as opposed to full startup procedures.

If you'd rather fly than fiddle, press the E key and take off!

Note some of the highlighted portions of that procedure...

Bottom line for me is this.... Great pit screens Oleg.. great update.. I can't wait to get my mitts on this thing.. and I think that it will run on a wider range of PCs than many think... It will be interesting to see how the ballistics and the DMs work in this.. I think this sim will have layers upon layers of surprises and details that many of us haven't even thought of..

[sorak]

I think that we are modeling so many things in each aircraft that never was modelled in any single aircraft sim.

Start procedure do not affect these systems and complexity of modelling.

Each aircraft in our sim may have from 300 to 500+ parameters of modeling.

Say me is there the sim that would model the work of the piston compressor in a cockpit of bomber?
Or is there any sim that would model the work of each cylinder of engine?
Or various of propellers and its reductors?
various of pitch mechanisms?
The work of carburauter? Its diameter of airintake that calculate the airflow dencity in there?
Or maybe you can name the flight sim where in the damage is included the case of tires pinhole and its result?
Where, like in Il-2 for the first time in the world, then now in our sim modelled on the new very high level of precise and phycically (in 3D) all the trip rods to ailerons, elevator, rudder, etc? That can be all damahged separately with its result to control and flight?
Where in a sim modelled some (not all) eletrical wires that can be also damaged in a system of DM?

Can you sayme where in other game is modelling many of these thigns in 3D that to get right place of the hit result instead of randome program table of switchable failure?


Resume:
Complete starting procedure doesn't means the modeling of the things described above.... Trust me
We did way more complex work in general.
Like we did for the first time in the world the co-called in the past Complex Damage Model in Il-2 series.

I want now.. i want now... your killing me!

[brando]

Yeah right... You believe that huh ... I sure don't.. I'd be willing to bet that 95-99% of the folks on this forum will have SoW within the first week of it's release.. including you (I see where you corrected that..;)) if not the first day.. especially once the reviews start coming in.. regardless to how much moaning and groaning and nit picking about misspelled this and unclickable that..

I agree with you Slip.. but I also believe that whatever 1C has in store for us on final release will be good.. and more immersive than IL2 was..

BTW, here's the officially prescribed engine start procedure from Air Publication 1565B (July 1940): Supermarine Spitfire Pilot's Notes.

Starting the Engine and Warming Up
(i) Set:

Both fuel cock levers ON
Throttle ½ Inch open
Mixture control RICH
Airscrew speed control Fully back DH 20º
Rotol 35º Propeller Lever fully forward
Radiator shutter OPEN
(ii) Operate the priming pump to prime the suction and delivery pipes. This may be judged by a sudden increase in resistance of the plunger.
(iii) Prime the engine, the number of strokes required being as follows:

Air temperature ºC: +30 +20 +10 0 -10 -20
Normal fuel: 3 4 7 13
High volatility fuel: 4 8 15

(iv) Switch ON ignition and pull out the priming pump handle.
(v) Press the starter push-button and at the same time give one stroke of the priming pump. This push-button also switches on the booster coil and should be kept depressed until the engine is firing evenly.
Note: If the engine fails to start on the first cartridge, no more priming should be carried out before firing the second, but another stroke should be given as the second cartridge is fired.
(vi) As soon as the engine is running evenly, screw down the priming pump.
Testing Engine and Installations
(i) While warming up, exercise the airscrew speed control a few times. Also make the usual checks of temperature, pressure and controls. Brake pressure should be at least 120 Lb/Sq. In.

(ii) See that the cockpit hood is locked open and that the emergency exit door is set at the "half-cock" position.

(iii) After a few minutes move the airscrew speed control fully forward.

(iv) After warming up, open the throttle to give maximum boost for cruising with WEAK mixture and test the operation of the constant speed airscrew.

