Friday 2010-10-22 Dev. update and Discussion

[Flanker35M]

S!

So the hopes of certain procedures are in the hands of 3rd party. Fully understandable and agreeable at this point of the SoW development and situation.

I just hope that we do NOT have this IL-2 style "no penalty at all" engine thing in higher realism settings. I could care less of the arcade settings, as long as realism can be adjusted then all is OK :)

The point I tried to make is that SoW will have a high fidelity modelling of damage, flight physics and systems. So will the SYSTEM modelling take in account the careless use of the engine for example? There was a reason why the engines needed to be warmed before take-off or keep the ground idle/taxi times short to avoid overheat.

So question is: If I start the engine with a button, do I have to wait for the oil and fuel pressure/temps to stabilize BEFORE I can slam the throttle to the firewall for take-off OR can I just press "start engine" and slam the throttle to the stopper WITHOUT ANY penalty as in IL-2?

[Oleg Maddox]

S!

So the hopes of certain procedures are in the hands of 3rd party. Fully understandable and agreeable at this point of the SoW development and situation.

I just hope that we do NOT have this IL-2 style "no penalty at all" engine thing in higher realism settings. I could care less of the arcade settings, as long as realism can be adjusted then all is OK :)

The point I tried to make is that SoW will have a high fidelity modelling of damage, flight physics and systems. So will the SYSTEM modelling take in account the careless use of the engine for example? There was a reason why the engines needed to be warmed before take-off or keep the ground idle/taxi times short to avoid overheat.

So question is: If I start the engine with a button, do I have to wait for the oil and fuel pressure/temps to stabilize BEFORE I can slam the throttle to the firewall for take-off OR can I just press "start engine" and slam the throttle to the stopper WITHOUT ANY penalty as in IL-2?

No penalty at all just with simple settings without CEM (Complex engine managment)

[furbs]

Oleg...i was looking through a old video of a early build of SOW(IL2 engine?)..and took a few screens, i know the new SOW will be much more detailed in res and textures, but when i was asking before about colours of fields of england these shots are to me very very good and look like very much like England that i know, showing the green and hedgrows, again, im just talking about colours.

http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/7079/plugincontainer20101025.png
By furbs9999 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/furbs9999) at 2010-10-25

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/7079/plugincontainer20101025.png
By furbs9999 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/furbs9999) at 2010-10-25

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/7079/plugincontainer20101025.png
By furbs9999 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/furbs9999) at 2010-10-25

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/7079/plugincontainer20101025.png
By furbs9999 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/furbs9999) at 2010-10-25

Will the final colours of SOW look more like this?

[Flanker35M]

S!

Thank you :) Low realism = no penalty. High realism = penalty. I am a happy and can't wait for SoW to be in stores!

[ZaltysZ]

98% would like quick action playing online.

the other 2% asking some uniquie features that dislike most. Including starup procedure.


Of course, and your focus on majority is well understandable. And those 2% also understands that focusing on majority will bring more money, which in turn will allow further development and the end result will be lots of features.

It can easily be taken that something isn't going to be implemented because it is too costly and won't pay off, however, sometimes those 98% (or those 2%) like to teach each other what is fun and what is not, and this ends with too extreme and biased reasoning (like "no one will like it" and so on) or even attempts to convince opponent that he does not know what is fun for him. :-)

[Oleg Maddox]

Oleg...i was looking through a old video of a early build of SOW(IL2 engine?)..and took a few screens, i know the new SOW will be much more detailed in res and textures, but when i was asking before about colours of fields of england these shots are to me very very good and look like very much like England that i know, showing the green and hedgrows, again, im just talking about colours.

http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/7079/plugincontainer20101025.png
By furbs9999 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/furbs9999) at 2010-10-25

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/7079/plugincontainer20101025.png
By furbs9999 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/furbs9999) at 2010-10-25

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/7079/plugincontainer20101025.png
By furbs9999 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/furbs9999) at 2010-10-25

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/7079/plugincontainer20101025.png
By furbs9999 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/furbs9999) at 2010-10-25

Will the final colours of SOW look more like this?

Yes it was using a bit modified Il-2 engine but with new 3D models.
Don't worry. will looks close to this and lighting will be way better.
And these textures above was my photos of some part when I was flying over England (but with not enough for use directly resolution and amount of them).

[LukeFF]

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.

Just as another source of info for German cockpits, including the Bf 109 E:

http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/Flugzeuge/J%E4ger/Me109E/Instrumentenbeschreibung/Bilder.htm

http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/Flugzeuge/cockpitprofile/web/new%20site/frames2/Deutsche%20Cockpits.htm

I personally don't know what is/should be correct (other than what I wrote above). Nonetheless, it's a website definitely worth checking out. The owner of the site is very friendly and has answered some questions for me in the past.

[Oleg Maddox]

Just as another source of info for German cockpits, including the Bf 109 E:

http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/Flugzeuge/J%E4ger/Me109E/Instrumentenbeschreibung/Bilder.htm

http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/Flugzeuge/cockpitprofile/web/new%20site/frames2/Deutsche%20Cockpits.htm

I personally don't know what is/should be correct (other than what I wrote above). Nonetheless, it's a website definitely worth checking out. The owner of the site is very friendly and has answered some questions for me in the past.

The photo on the first link is from original NII VVS trials doc (at least I have the same in copy of doc). By description in doc about work of gauges - 120 with the link to original German manual (one of the 109th that Russians boght before the war directly from Germany with permision of Hitler).

We will keeep 120 (as well as this gauge also present in other docs for production line of 109th - samples) untill the time when will be more info accessible. At the moment I think there was 120 limit in this gauge for the E series and maybe later it was changed by 160 on final E7 and then F.

[furbs]

Thanks for the reply Oleg, yep the colours are very good and cant wait to see the final SOW version.

[Sutts]

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!


I think you're missing the point here. Flying a heavy bomber mission was almost all about procedures. Without procedures there's very little else to keep your brain active.

Take away procedures and what are we left with:

1. Hit the start engines key
2. Ignore the gauges as they're boring and don't have any effect on anything anyhow
3. Firewall throttles and bounce into the air
4. Fly 2-4 hours in general direction of target
5. On approach to target, forget about the little boring details like wind speed, drift, altitude. Setting the bomb sight up would take procedures which are for nerds.
6. Push button to drop bombs over target
7. Turn around a go home for tea and medals


While I find it hard to accept that all those detailed add-on products for the MS series were produced for a "tiny" minority, I do agree that Oleg needs to focus on the things that matter to him.

I'm very happy to leave the extras to third parties and will gladly pay good money for their efforts. With all the research and coding already undertaken for individual aircraft, I should think existing third parties may be able to produce add-ons for SoW quite quickly.

I find it a shame that the modern generation has such a short attention span that anything other than instant combat and glory is considered boring and therefore mocked. We mustn't forget that to the guys who actually flew these aircraft in combat, procedures (both on the ground and in the air) were everything...their lives really did depend on them.