(v) Open the throttle to give maximum boost for cruising with RICH mixture and check each magneto in turn. The drop in rpm. should not exceed 150.
(vi) Open the throttle fully momentarily and check the static R.P.M boost and oil pressure.
(vii) Warming up must not be unduly prolonged because the radiator temperature before taxying [sic] out must not exceed 100º C.
"When engines are being kept warm in readiness for immediate take-off, de Havilland 20º C.S. propeller should be left in fine pitch - control lever fully forward."
Final Preparation for Take-Off - Drill of Vital Actions

Drill is "T.M.P., Fuel, Flaps and Radiator"
T Trimming Tabs Elevator about one division nose down from neutral
M Mixture control RICH
P Pitch Airscrew speed control fully forward
Fuel Both cock levers ON and check contents of lower tank
Flaps UP
Radiator shutter Fully open


And you're ready to fly. Simple, isn't it? Even in CFS there was a startup procedure.. but it was simplified and dumbed down from this which is what I believe Oleg is saying when he says that systems will be modelled as opposed to full startup procedures.

If you'd rather fly than fiddle, press the E key and take off!

Note some of the highlighted portions of that procedure...

Bottom line for me is this.... Great pit screens Oleg.. great update.. I can't wait to get my mitts on this thing.. and I think that it will run on a wider range of PCs than many think... It will be interesting to see how the ballistics and the DMs work in this.. I think this sim will have layers upon layers of surprises and details that many of us haven't even thought of..

And that's only the drill for a single-engined fighter. Try sorting that for a twin-engined bomber + taxying to the line + waiting for the rest + taking off + climbing to a mimimum 10,000 feet over France + + picking up the escorts ...... something near an hour so far ...... and then the fun begins. Let's hope you didn't make some kind of mistake during the start-up procedure and need to abort your flight!

[LukeFF]

DCS Blackshark had a 40+ point procedure to start the engines, it was the singular reason I binned it

Which can be bypassed with two simple key presses.

[zapatista]

I think that we are modeling so many things in each aircraft that never was modelled in any single aircraft sim.

Start procedure do not affect these systems and complexity of modelling.

Each aircraft in our sim may have from 300 to 500+ parameters of modeling.

Say me is there the sim that would model the work of the piston compressor in a cockpit of bomber?
Or is there any sim that would model the work of each cylinder of engine?
Or various of propellers and its reductors?
various of pitch mechanisms?
The work of carburauter? Its diameter of airintake that calculate the airflow dencity in there?
Or maybe you can name the flight sim where in the damage is included the case of tires pinhole and its result?
Where, like in Il-2 for the first time in the world, then now in our sim modelled on the new very high level of precise and phycically (in 3D) all the trip rods to ailerons, elevator, rudder, etc? That can be all damahged separately with its result to control and flight?
Where in a sim modelled some (not all) eletrical wires that can be also damaged in a system of DM?

Can you sayme where in other game is modelling many of these thigns in 3D that to get right place of the hit result instead of randome program table of switchable failure?


Resume:
Complete starting procedure doesn't means the modeling of the things described above.... Trust me
We did way more complex work in general.
Like we did for the first time in the world the co-called in the past Complex Damage Model in Il-2 series.

oleg,

thank you for focusing on that part, it is indeed the most important for 90% of us, AND it is what make the future of the sim so much more interesting because of the increased complexity of modeling those elements of the system working together !

similar complexity like you are doing for the AA, the search light, the radar, and even the amount and type of shells from AA batteries available/used.

meaning, if one element in a complex system like that gets damaged, other parts of the system start to fail (engine overheating, selective loss of power when one piston fails etc..), or searchlight damaged in AA battery reducing its accuracy for Flack

this is MUCH more important then 2% of users wanting to go click click with a mouse on the screen in a complex startup procedure for 20 min before they get off the ground with their aircraft

[Splitter]

Actually that's a good attitude towards the whole deal. I too can wait for extra detail to be added. Like i always like to say, we didn't have water=3 in the original IL2, but we got it someday ;)

As for me, i think i would use the manual mode every time and it would be especially rewarding if there was a bonus to it.
For example, the way Black Shark does it is good. You can press left windows key + home key and the chopper starts up all by itself but not as if by magic. It still goes through all the steps required. The advantage to learning how to do it yourself is that experienced users can start it faster than the auto-start feature can. So, pressing left win + home might start the chopper in 40 seconds, but an experienced user doing it manually might be able to do it in 25 seconds.

I think that's a very good compromise. It allows people who want full difficulty FM/DM without the hassle of extreme systems management to fly on the same server as people who want 110% difficulty (which prevents further diluting the community and spreading us thin across a billion servers with different difficulty settings), while also providing a reward and an incentive for those who take the time to learn how to do a few things extra.

In any case, the most important part for me is that we have a confirmation from mr. Maddox that even if checklists are not included, the consequences of improper system operation are there. That's the first and most important step and it will change and revolutionize the way people fly and fight online.
I just went back and read another one of his posts 1-2 pages back and it pretty much says that almost everything will work except the start procedure. That's good enough for me and a steep evolutionary curve from the IL2 way of doing things. I would still like to have it all modelled, but i know that this one must get to release sometime and money must be generated if we want to see more features ;)

Also, Splitter's explanations about what won't work, what will work and how is pretty much the way i understand it as well. I doubt people will be forced to use either interface, the most probable thing to happen is that they will be able to use both at the same time according to what they like best.

I think that a lot of people are not familiar with clickable sims and that's why they think that clicking on things is mandatory in such sims. To my knowledge, there's not a single flight sim out there that forces you to click everything. Taking Black Shark as an example once again, i've never flown that but i downloaded the manual when it was made available before release. Every single switch and function in that chaotic cockpit can be mapped to a keypress or stick button, scratch that, they are even mapped by default the moment you install it. The reason people click stuff is that they can remember which button drops the gear and which lever changes the collective, but they can't remember that ctrl+shift+alt+> is used to select the fourth softkey in the bottom row of the MFD...for things like that it's simpler to just point at it and press the mouse button.

The important thing is to look at the forest and not just the tree. Most of us lack the interface and input devices to simulate everything the best way. Some have pedals, some have dual throttle HOTAS, some have head tracking, some have custom sim-pits, but very few people have everything.
In order for a title to succeed we need a strong user community. In order to build and sustain a community, all these people must have a means of flying together in the same environment, regardless of their hardware setup. In order for them to be able to fly the same software in the same environments, some things have to be designed to work with the most common PC interfaces that everyone is sure to have...keyboards and mice. If customized cockpits were cheap we wouldn't be having this discussion, but these things are not cheap at all.

So, the defining question ends up being this. Can we compromise to use less than ideal interfaces in order to have more advanced modelling of aircraft features, or will we throw the baby out with the bath water and miss out on a bunch of realism because we don't like the interface that much? I think the answer is obvious here. People who say that complex systems management should be neglected because clicking on stuff or remembering complex keymap assignments is unnatural are the equivalent of a real WWII pilot saying "i refuse to drop flaps for landing because i don't want to take my hands off the throttle and stick". :rolleyes:

I'm glad the developers understand this and are giving us choices, instead of "railroading" the gameplay for everyone involved.

I am more familiar with X-Plane than MSFS and I think it does a wonderful job with some clickable cockpits on certain planes. During take-off and landing (the times your are "flying the airplane"), there is not much you need to do that requires clicks in the cockpit.

During flight, however, you are changing radio/nav frequencies, getting your plane into economy cruise, and constantly checking systems (pilots are rarely bored). THIS is when clickable cockpits come into play.

When the action starts, your head is outside the cockpit so to speak. You are using the keyboard and keeping an eye on the runway or traffic. I liken this to combat situations in SoW.

As a flight sim, you really want clickable cockpits to simulate being a "real" pilot. In combat, your really want your head outside the cockpit with control on the keyboard and joystick.

Trust me when I say that learning to fly a flight simulator is totally different than flying IL-2 in a dogfight. I like both...but I like combat more :). "REAL" WWII combat pilots had to know how to fly, like in a flight simulator, and how to go into combat like in IL-2. What in the HELL is wrong with the option of doing BOTH in SoW?

I am sure Oleg and company are trying to make the program accessible and enjoyable to a wide variety of simmers/gamers. I don't think he is going to exclude one or the other. I am REALLY expecting, from what he has said, a possible combination of flight sim and combat sim. That would be INCREDIBLY unique.