[Oleg Maddox]

I think you're missing the point here. Flying a heavy bomber mission was almost all about procedures. Without procedures there's very little else to keep your brain active.

Take away procedures and what are we left with:

1. Hit the start engines key
2. Ignore the gauges as they're boring and don't have any effect on anything anyhow
3. Firewall throttles and bounce into the air
4. Fly 2-4 hours in general direction of target
5. On approach to target, forget about the little boring details like wind speed, drift, altitude. Setting the bomb sight up would take procedures which are for nerds.
6. Push button to drop bombs over target
7. Turn around a go home for tea and medals


While I find it hard to accept that all those detailed add-on products for the MS series were produced for a "tiny" minority, I do agree that Oleg needs to focus on the things that matter to him.

I'm very happy to leave the extras to third parties and will gladly pay good money for their efforts. With all the research and coding already undertaken for individual aircraft, I should think existing third parties may be able to produce add-ons for SoW quite quickly.

I find it a shame that that the modern generation has such a short attention span that anything other than instant combat and glory is considered boring and therefore mocked. We mustn't forget that to the guys who actually flew these aircraft in combat, procedures (both on the ground and in the air) were everything...their lives really did depend on them.

From which modern game it is? ;)
I think it isn't even from Il-2....

[NLS61]

Oleg,
If you want a very good source for various airplanes have a look at http://www.hph.cz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=115&Itemid=102&lang=cs
The owner of this company has quality written all over him and is known to not do things that are not authentic.
I've visited their factory lately and was very impressed with how they do things.
Maybe you want to contact them.

Niels

[Gourmand]

98% would like quick action playing online ...
the other 2% asking some uniquie features that dislike most.

so... 98% play at IL2 wings of prey and 2% at IL-1946 ? ;)

and me i'm the 1% that would like see a briefing map in a hangar with an human avatar, ang go like GTA to my plane, and after the landing getting out my plane, to walk the hangar taking other plane ;)

those want quick action generaly just bought a game... the true real passionate player ' the simmer' are the 2% and are willing to invest for your game....


but, i trust in you Oleg, i'm sure SOW will be the new reference to the sim flight

[Oleg Maddox]

so... 98% play at IL2 wings of prey and 2% at IL-1946 ? ;)



When birds of prey will be sold in millions copies then you may say that it is reached the Il-2 original series status. And... anyway it is the game based on Il-2...

[150GCT_Veltro]

Yes it was using a bit modified Il-2 engine but with new 3D models.
Don't worry. will looks close to this and lighting will be way better.
And these textures above was my photos of some part when I was flying over England (but with not enough for use directly resolution and amount of them).

However it was great, a very good tiles for England.

I totally believe in your capabilities so i don't have many worries about SoW features, but i'm worried a lot about landscape (textures).
I still don't have understood if France landscape will be different from England. I think that for the Battle of Britain immersion, would be great if we could see the landscape transition from England to France and viceversa, crossing the Channel.

You say SoW landscape will be better than the pics posted above. Ok, but what we have seen untill now is not in this direction, not for me at least. The first SoW ( above), alpha or prealpha, was really amazing.

Cockpits are a work of art!

[major_setback]

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)

I understand. My point is that the people now buying FSX could change to SoW. That is NOT a small market, even if the add-market (as you say) is small.

I still think third parties will compete strongly with each other to make the first add-ons for SoW, putting in time and money to try to get a piece of the new market. And when that happens people (old fSX customers) will have to buy SoW to try them out!!! :-)

[Sutts]

From which modern game it is? ;)
I think it isn't even from Il-2....

Oleg, I was responding to the following comment by brando:

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!

He is suggesting that the fun only starts once you get over enemy territory. I guess this kind of attitude is created by the constant adrenaline fueled online furballs. I think if you asked real aircrew you'd find that procedures were vital and because of these procedures, aircrew were kept very busy and were far from bored before they reached the enemy coast.

I think takeoff with a full bomb and fuel load was probably the most dangerous/exciting/terrifying time for an aircrew. Lose an engine on takeoff and you'll most likely die in a fireball. I'd like to feel the same tension on take off....if I take a short cut and skip the warm up or fail to check the vital signs of the engines then it really is quite serious.

I still feel strongly that combat is only part of the simulator experience and knowing your aircraft systems and limits is just as important as being good in a dog fight. There are still a large number of us who prefer the offline experience. Without the checks and procedures there's very little to keep the mind occupied until you meet the enemy.

I'm not criticising your decisions at all and as I've already pointed out in a previous post, by modelling the systems you've already given us the majority of what we need for a startup procedure anyhow.

What I am trying to counter is the view that a combat simulator is JUST about the combat.

[Foo'bar]

deleted because of error.

[Gourmand]

i know that a developpement is a concession between rentability and fun feature,
and i'm not a real pilot, and turn on the radio before taking off is not interesting for me, i just don't want to see a BoP/WoP 2 with no taking off, no landing, the fast-paced game terrify me...
(i bought IL2-46 and WoP, and WoP takes the dust,) so ok WoP be sold in millions copies but i dont thing a WoP 2 and WoP 3 reach the same sold, sure -1 for me ;)

so it's that why I say i'm trust in you, we can already see that SOW is not BoP 2

[Oleg Maddox]

I understand. My point is that the people now buying FSX could change to SoW. That is NOT a small market, even if the add-market (as you say) is small.

I still think third parties will compete strongly with each other to make the first add-ons for SoW, putting in time and money to try to get a piece of the new market. And when that happens people (old fSX customers) will have to buy SoW to try them out!!! :-)

Its why we plan third party useful tools for the the makers of add-ons. Currently it useful only for us. Becasue we have no time to finalise them for external use before the sim will be out of gate
I was learning experience of MS with third party and get some info what is possible to give and what is not.
There are a lot of contradictions with this... especially due to online gameplay.
Sometime incorrect politics with add-ons may totally destroy the gameplay online.
The goal is to satisfy both sides:
1. these who want totally fair gameplay online with no cheating
2. these that want other set of objects, aircraft, ships, etc...

Trust me for the combat, not for the civil aircraft sim, it is very complex task to develope the code and to satisfy then all groups of interest.

CFS would be more popular with the investment power of MS, but from the beginning they did a lot of mistakes in this area.

In the other hand we can't anymore make everything ourselves - to get 3D from third party, to rework it and then to progam it, like it was with Il-2 series...it was total oveloading of our team. That all should be done on the third party side with the limits that we defining. And limits will be. For some parts - strong, for some - nothing in limit.

There is impossible to compare the MS FS third party development type with the Combat sim additions of third party. The main difference - Combat term, that defining the rules for inclusion in the game some new content by third parties. Gameplay of MS FS and any of combat flight sim is very different and its a problem to go by MS FS experience as a copy.

[NLS61]

I was drooling over the latest screenshots again and there is this “gun camera” switch.
Currently it’s in the off position, might it be possible to put it on?
Maybe?

Niels

[=BLW=Pablo]

Hello everyone!