Blackdog is infinitely more familiar with the online world of IL-2 than I. I hope what he envisions becomes reality. Engines take a bit to smooth out and settle into "running". You might get away with taking a cold engine into the air....and you might not.

I WANT to get into the online world with SoW. And I want "piloting" an aircraft to be a factor in being valuable to a squadron. I don't want it to just be about bouncing off the ground, not using the runway, and pointing your nose at an enemy and shooting. I like both things and I hope that both are somehow incorporated.

/mini rant.

In a fairly short time, I have come to trust Oleg's vision for SoW. It WILL NOT be perfect when released but it will have both the "wow" factor and depth.

In the words of OddBall, have a little faith, baby.

(Was the last reference too American? lol)

Splitter

[zapatista]

Why is it dramatically weaker?
Ok cockpit sucks
For me Terrain textures look much better then what we have seen in SOW

For example look at the Switzerland x addon
its impossible to outperform that.

except of course when you get to lower altitudes you silly little man

some of the high detail scenery addons for FS-9/10 in the last couple of years look great for medium and high altitude, because it is basically satellite photography textures pasted over a fairly rough contour map.

but once you get to lower altitudes like 2000 meters and below you get major problems (for a combat flight sim), the textures suddenly look like being exactly that, just flat textures, there is no 3D detail in the contour, there are minimal real 3D objects on the ground (houses, trees, cars, trains, troops, tanks, etc..). they might give you one highly detailed airport if you buy the next addon, but everything else immediately outside that airports it again just ugly flat textures that look like martian vomit after he had a meal of carrots and parsley.

oleg's project is entirely different in focus regarding scenery, as you should have been able to realize by now by following the release of screenshots in the last couple of years (just go to foobar's website to refresh your mind and compare)

even WoP is 100x better then the high detail fs9/10 scenery addons (when seen from low altitude)

[=69.GIAP=TOOZ]

may i also add to the chorus of pleas for any information possible on devicelink with a little example of what is possible with this in IL2
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff27/bolox00/devicelink/brit-gen1.jpg

hoping to be able to do more in SOW

I would also like to know if there are any plans to allow things like UDPSpeed to work in SOW online? I used to use it all the time when flying offline missions in IL-2 before my laptop broke, but I spend the majority of the time flying online where this utility doesn't work.

So, what's the verdict? Will we be able to use these kind of things in SOW?

[Splitter]

except of course when you get to lower altitudes you silly little man

some of the high detail scenery addons for FS-9/10 in the last couple of years look great for medium and high altitude, because it is basically satellite photography textures pasted over a fairly rough contour map.

but once you get to lower altitudes like 2000 meters and below you get major problems (for a combat flight sim), the textures suddenly look like being exactly that, just flat textures, there is no 3D detail in the contour, there are minimal real 3D objects on the ground (houses, trees, cars, trains, troops, tanks, etc..). they might give you one highly detailed airport if you buy the next addon, but everything else immediately outside that airports it again just ugly flat textures that look like martian vomit after he had a meal of carrots and parsley.

oleg's project is entirely different in focus regarding scenery, as you should have been able to realize by now by following the release of screenshots in the last couple of years (just go to foobar's website to refresh your mind and compare)

even WoP is 100x better then the high detail fs9/10 scenery addons (when seen from low altitude)

I can't believe this even needs to be pointed out. Again I go back to X-Plane which uses satellite imagery. From altitude, it looks fine (for the most part). Of course, the "Earth" takes 60 gigs of hard drive space to accomplish this.

However, there is nothing (or very little) in terms of 3D objects at low level unless you have an Ikea fetish....X-Plane users will back me up on the number of Ikeas in a given major city....

Even when you fly over a well know city like Washington, DC, there is no Washington Monument, no White House, and no Lincoln Memorial without add-ons.

No, give me the detail Oleg is shooting for in SoW.

Fanboi out :).

Splitter

[Bearcat]

And that's only the drill for a single-engined fighter. Try sorting that for a twin-engined bomber + taxying to the line + waiting for the rest + taking off + climbing to a mimimum 10,000 feet over France + + picking up the escorts ...... something near an hour so far ...... and then the fun begins. Let's hope you didn't make some kind of mistake during the start-up procedure and need to abort your flight!

Exactly.. All that sounds good on paper.. but consdiering the people who will actually use features that detailed.. you have to ask yourself is it worth it to the devs.. considering that that already know what they want to do with the product .. and given the track record of 1C I for one am expecting to be wowed.. I still get wowed from IL2.. just not as much anymore..


I can't believe this even needs to be pointed out. Again I go back to X-Plane which uses satellite imagery. From altitude, it looks fine (for the most part). Of course, the "Earth" takes 60 gigs of hard drive space to accomplish this.

However, there is nothing (or very little) in terms of 3D objects at low level unless you have an Ikea fetish....X-Plane users will back me up on the number of Ikeas in a given major city....

Even when you fly over a well know city like Washington, DC, there is no Washington Monument, no White House, and no Lincoln Memorial without add-ons.

No, give me the detail Oleg is shooting for in SoW.

Fanboi out :).

Splitter

Bingo... hyeck I am looking forward to having the buildings finally in proportion to the AC..

[zapatista]

I can't believe this even needs to be pointed out. Again I go back to X-Plane which uses satellite imagery. From altitude, it looks fine (for the most part). Of course, the "Earth" takes 60 gigs of hard drive space to accomplish this.

However, there is nothing (or very little) in terms of 3D objects at low level unless you have an Ikea fetish....X-Plane users will back me up on the number of Ikeas in a given major city....

Even when you fly over a well know city like Washington, DC, there is no Washington Monument, no White House, and no Lincoln Memorial without add-ons.

No, give me the detail Oleg is shooting for in SoW.

Fanboi out :).

Splitter

you quoted the wrong part of the text in your quote :) (using my reply instead of the original posters text)

i just responded to his earlier post where he claimed fs9/10 was so much better from all altitudes, and gave a list of examples why oleg's work is better for the lower altitude levels that are important in a combat sim

and me referring to "martian vomit" in low altitude fs9/10 scenery is because you just get a few spare houses (the carrot chunks) sitting on top of a textured flat satellite image map, with a few odd trees randomly placed (the parsley chunks). not really something you want to use in a combat flightsim where you might have to go hunting for enemy tank formations on the ground, or target a specific road/bridge to slow down troop movement

[Splitter]

I was agreeing with you, Zap :). You had already made the point disagreeing with the post that you quoted (dang, this internet stuff can get confusing even when you get it right! lol).

As an example, flying over Niagara falls without seeing any falls.....this satellite stuff is not all it's cracked up to be in every instance.

Looks good from Angels 30 though :).

Splitter

[KG26_Alpha]

you quoted the wrong part of the text in your quote :) (using my reply instead of the original posters text)

i just responded to his earlier post where he claimed fs9/10 was so much better from all altitudes, and gave a list of examples why oleg's work is better for the lower altitude levels that are important in a combat sim

and me referring to "martian vomit" in low altitude fs9/10 scenery is because you just get a few spare houses (the carrot chunks) sitting on top of a textured flat satellite image map, with a few odd trees randomly placed (the parsley chunks). not really something you want to use in a combat flightsim where you might have to go hunting for enemy tank formations on the ground, or target a specific road/bridge to slow down troop movement

Totally correct

FSX terrain mesh cannot handle complex ground parameter as IL2 1946 does.

Global textures for terrain is not good enough especially when you start to go online with the sim.

IL2 1946 out performs all sims in this area for its net code and complex terrain IMHO

[major_setback]

Exactly.. All that sounds good on paper.. but consdiering the people who will actually use features that detailed.. you have to ask yourself is it worth it to the devs....





Well, look at all the add-ons for FSX that do actually feature complex start-up procedures. There is quite a big market for them.

There are over 30 small prop aircraft or WWI and WWII add-ons on the Just Flight site alone (not counting the shockwave products). There are lots of user made add-ons, some of them very professionally done (see PC Pilot's free downloads each month).

The people buying those at the moment might convert to SoW. I think realistic weather and turbulence etc. will win them over. Click-able cockpits too.
I am pretty sure that manufacturers of add-ons are keeping a keen eye on SoW, and that it will take no time at all after the release of third party tools before we see some add-ons, and some of them maybe with more complex start-up procedures.