I saw this site with the BOB SOW for sale, is something true, or is it a mistake?

http://www.play.com/Games/PC/4-/1021002/IL2-Storm-Of-War-Battle-Of-Britain/Product.html

~S~

[Flanker35M]

S!

Pablo: the release date there can be whatever, has changed over the years ;) All we need to know is that SoW is now close to be ready :D

I find this discussion of the realism and what is modelled quite interesting. There is a camp that basically want the fiery furball action with minimal input from themselves, the mediocre that wants some more than just the same old fruball over a certain place of map and then some that could live with all the complexity of the simulator. The last group being propably smallest. I belong to it.

Why? First of all I do NOT challenge Oleg's vision and what he has said, everything due it's time and 3rd party. That was made clear by Oleg. All is just my own views of the issue. For me realism means going all the way, there are no shortcuts because something is not convenient or allegedly fun. I want to learn, challenge my skills to the maximum while I fly the sim. To see if I am up to the challenge! I want the experience reflect something from over 70 years ago, within the limits of a computer game can generate.

It is not being masochist, it all comes from my work! I maintain, repair, arm, refuel, do checks and inspections, change parts and lead a team to get things done within a schedule. And all this happens by following PROCEDURES to the letter, there are NO shortcuts or "I do not want to do it because it is boring or smears my hands". It is 100% by the book and regulations or nothing, you are responsible for the work you do, the pilot depends on your work.

What this has to do with SoW? Well, even I would be the 0.01% minority that enjoys starting the plane all the way, monitor temperatures and pressures, trim, do checks..I would do it! There are pilot manuals out there fairly easily to get and printed. I miss something during the procedures and the sim might punish me with a bad engine performance or even a malfunction. It happened IRL and and they had no REFLY. The manuals are there to make it safer and to make sure you do not cross the limits.

You have to remember that back in WW2 most pilots got training in plane systems(not in super detail, but something) so they would have an idea how the plane works thus giving them some knowledge what could go wrong and where if they abuse the plane or cut corners. SoW models systems and other things in more detail than anything up to date so I expect it to surpass IL-2's very simplified CEM for example. So realism is the only option for me.

Therefore I find it amusing that many just want the "instant action gratification" and realism to a level that only is favorable for them. Even with 100% realism we lack a lot of the work load a real pilot had. Sure a limitation of being a game and lack of equipment(switches, controllers, you name it) but nevertheless with a sound approach doable to make a challenge.

End of rant. I patiently will wait for SoW and see. When finally can double click on it's icon on my desktop I will know how it is done. But I have faith and trust Oleg's vision.

[ZaltysZ]

I saw this site with the BOB SOW for sale, is something true, or is it a mistake?


Y.A.S.P. - Yet Another SoW Preorder.

[philip.ed]

Oleg, will we see hedgerows like this in SoW? (which are currently missing from the shots posted)

Petham area:

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/43644-1/db60602Petham.jpg

Hadlow; one of my more local areas :D

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/37166-1/ba32486.jpg

Hadlow tower; I wonder if this is included in SoW?

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/37164-1/HadlowTower-ba32485.jpg

A nice shot here of farmland. A good colour indicator, despite what you say about lenses, this is exactly the colours I see with my own eyes in the summer-time. The farmland layout is probably too modern though.

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/43833-1/Kentfarmland-db60688a.jpg


A LOT more here: http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/Portfolio.htm I understand that these shots are fairly recent, but they provide a great view of the landscape IMHO. Take it or leave it Oleg ;) :D

[ECV56_Lancelot]

I jump a little late on the discussion, and get a bit confused about what will be modeled. I understand that realistic parameter of engine and system operation will be modeled, but we will not have clickable all switches, buttons and lever because a lot of them were only needed for start up or shut down procedure only.
I'm more than fine with all that, but i would like to know if we will have clickable swiches, knobs and buttons for things that are used during flight. For example:
- Turn on/off internal light
- Same with external lights
- Activate weapons or bombs (dont know if any planes of BoB had something like this, i'm just guessing here for giving an example).
- Change radio frequency
- Knobs of instruments like altimeter or other

And thigs like that.
I mean, i like realistic procedures but i know most don't like them and in favour of leave them outside, but for everything that is used in flight, including radio equipment, i would like to know if we will have them clickable.

Thanks a lot Oleg for the time given to us to answer our question and discuss this motters! Its one of the thing a apreciate most about you and your team.
Take care and keep it up! :)

[furbs]

Oleg, will we see hedgerows like this in SoW? (which are currently missing from the shots posted)

Petham area:

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/43644-1/db60602Petham.jpg

Hadlow; one of my more local areas :D

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/37166-1/ba32486.jpg

Hadlow tower; I wonder if this is included in SoW?

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/37164-1/HadlowTower-ba32485.jpg

A nice shot here of farmland. A good colour indicator, despite what you say about lenses, this is exactly the colours I see with my own eyes in the summer-time. The farmland layout is probably too modern though.

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/43833-1/Kentfarmland-db60688a.jpg


A LOT more here: http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/Portfolio.htm I understand that these shots are fairly recent, but they provide a great view of the landscape IMHO. Take it or leave it Oleg ;) :D

nice pics...these shots look pretty close to them i think, a early build of SOW on the IL2 engine.
Oleg tells us SOW will be close to this.

http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/7079/plugincontainer20101025.png
By furbs9999 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/furbs9999) at 2010-10-25

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/7079/plugincontainer20101025.png
By furbs9999 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/furbs9999) at 2010-10-25

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/7079/plugincontainer20101025.png
By furbs9999 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/furbs9999) at 2010-10-25

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/7079/plugincontainer20101025.png
By furbs9999 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/furbs9999) at 2010-10-25

[Blackdog_kt]

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.

That's your personal opinion however, isn't it now? Because it certainly is not mine, or of the multitude of people around the globe who want it even more complicated than i do and spend 70 dollars on a 747 addd-on.

I don't have FSX, i fly it on a friend's PC quite often though and what most people talk about here are widespread misconceptions. Actually, the way it works is the way Splitter described it. When you need to be scanning the sky outside, you can be scanning the sky outside. The rest is just an accurate simulation of a real pilot's workload, because in a real aircraft you have things to do even when nothing's happening. How is that a bad thing for a combat sim, having stuff to do during the uneventful cruise to the combat area, when it won't even detract from your ability to wage combat when you need to? You see, it's simply about personal preference. Some people like wonder woman view, some like unlimited ammo and some like cockpit view and limited ammo. It's the same thing with this as well and there is a market for it, especially now that MS closed down their FS franchise.

The procedures are the tip of the iceberg. Up until the 30s there were no checklists in the real world either. Why did they invent them? Because planes got complicated and people were crashing left and right when they forgot to turn on switches, that's why. SoW might lack the checklists but since it will have the systems modelled, you are going to need them anyway sooner or later and then you'll have to come up with them on your own. Which is a good thing to be honest, because then people will realize that it's not a big deal at all for 40s designs that lack computerized instruments and complex electronics and they all share the same type of engine operation. Then they'll realize that it gives them stuff to fiddle with during the uneventful parts of the sortie and stuff to exploit in combat and it will all settle down.

The single FSX aircraft i've flown most is a payware Catalina add-on and it's quite a handful initially. However, it don't fly it with a book on my lap. I know the operating limits and fly according to them, because the knowledge is not in memorizing row upon row of numerical data (most of the times instruments are color coded anyway to show the permissible and non-permissible ranges), the real knowledge is knowing how each parameter affects the other. Then i can fiddle with keeping the neeldes in the green and by the time i've done this while settling into cruise after the climb out, i've shaved 5 minutes off the boring trip to the target area by doing something that matters in my aircraft's ability to perform well. This is what's been missing from prop sims, taking care of the ride so to speak. Clickable pits and procedural checklists are a by-product of this complexity, not the main goal. If you want to fly the complex way that's closer to reality you'll need to make a few notes,mental or real, and a way to interface with the switches, that's all.
If not, then by all means go to your options panel and set these options to "off", but let the other people fly the sim the way they think it's fun for them. ;)

I've said it before and i'll say it again, my feeling is that some people in the IL2 community don't want to lose their full switch "bragging rights" so they try to dumb down the difficulty level collectively for everyone, in order to be able to say they still fly at what the sim calls 100% difficulty.

Let's face it, people who fly full switch in IL2 but don't want to learn about intercoolers, carb icing, over-torque or how a real engine works, will not be able to fly full switch in SoW now that systems modelling has been confirmed by Oleg Maddox. A guy who's used to executing 10000ft dives with radiators open, climbing with rads closed and running WEP on low prop pitch will have lots of nasty surprises and broken engines in SoW. That rubs some people the wrong way i guess and instead of choosing a difficulty setting that corresponds well to their lack of willingness to learn new stuff, they want to limit the scope of the sim because they're ashamed to say they don't fly full switch anymore.




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?

Ditto.

[philip.ed]

nice pics...these shots look pretty close to them i think, a early build of SOW on the IL2 engine.
Oleg tells us SOW will be close to this.

http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/7079/plugincontainer20101025.png
By furbs9999 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/furbs9999) at 2010-10-25

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/7079/plugincontainer20101025.png
By furbs9999 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/furbs9999) at 2010-10-25

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/7079/plugincontainer20101025.png
By furbs9999 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/furbs9999) at 2010-10-25

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/7079/plugincontainer20101025.png
By furbs9999 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/furbs9999) at 2010-10-25

Yes, I remember that :D However, notice the trees in that early-build Furbs. They look like Christmas trees. Now look at the trees in the pictures I posted; they all have rounded-foliage and the trunks are barely visible. For me, this is an important aspect that makes the landscape look British. SoW seems to be going this way, but for me it's too early to tell yet.
That early build did look nice, although personally I do prefer the look of WoP....(if one ignores the green filter. If the field textures had more warmth, they'd look awesome)

[=BLW=Pablo]

I know not yet released the hardware requirements for the game.

but I'm buying a new video card to play the ROF, and I wonder if I will at least be able to run the SOW BOB with this new GPU ...

I thought the GTX460, will this card will run the BOB so nice?

what GPU you use in this pics Oleg ?

[Flanker35M]

S!

Blackdog, well said. Nothing to add there. I am used to studying procedures before doing so if SoW would require it, no problem :) Be it in a later addition or 3rd party work does not matter. I am sure SoW will make us all re-learn quite a bit of things ;)

[Sutts]

S!

Blackdog, well said. Nothing to add there. I am used to studying procedures before doing so if SoW would require it, no problem :) Be it in a later addition or 3rd party work does not matter. I am sure SoW will make us all re-learn quite a bit of things ;)

+1

I'm really hoping we must now treat our engine with respect. The pilots notes were written for a very good reason.

[kammo]

Philip.ed and furbs.
You guys realise you sound like a stuck record? I have read a lot of post from you two (maybe hundreds from Philip) and reached the conclusion you are not cabable of a reasonable thinking and therefore I will suggest that you guys will give it a rest. I absolutely mean no harm or try to be disrepectful, honestly. Not trying to say I'm any better than you just a friendly suggestion to make this forum as pleasant as possible.

Nothing wrong about the asking/suggesting stuff but there is some kind of limit of the guestion asked and the way they are asked. This manner and limit is something that each induvidual have figure out themselves. I suggest you go back read your posts and try to think if there is something that you guys could do differen't.

These above are of course my subjective opinions and I could be wrong.

Cheers
Kammo

[ECV56_Lancelot]

S!

Pablo: the release date there can be whatever, has changed over the years ;) All we need to know is that SoW is now close to be ready :D

I find this discussion of the realism and what is modelled quite interesting. There is a camp that basically want the fiery furball action with minimal input from themselves, the mediocre that wants some more than just the same old fruball over a certain place of map and then some that could live with all the complexity of the simulator. The last group being propably smallest. I belong to it.

Why? First of all I do NOT challenge Oleg's vision and what he has said, everything due it's time and 3rd party. That was made clear by Oleg. All is just my own views of the issue. For me realism means going all the way, there are no shortcuts because something is not convenient or allegedly fun. I want to learn, challenge my skills to the maximum while I fly the sim. To see if I am up to the challenge! I want the experience reflect something from over 70 years ago, within the limits of a computer game can generate.

It is not being masochist, it all comes from my work! I maintain, repair, arm, refuel, do checks and inspections, change parts and lead a team to get things done within a schedule. And all this happens by following PROCEDURES to the letter, there are NO shortcuts or "I do not want to do it because it is boring or smears my hands". It is 100% by the book and regulations or nothing, you are responsible for the work you do, the pilot depends on your work.

What this has to do with SoW? Well, even I would be the 0.01% minority that enjoys starting the plane all the way, monitor temperatures and pressures, trim, do checks..I would do it! There are pilot manuals out there fairly easily to get and printed. I miss something during the procedures and the sim might punish me with a bad engine performance or even a malfunction. It happened IRL and and they had no REFLY. The manuals are there to make it safer and to make sure you do not cross the limits.

You have to remember that back in WW2 most pilots got training in plane systems(not in super detail, but something) so they would have an idea how the plane works thus giving them some knowledge what could go wrong and where if they abuse the plane or cut corners. SoW models systems and other things in more detail than anything up to date so I expect it to surpass IL-2's very simplified CEM for example. So realism is the only option for me.

Therefore I find it amusing that many just want the "instant action gratification" and realism to a level that only is favorable for them. Even with 100% realism we lack a lot of the work load a real pilot had. Sure a limitation of being a game and lack of equipment(switches, controllers, you name it) but nevertheless with a sound approach doable to make a challenge.

End of rant. I patiently will wait for SoW and see. When finally can double click on it's icon on my desktop I will know how it is done. But I have faith and trust Oleg's vision.

Couldn't agree mor Flanker35M, my thoughts exactly. Well said!