Personally I enjoy both ways. Complex start-up is a different experience. But won't worry if everything is simplified

[Chivas]

Start up procedures are a must in sims like FSX where its a major part of a civil aviation game. Thats mostly all you do is fly from point A to B using all the correct procedures. Thats the game.

Combat sims are entirely different and start up procedures aren't as high on the priority list. The developers have to make tough decisions on which features have the most priority. I don't care for complex start up procedures, but sims like BOB WOV were you can just simply turn on the magnetos, fuel cocks, pump the primer, and hit the start button, is very immersive. Especially when you can combine this with a refuel, rearm, process. it can also be very immersive when you haven't primed the engine enough, in an emergency take off scenario, and engine is just turning over and not firing.

[nearmiss]

I prefer to push one button and start the engine. If Oleg provides a required start up procedure I'll just program my ChProducts MFP board to press one key.

The IL2 and BOB SOW will be about enjoyment for me. The MSFT flight sims were fine for awhile. I enjoyed all the procedures, navs, charts, approach plates,etc. After I pretty well had that mastered I got bored with it.

[ElAurens]

Agree 100%

Flying a King Air from Toledo to Chicago is the most boring thing I've ever done on a computer.

FSX lasted about 3 months on my hard drive.

I realize that everyone has their own idea of "fun", but honestly, there is nothing "fun" about a flight procedure simulator.

Nothing.

[LukeFF]

Oleg, we think that we've found an error at the oil temp gauge (Fl20343). The Emil did have a switchable gauge wich can indicate both incoming and outgoing oil temp. For this one have to press the knob in upper right. Those switchable gauges have a description on it "drücken: Eintr.-Temp." (press: incoming temp) I know that the drawing is from 1942, anyway the description on the gauge is missing.

I think you're right. If one looks closely at this picture below, one can see that text which is presumably missing:

http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/Flugzeuge/J%E4ger/Me109E/Cockpit/gross/109E_bestfoto.jpg

[Foo'bar]

I think you're right. If one looks closely at this picture below, one can see that text which is presumably missing:

http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/Flugzeuge/J%E4ger/Me109E/Cockpit/gross/109E_bestfoto.jpg

Lets hope Oleg didn't miss that upon all these clickpit start procedure discussion ;)

[Oleg Maddox]

Well, look at all the add-ons for FSX that do actually feature complex start-up procedures. There is quite a big market for them.

There are over 30 small prop aircraft or WWI and WWII add-ons on the Just Flight site alone (not counting the shockwave products). There are lots of user made add-ons, some of them very professionally done (see PC Pilot's free downloads each month).

The people buying those at the moment might convert to SoW. I think realistic weather and turbulence etc. will win them over. Click-able cockpits too.
I am pretty sure that manufacturers of add-ons are keeping a keen eye on SoW, and that it will take no time at all after the release of third party tools before we see some add-ons, and some of them maybe with more complex start-up procedures.

Personally I enjoy both ways. Complex start-up is a different experience. But won't worry if everything is simplified

All of this is a small niche of market. Several thousands to 20,000 comparison from half million to several millions copies (the last did Il-2).

I have a complete statistics that to decide what is important or not.

Yes it is nice feature to have complete startup procedure, to make manuals for all of the modelled planes... but... :
1. first of all see above about statistics
2. They are doing not from the zero, but based on the other code that was done originally by other team (in your case MS or Rowan's). Trust me to modify the original code is a way more easy than to create from zero by original team
3. Our team is very small but doing real things... we haven't forces for production for each flyable plane this procedure, including manuals. Samples from above - they are doing for single plane - just one (MS) and other - lets say that it isn't close even to Il-2 and can't be in competition to Il-2 in many ways (see amount of sales).