[philip.ed]

Philip.ed and furbs.
You guys realise you sound like a stuck record? I have read a lot of post from you two (maybe hundreds from Philip) and reached the conclusion you are not cabable of a reasonable thinking and therefore I will suggest that you guys will give it a rest. I absolutely mean no harm or try to be disrepectful, honestly. Not trying to say I'm any better than you just a friendly suggestion to make this forum as pleasant as possible.

Nothing wrong about the asking/suggesting stuff but there is some kind of limit of the guestion asked and the way they are asked. This manner and limit is something that each induvidual have figure out themselves. I suggest you go back read your posts and try to think if there is something that you guys could do differen't.

These above are of course my subjective opinions and I could be wrong.

Cheers
Kammo

I have posted a lot of different questions and Oleg has answered a few of them. Here, I found this website, and considering that topic had moved to terrain, I thought it would be interesting to flag up. If you think I am like a stuck record, put me on block. I am just posting my opinion on what I see and currently what I see doesn't look like summer-time England. That's all.
I agree that I have posted similar things more than once, but it's only for Oleg to read and comment on. He doesn't have to comment, but seeing as though he is posting a lot recently, I thought this might interest him.

I'm not sure how I'm not capable of reasonable thinking. I sent Oleg dozens of research pages for SoW which he was grateful for and has used. If that didn't need reasonable thought, then thank-you for calling me a genius. If you have a problem with me, PM me. But please, don't turn this topic bitchy.
The information I have posted may interest others; it doesn't all revolve around you.

Also, I always try and post pictures as well. We can't help it if we feel a certain way. The terrain is an important feature and we may feel more strongly about it than you. However, others might feel more strongly than us. Obviously we can't please everyone, but then neither can Oleg.
It's interesting to see users, who have in the past moaned at me for saying I don't like the clouds, post and say that they won't buy the game because the clcikable-cockpit element isn't extensive enough for them. Clearly everyone has their own ideas of their ideal sim, and for a sim to reach that it would require unlimited processing power, an infinite amount of graphics cards, and a budget that could wipe Africa's debts. Of course there will be areas that some may feel need more work, but then SoW has the time to develop. The discussions, opinions, research and pictures are here for Oleg to use (if he wishes). ;)

Thankyou.

Back to discussion.

[Bearcat]

Its why we plan third party useful tools for the the makers of add-ons. Currently it useful only for us. Becasue we have no time to finalise them for external use before the sim will be out of gate
I was learning experience of MS with third party and get some info what is possible to give and what is not.
There are a lot of contradictions with this... especially due to online gameplay.
Sometime incorrect politics with add-ons may totally destroy the gameplay online.
The goal is to satisfy both sides:
1. these who want totally fair gameplay online with no cheating
2. these that want other set of objects, aircraft, ships, etc...

Trust me for the combat, not for the civil aircraft sim, it is very complex task to develope the code and to satisfy then all groups of interest.

CFS would be more popular with the investment power of MS, but from the beginning they did a lot of mistakes in this area.

In the other hand we can't anymore make everything ourselves - to get 3D from third party, to rework it and then to progam it, like it was with Il-2 series...it was total oveloading of our team. That all should be done on the third party side with the limits that we defining. And limits will be. For some parts - strong, for some - nothing in limit.

There is impossible to compare the MS FS third party development type with the Combat sim additions of third party. The main difference - Combat term, that defining the rules for inclusion in the game some new content by third parties. Gameplay of MS FS and any of combat flight sim is very different and its a problem to go by MS FS experience as a copy.


Exactly...

[kammo]

I have posted a lot of different questions and Oleg has answered a few of them. Here, I found this website, and considering that topic had moved to terrain, I thought it would be interesting to flag up. If you think I am like a stuck record, put me on block. I am just posting my opinion on what I see and currently what I see doesn't look like summer-time England. That's all.


The reason why I wrote is the repeated questions. Sometimes repeated questions that are allready answered by Oleg. Hence the hars "reasonable thinking" comment. No reason for PM's. Like I said friendly suggestion.

[philip.ed]

OK, that's fine then.
I think that Oleg is onto a winner with what he's shown us terrain wise. My last post was purely to show how England looks from a similar height at a similar time of year ;) The terrain in SoW is WIP, so I think that, paired with his own pictures, the website that I linked to provides quite a good idea of how England looks from an aerial view; particularly the towns as well.

[brando]

I for one am getting tired of these modern photos being held up as something to follow. Haven't you guys any understanding of modern, intensive farming as practiced since the 50s and its enormous effect on the agricultural landscape? Being shown areas where the old hedgerows have been torn out, ponds filled, fields enlarged, roads straightened, modern fertilisers used and arrow-straight hedges laid, is not at all conducive to the developers' understanding of how South-east England looked in the early Forties.

P.S. How many trees were lost in the great storm of 1987?

"The storm caused substantial damage over much of England, downing an estimated 15 million trees....." Wiki. I think that might have changed things a little, views-wise.

[philip.ed]

I for one am getting tired of these modern photos being held up as something to follow. Haven't you guys any understanding of modern, intensive farming as practiced since the 50s and its enormous effect on the agricultural landscape? Being shown areas where the old hedgerows have been torn out, ponds filled, fields enlarged, roads straightened, modern fertilisers used and arrow-straight hedges laid, is not at all conducive to the developers' understanding of how South-east England looked in the early Forties.

I agree. THe pictures, as I said, are just representative of colour, trees and hedges. Take any picture from 1940, and clear rectangular-3D hedges can bee seen which are missing from SoW. The same with colour; grass will look practically the same on a hot stretch of days from this summer, or last summer, vs 1940. The only difference is that the 1940 summer went on for a lot longer than the summer we have just had.
Of course the field patterns are completely different, and new crops like rape have been introduced, but the photos are just there to show the colours and the trees and hedges (I know I'm repeating myself again)

I know how Oleg feels about photos like this, but if he has lived in England when there's been a long stretch of summer days that are very hot (very hot for England I might add) then he's know that the burnished, golden, browns and greens are the norm. This is missing from the SoW shots we've been shown.

PS-so if so many trees were lost, you're saying the game needs more? I doubt SoW will have every-tree modelled that was around in 1940. IMO, it's better to use modern field patterns and road networks (that are known to have existen in 1940) than to just make it up. However a fair amount of original aerial shots from the period exist, and Oleg has used what he can find.
Modern shots are in no way representational of the correct field patterns but they still show how the trees look like from certain heights and also how the colours varies....(debateable, I know)

[Raggz]

Holy crap, stunning cockpits and artwork. Excellent Oleg :D

[Splitter]

S!

Blackdog, well said. Nothing to add there. I am used to studying procedures before doing so if SoW would require it, no problem :) Be it in a later addition or 3rd party work does not matter. I am sure SoW will make us all re-learn quite a bit of things ;)

It's obvious that systems are going to be modeled much better in SoW. If you want to have to pay attention to the things involved in complex engine management, you are largely going to have that opportunity.