Just because great amount of sales of Il-2 (some time second to MS series, some time higher) we was able to make so cool looking cockpits and aircraft, other things... Because all money from income and even more was going for production (sad it anyway was not enough that to order more good people - programmers and airtist-modellers)

[Ironman69]

Hi Oleg,
I have a quick question for you. How has the joystick input curve changed from 4.xx IL2 to S.O.W. ? Do you still use your old joystick curve from old IL2 for your current build of SoW? If not, what do you use for X, Y, and Z? Finally, do you think that players using linear axis of 100 100 100. ect..for XYZ is advantage over those players using default curve? i.e. 10 20 30 ... ?

[Oleg Maddox]

Oleg, we think that we've found an error at the oil temp gauge (Fl20343). The Emil did have a switchable gauge wich can indicate both incoming and outgoing oil temp. For this one have to press the knob in upper right. Those switchable gauges have a description on it "drücken: Eintr.-Temp." (press: incoming temp) I know that the drawing is from 1942, anyway the description on the gauge is missing.

Beside that the scale has to be from 0 to 160°C imho. Please see the attached picture for further informations.

1. It isn't comfirmed by the guys whois doing restoration
2. On my own photos that I did for the E series with 109th (original from Messerschmitt factopry museum, trasferred in USA, flyable.) there is 120.

[Oleg Maddox]

Hi Oleg,
I have a quick question for you. How has the joystick input curve changed from 4.xx IL2 to S.O.W. ? Do you still use your old joystick curve from old IL2 for your current build of SoW? If not, what do you use for X, Y, and Z? Finally, do you think that players using linear axis of 100 100 100. ect..for XYZ is advantage over those players using default curve? i.e. 10 20 30 ... ?

I can't say you how we did now.
However these who use 100,100, 100 - make the problems for yourself, because the control became less realistic.
And advantage? No, in my opinion these have disadvantage using such settings... they need to be way more precise in control and use very small movements of the stick.
For the reaction speed of FM it doesn't matter which settings are used. If they like it - for me it is no problem, but for the behavior modeling by the stick the long size real control column my recommended settings wer optimal. And they were repeating the settins of two real pilots who was beta testers as well and did understand what these settings means.

[Flanker35M]

S!

So. We have systems modelled properly. Very good. No start up procedure in initial release, but later possbly as 3rd party addition. Very good. But as the systems are modelled in detail then supposedly even you press the magic "start engine(s)" button I would expect that you STILL have to check fuel and oil pressure, temperatures being good before taxing/take-off. I hate the simple IL-2 way: Press "i", slam the throttle and do not worry aboutany kind of pressures or temperatures, no damage. If systems are modelled in fidelity you SHOULD get penalty if abusing the limits a system operates at.

So from reading Oleg's answers this is what we will have. Real startup, even behind a button for example, but you have to operate the plane within parameters or systems will fail or get damaged. Am I right?

[reflected]

I don't mean to be too picky, but aren't the crosshairs too big, too thin and too white? I thought they were smaller, fatter and yellow.

Otherwise the cockpits look absolutely amazing!

[Ltbear]

geeez.....some around here should realy get laid or wankz abit.....

We get a game that is maby 100% more detailed in every level and its not enough....

We get engines where a cylinder can get blown or you loose electric power because of a shot over wire......

We get visuals that are werry impressing...

But no its not enough.....

One thing "some" forget here is the things mr maddox talks about between the lines...he uses "not in initial release" alot <----- im not native english speaking and know what that meens....

Instead of all the whambulance calling, relax and enjoy...be happy...the wait will be worth it.....and remember....."not in initial release" DONT MEEN NO!!!

mr maddox.....i buy this game happy as a boy who got hes first kiss....im impressed by the progress so far and know by the history from IL2 series that you dont let the costumers down....

And dont let these wierd statements get to you.....10+ years and so far you and your team have been some of the best in the game producing world to listen and work with us "prob heads"

Get a darn good day.....and atleast you know there is some of us who dont cry like a woman who broke a nail........

[JG53Harti]

Well, look at all the add-ons for FSX that do actually feature complex start-up procedures. There is quite a big market for them.



I would like see you on a DF-Server :D 50 enemies over you airfield and you must press button 1, button 2, move lever X ten times.... you will be dead and have to start again :D
Press button 1 again, 2 again and dead again :D
You will be frustrated and you will never start the game again, because Oleg has not build in a quick start button :D


So in this way I prefer the one-button-startup ;)

[Romanator21]

I realize that everyone has their own idea of "fun", but honestly, there is nothing "fun" about a flight procedure simulator.