On the other hand, if there are "features" that you don't want to use, you can switch them off.

For example, when I started playing IL-2, I turned off over heat and complex engine management. I had to get the feel of the flight models and controls for THIS sim and that took nearly 100% of my concentration. I didn't want to have to worry about overheating my engine. I even flew in WonderWoman view in combat. I wanted to be able to have some FUN while I was learning. All of this is offline of course. Then , as I became more proficient, I started turning the "difficulty" settings on to get a more "realistic" experience.

I would think you will be able to do the same thing in SoW. Except that the "realistic" settings will be even closer to "real life" than they were in IL-2.

Also I think people are missing what Oleg said about online play and third party add-ons. If Oleg does not implement limits on what a third party can do, unscrupulous third party developers will introduce "uber planes" into online combat.

Such considerations are not a problem, really, in mere flight sims. In flight sims, there is no competition online (though there is online play of course). Flight sim pilots want accuracy, they want their computer plane to fly as close to the real thing as possible. If a third party puts out a plane with unrealistic flight characteristics, words gets out and no one buys it :).

In a combat sim, some (many?) online pilots would actually PAY for a BF-109 with a top speed 50 KPH too high, 50% more ammo capacity, and the maneuverability of a A6M.

Oleg is saying that if he doesn't implement controls on what third parties can do, the integrity of his COMBAT flight sim will suffer (that's the way I read his comments at least).

As someone who hates online cheaters and wishes he could reach through the internet and strangle such cheaters, I hope 1C can do a good job of limiting what cheaters can do. (Any offense given to online cheaters is completely intentional in my previous paragraph :) )

Splitter

[major_setback]

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox View Post
Its why we plan third party useful tools for the the makers of add-ons. Currently it useful only for us. Becasue we have no time to finalise them for external use before the sim will be out of gate
I was learning experience of MS with third party and get some info what is possible to give and what is not.
There are a lot of contradictions with this... especially due to online gameplay.
Sometime incorrect politics with add-ons may totally destroy the gameplay online.
The goal is to satisfy both sides:
1. these who want totally fair gameplay online with no cheating
2. these that want other set of objects, aircraft, ships, etc...

Trust me for the combat, not for the civil aircraft sim, it is very complex task to develope the code and to satisfy then all groups of interest.

CFS would be more popular with the investment power of MS, but from the beginning they did a lot of mistakes in this area.

In the other hand we can't anymore make everything ourselves - to get 3D from third party, to rework it and then to progam it, like it was with Il-2 series...it was total oveloading of our team. That all should be done on the third party side with the limits that we defining. And limits will be. For some parts - strong, for some - nothing in limit.

There is impossible to compare the MS FS third party development type with the Combat sim additions of third party. The main difference - Combat term, that defining the rules for inclusion in the game some new content by third parties. Gameplay of MS FS and any of combat flight sim is very different and its a problem to go by MS FS experience as a copy..

Exactly...

I'm extremely optimistic about the situation.
I think that the difference between combat and non-combat aircraft modelling will be overcome without a problem. Shockwave (if they decide...) for instance, know that have to develop a damage model and working guns etc. or they won't be allowed to sell their add-ons. It's a big incentive!

Civilian (modern) aircraft makers on the other hand won't need to do so much in the way of damage modelling.

But the main reason why I think we will see third party companies making add-ons is because we will all want to fly lots of aircraft is SoW, and otherwise we will be stuck with a small plane-set for a long time...I think we will be craving for good add-ons. And willing to pay for them if made by third parties.

We want extra planes. If the weather/turbulence etc. is as accurate as we hope then anyone who flies in a plane sim will want the same.

[TheSwede]

But the main reason why I think we will see third party companies making add-ons is because we will all want to fly lots of aircraft is SoW, and otherwise we will be stuck with a small plane-set for a long time...I think we will be craving for good add-ons. And willing to pay for them if made by third parties.

We want extra planes. If the weather/turbulence etc. is as accurate as we hope then anyone who flies in a plane sim will want the same.

You do know that its called SoW series right? BoB is just the first game in line. We will get more planes. I think Oleg knows that one big part of the success with Il2 is the huge amount of available planes. It creates diversity and extend the life cycle of his product.

So we will get more planes. ;)

BR
Simon

[furbs]

Philip.ed and furbs.
You guys realise you sound like a stuck record? I have read a lot of post from you two (maybe hundreds from Philip) and reached the conclusion you are not cabable of a reasonable thinking and therefore I will suggest that you guys will give it a rest. I absolutely mean no harm or try to be disrepectful, honestly. Not trying to say I'm any better than you just a friendly suggestion to make this forum as pleasant as possible.

Nothing wrong about the asking/suggesting stuff but there is some kind of limit of the guestion asked and the way they are asked. This manner and limit is something that each induvidual have figure out themselves. I suggest you go back read your posts and try to think if there is something that you guys could do differen't.

These above are of course my subjective opinions and I could be wrong.

Cheers
Kammo

Kammo, when ever i post anything im always polite and never rude,and i always try to be constructive, now if Oleg ignores my posts or tells me to give it a rest, then thats fine with me, but he doesnt, he anwsers my posts politely and is never rude, now which would suggest he has no problem disussing these things, after all its a discssion thread.
Thanks for the concern Kammo, but i would suggest you look at your own post and have a think why you need to speak for Oleg or the SOW team.

[carl]

Let's face it, people who fly full switch in IL2 but don't want to learn about intercoolers, carb icing, over-torque or how a real engine works, will not be able to fly full switch in SoW now that systems modelling has been confirmed by Oleg Maddox. A guy who's used to executing 10000ft dives with radiators open, climbing with rads closed and running WEP on low prop pitch will have lots of nasty surprises and broken engines in SoW. That rubs some people the wrong way i guess and instead of choosing a difficulty setting that corresponds well to their lack of willingness to learn new stuff, they want to limit the scope of the sim because they're ashamed to say they don't fly full switch anymore

lol this is me
still enjoying il2 for last 6 or 7 years looking forward to enjoying bob and future releases for longer.

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

I think I found a mistake. Look at this shot, I see two levers going into the same slot on the panel, that can't be right can it? Wouldn't they interfere with each other, the shorter one must be meant to go in the adjacent slot...

http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr316/Urufu_Shinjiro/Levers.jpg

[mungee]

I think that I would quite like a certain amount of engine management (as an option, obviously) ... as long as the AI pilots also have to battle with the same "headaches" that I would!! Hehe!

[jocko417]

I think I found a mistake. Look at this shot, I see two levers going into the same slot on the panel, that can't be right can it? Wouldn't they interfere with each other, the shorter one must be meant to go in the adjacent slot...

http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr316/Urufu_Shinjiro/Levers.jpg

The knob on the shorter one should be mounted on the outside of the lever, the long one has it's knob on the inside and is correct. I think the levers do share the same slot but slide beside one another, with the knob on the short one moved to the outside it won't interfere with the other lever. Good find.

Here's a couple of scans of the levers from "HAWKER HURRICANE, Inside and Out" by Melvyn Hiscock.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/jocko417/scan0001.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/jocko417/scan0002.jpg

[major_setback]

You do know that its called SoW series right? BoB is just the first game in line. We will get more planes. I think Oleg knows that one big part of the success with Il2 is the huge amount of available planes. It creates diversity and extend the life cycle of his product.

So we will get more planes. ;)

BR
Simon

Of course I know it is part of a series!
But SoW won't develop in the same way as IL2.
We have already been told that third party developers are essential if the game is going to grow like IL2, there is too much to do for the developing team to manage on their own.

If you want a Lysander, or Hudson, Hampdon or flyable Anson you will probably have to rely on third-party amateurs or professionals. The same goes for the rarer aircraft in subsequent SoW titles.

Who knows, if things work out well then the development team could concentrate on the more important programming, and future development (and the checking of flight models etc.), leaving relatively simpler model development and mundane tasks to be undertaken by third party actors.

[Chivas]

Of course I know it is part of a series!
But SoW won't develop in the same way as IL2.
We have already been told that third party developers are essential if the game is going to grow like IL2, there is too much to do for the developing team to manage on their own.

If you want a Lysander, or Hudson, Hampdon or flyable Anson you will probably have to rely on third-party amateurs or professionals. The same goes for the rarer aircraft in subsequent SoW titles.

Who knows, if things work out well then the development team could concentrate on the more important programming, and future development (and the checking of flight models etc.), leaving relatively simpler model development and mundane tasks to be undertaken by third party actors.

SOW won't need third party developers to produce other addons like SOW-MED thru SOW-Pacific, but you are correct in saying rarer aircraft and maps will probably be done by third parties. Third parties will definitely make the SOW series better as long as there is strong qualitly control.

[Richie]

Can some one tell me how in the heck did Hannes Trautloft fly his 109?

[bf-110]

Are there images of the Br.20 cockpit?

[BadAim]

Can some one tell me how in the heck did Hannes Trautloft fly his 109?
I suspect with great discomfort! I had the privilege of sitting in a Corsair cockpit and let me tell you at 6' and 200lb it was not something I'd want to do for a couple of hours (I felt much like I'd been packed into a sardine can, and that with the canopy open), and I believe the 109 cockpit was even more cramped. (by contrast the p47 cockpit is like sitting in a Cadillac, all very spacious and comfy)

[major_setback]

Are there images of the Br.20 cockpit?




http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/shot_20100122_133033.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/shot_20100122_132819.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/BR-20M_PILOT_06.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/BR-20M_PILOT_05.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/BR-20M_BOTTOM_GUNNER_0.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/BR-20M_BOMBARDIER_4.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/BR-20M_BOMBARDIER_3.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/BR-20M_BOMBARDIER_2.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/BR-20M_BOMBARDIER_1.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/BR-20M_BOMBARDIER_0.jpg



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


.

[ElAurens]

That's your personal opinion however

Yes sir it is. One shared by a lot of folks I might add.



I've said it before and i'll say it again, my feeling is that some people in the IL2 community don't want to lose their full switch "bragging rights" so they try to dumb down the difficulty level collectively for everyone, in order to be able to say they still fly at what the sim calls 100% difficulty.

]Let's face it, people who fly full switch in IL2 but don't want to learn about intercoolers, carb icing, over-torque or how a real engine works, will not be able to fly full switch in SoW now that systems modelling has been confirmed by Oleg Maddox. A guy who's used to executing 10000ft dives with radiators open, climbing with rads closed and running WEP on low prop pitch will have lots of nasty surprises and broken engines in SoW. That rubs some people the wrong way i guess and instead of choosing a difficulty setting that corresponds well to their lack of willingness to learn new stuff, they want to limit the scope of the sim because they're ashamed to say they don't fly full switch anymore.


And the above is pure conjecture on your part. Where did I say I don't want to learn anything? Blackdog your posts are not usually so full of invective, and frankly guesswork, as this one is.

Just another offliner slagging onliners?

Sure sounds that way to me.

[WTE_Galway]

And the above is pure conjecture on your part. Where did I say I don't want to learn anything? Blackdog your posts are not usually so full of invective, and frankly guesswork, as this one is.

Just another offliner slagging onliners?

Sure sounds that way to me.

Regardless of the current argument which I have not read, he does generically speaking have a point. However I do not think the issue has anything to do with online versus offline players.

Basically there do seem to be individuals (including a LOT of online game reviewers) opposed to a game having options either graphically or game mechanics wise that they will not or cannot use.

This segment of the gaming community exert continuous pressure to dumb down games and limit the graphics options to what will run on their mid range or older machines. This is the group that has led to most fantasy role play games now consisting of "stand next to the monster and left click madly".

The fact that advanced/high-res options can be turned off is not good enough for this group, they insist the game should run at FULL resolution on their older machine and include no difficulty options they can not be bothered learning. If its a game reviewer you will get a scathing review of how the game ran "far too slow" on their test machine on maximum resolution and was "unnecessarily complex" to learn.

Accusing online full switch players may have been unfair but players/reviewers with that attitude certainly do exist.

[BadAim]

That's your personal opinion however, isn't it now? Because it certainly is not mine, or of the multitude of people around the globe who want it even more complicated than i do and spend 70 dollars on a 747 addd-on.

I don't have FSX, i fly it on a friend's PC quite often though and what most people talk about here are widespread misconceptions. Actually, the way it works is the way Splitter described it. When you need to be scanning the sky outside, you can be scanning the sky outside. The rest is just an accurate simulation of a real pilot's workload, because in a real aircraft you have things to do even when nothing's happening. How is that a bad thing for a combat sim, having stuff to do during the uneventful cruise to the combat area, when it won't even detract from your ability to wage combat when you need to? You see, it's simply about personal preference. Some people like wonder woman view, some like unlimited ammo and some like cockpit view and limited ammo. It's the same thing with this as well and there is a market for it, especially now that MS closed down their FS franchise.

The procedures are the tip of the iceberg. Up until the 30s there were no checklists in the real world either. Why did they invent them? Because planes got complicated and people were crashing left and right when they forgot to turn on switches, that's why. SoW might lack the checklists but since it will have the systems modelled, you are going to need them anyway sooner or later and then you'll have to come up with them on your own. Which is a good thing to be honest, because then people will realize that it's not a big deal at all for 40s designs that lack computerized instruments and complex electronics and they all share the same type of engine operation. Then they'll realize that it gives them stuff to fiddle with during the uneventful parts of the sortie and stuff to exploit in combat and it will all settle down.