Nothing.

Maybe, but I don't think it's fun to spawn, press I, jam throttle to 100%, and leap into the air, climb for 5 minutes, and then commence TnB for a bit, and then repeat 30 times. If I wanted that, I would be playing Hawx, or Ace Combat 6.

I get so bored of online mash-ups, that sometimes I find myself flying two-hour long sorties in a TB-3 just to keep it interesting.

Now, if the procedures actually meant something, which according to Oleg, are above and beyond anything out there at the moment, coupled with an awesome FM that conveys the "feel" of flight, then we have a real knock-out winner.

I feel that having a complex system is vital in a combat flight sim. Currently in IL-2, the automatic system in a FW-190 doesn't provide anything to a pilot over the La-7's rudimentary one, which can allow it to fly at 100-110 pitch and power all day even without touching the rads. Having to set the right pitch, radiator settings, manifold pressure, before even thinking about commencing a bounce would mean everything in combat, and make things so much more interesting.

In any case, no one's going to force you to lean, or open your intercoolers, or whatever. It's going to be optional, so why worry?

[ZaltysZ]

I would like see you on a DF-Server :D 50 enemies over you airfield and you must press button 1, button 2, move lever X ten times.... you will be dead and have to start again :D

Not all servers run missions where bases are only 10km apart and the only AA present is the one, which has been placed by mistake and mission creator has been too lazy to "fix" that. :-P

[Azimech]

Agreed. Not every detail or system needs to be in the initial release, I loved it how IL2 growed with every patch. It gives the devs time and receive more detailed feedback from the community and a lot of questions that are asked now will be answered by the product itself when we play it.

[Oleg Maddox]

I would like see you on a DF-Server :D 50 enemies over you airfield and you must press button 1, button 2, move lever X ten times.... you will be dead and have to start again :D
Press button 1 again, 2 again and dead again :D
You will be frustrated and you will never start the game again, because Oleg has not build in a quick start button :D


So in this way I prefer the one-button-startup ;)

Its the main reason as well.
Great experience of the online gameplay voting for one button start. But with a lot of modelling systems you should be more accurate than it was in Il-2.

And.... pupular game has always online gameplay. If it isn't well done or close to well done, or completely absent or absolutely not interesting, then the game soon will be failled out from the stores.

[ZaltysZ]

I don't mean to be too picky, but aren't the crosshairs too big, too thin and too white? I thought they were smaller, fatter and yellow.

You probably compare them to some photos you have seen. You must take into account that crosshairs are at infinity and mechanical parts of sights are not, so if photo is focused at close distance (i.e. cockpit is sharp), crosshairs will be duller and bolder in such photo. Also, crosshairs size is independent from distance to sights, so if you vary distance from, sights to camera (or eyes), you can get illusion that crosshairs shrink or grow (but only relatively to mechanical parts of sight).

[Oleg Maddox]

Not all servers run missions where bases are only 10km apart and the only AA present is the one, which has been placed by mistake and mission creator has been too lazy to "fix" that. :-P

98% would like quick action playing online. This isn't only in sim industry but also for any game. Doesn't matter is is shooter or even adventure game (different sort of action, but anyway they want it right after the start the game).

the other 2% asking some uniquie features that dislike most. Including starup procedure.

Will be fair till end: Startup procedure don't make money that we need for the continues of development. Instead it is eating money and resouces of development. There are many other things that are way more important for making successful on the market combat fligth sim.

I need to listen market, experinece for the last 20 years of my business and plan my team work that to do not overload them with the things that don't bring money in future comparing to the investments in such development. Just will repeat: complete check out and starup procedure - this is for third parties for some of aircraft... But I'm sure that for all content of the sim even third parties will be unable to make these things... or they will only do withourt adding of the new content...

Trust me. I know well what I talk.

And look please back to Il-2. Still no one sim has so many things modelled in one combat sim. One could maybe, repating the Il-2 itself with a bit better graphics engine... but it will be repeating, not the new things, like will bring the new series from us in future.