The single FSX aircraft i've flown most is a payware Catalina add-on and it's quite a handful initially. However, it don't fly it with a book on my lap. I know the operating limits and fly according to them, because the knowledge is not in memorizing row upon row of numerical data (most of the times instruments are color coded anyway to show the permissible and non-permissible ranges), the real knowledge is knowing how each parameter affects the other. Then i can fiddle with keeping the neeldes in the green and by the time i've done this while settling into cruise after the climb out, i've shaved 5 minutes off the boring trip to the target area by doing something that matters in my aircraft's ability to perform well. This is what's been missing from prop sims, taking care of the ride so to speak. Clickable pits and procedural checklists are a by-product of this complexity, not the main goal. If you want to fly the complex way that's closer to reality you'll need to make a few notes,mental or real, and a way to interface with the switches, that's all.
If not, then by all means go to your options panel and set these options to "off", but let the other people fly the sim the way they think it's fun for them. ;)

I've said it before and i'll say it again, my feeling is that some people in the IL2 community don't want to lose their full switch "bragging rights" so they try to dumb down the difficulty level collectively for everyone, in order to be able to say they still fly at what the sim calls 100% difficulty.

Let's face it, people who fly full switch in IL2 but don't want to learn about intercoolers, carb icing, over-torque or how a real engine works, will not be able to fly full switch in SoW now that systems modelling has been confirmed by Oleg Maddox. A guy who's used to executing 10000ft dives with radiators open, climbing with rads closed and running WEP on low prop pitch will have lots of nasty surprises and broken engines in SoW. That rubs some people the wrong way i guess and instead of choosing a difficulty setting that corresponds well to their lack of willingness to learn new stuff, they want to limit the scope of the sim because they're ashamed to say they don't fly full switch anymore.






Ditto.

I'm with El on this one mate. Oleg already said that complex engine management is going to be way more difficult in SOW, and that all of the intricacies that were common to all of the aircraft will be modeled (including all of those found in actual flight). The individual startup procedures, however will not. I'm of a mind that this is a good compromise, and while I don't assume that no one (a little harsh there El) would find it interesting to have the full boat of procedures, Oleg has done the research to indicate that it's a poor investment for the majority of future buyers.

I'm sorry, but it's a simple fact that we all have to accept some compromises for the commercial success of this sim. I for one am quite happy with Oleg's 'uncompromising' approach to compromises.

I'd actually like to see Oleg make some money on this sim, he's bloody well earned it. (and it's the only way we will get more content too)

Edit: I'm not even sure that everyone here is arguing about the same bloody thing! I don't even think that there is anything to argue about to be honest.

[major_setback]

Edit: I'm not even sure that everyone here is arguing about the same bloody thing! I don't even think that there is anything to argue about to be honest.

We are arguing even when we agree! I imagine it is due to a bit of prenuptial tension, as we wait our new game (oops...sim) :-).

[bf-110]

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/shot_20100122_133033.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/shot_20100122_132819.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/BR-20M_PILOT_06.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/BR-20M_PILOT_05.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/BR-20M_BOTTOM_GUNNER_0.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/BR-20M_BOMBARDIER_4.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/BR-20M_BOMBARDIER_3.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/BR-20M_BOMBARDIER_2.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/BR-20M_BOMBARDIER_1.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/BR-20M_BOMBARDIER_0.jpg



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


.

*Drools*

Is it me or those images are low quality?Looks like they are from IL2...

[ElAurens]

Those are some very old development shots.

Very old.

[JtD]

The knob on the shorter one should be mounted on the outside of the lever, the long one has it's knob on the inside and is correct. I think the levers do share the same slot but slide beside one another, with the knob on the short one moved to the outside it won't interfere with the other lever. Good find.

No, it's not. And the pictures from your book do not show an original Hurricane I. And I thought there was a rule on this forum that prohibited the distribution of false information.

The knobs both need to be on the inside, and the levers both need to be in the same slot. The mixture lever (the "shorter one") is in the left half of the slot, the throttle lever (the "longer one") on the right half. The knob on the mixture lever is mounted on the inside in order to protrude behind the throttle lever, so that the mixture is automatically set to "rich" as the throttle is closed. And that is, as I have said already, wrong with the mixture control, as the "weak" and "rich" positions are in the opposite places.

A few more bugs with the Hurricane I cockpit
- it had no rudder bias control in the cockpit.
- it had no supercharger control, but a fuel cut out in its place
- it had a hydraulic pressure gauge
- it had a different safety catch for the hydraulic selector lever
- it had a hydraulic control lever

Furthermore, I don't think windscreen de-icing was on board during BoB, and the rudder pedals look IIish to me. But maybe it is supposed to be an Mk. II cockpit, and Oleg was just telling us that we will also have a Hurricane II in BoB.

[Skoshi Tiger]

I'm sorry, but it's a simple fact that we all have to accept some compromises for the commercial success of this sim. I for one am quite happy with Oleg's 'uncompromising' approach to compromises.

I'd actually like to see Oleg make some money on this sim, he's bloody well earned it. (and it's the only way we will get more content too)

Edit: I'm not even sure that everyone here is arguing about the same bloody thing! I don't even think that there is anything to argue about to be honest.

+1

Hopefully he’ll make enough money to keep the sim growing for at least the same amount of time as IL-2. (My sons only 6 at the moment – by the time he’s 12 I doubt I’ll be able to compete so that gives me at least 6 years where he’ll think I’m an ace pilot ;) )

Still it's obvious that at this point of development we will get what we are given by the developers and there is not a lot that we can do about it. The initial release is probably beyond the point of major changes (hopefully???).

It is extremely hard to objectively criticise what we cannot see. And we will not get to see it until it is released and we’ve had a chance to play with it.

Out of 'customer loyalty' (Quite frankly I have enjoyed everything that Oleg and Co has thrown at me since I got Pacific Fighters – I tried the IL-2 Demo when it was first released but my PC was too slow at the time) I will probably buy the game as soon as it is released.

If I get half the enjoyment out of SOW that I’ve got out IL-2 it will be money well spent!

Cheers

[whatnot]

S!

Pablo: the release date there can be whatever, has changed over the years ;) All we need to know is that SoW is now close to be ready :D

I find this discussion of the realism and what is modelled quite interesting. There is a camp that basically want the fiery furball action with minimal input from themselves, the mediocre that wants some more than just the same old fruball over a certain place of map and then some that could live with all the complexity of the simulator. The last group being propably smallest. I belong to it.

Why? First of all I do NOT challenge Oleg's vision and what he has said, everything due it's time and 3rd party. That was made clear by Oleg. All is just my own views of the issue. For me realism means going all the way, there are no shortcuts because something is not convenient or allegedly fun. I want to learn, challenge my skills to the maximum while I fly the sim. To see if I am up to the challenge! I want the experience reflect something from over 70 years ago, within the limits of a computer game can generate.

It is not being masochist, it all comes from my work! I maintain, repair, arm, refuel, do checks and inspections, change parts and lead a team to get things done within a schedule. And all this happens by following PROCEDURES to the letter, there are NO shortcuts or "I do not want to do it because it is boring or smears my hands". It is 100% by the book and regulations or nothing, you are responsible for the work you do, the pilot depends on your work.

What this has to do with SoW? Well, even I would be the 0.01% minority that enjoys starting the plane all the way, monitor temperatures and pressures, trim, do checks..I would do it! There are pilot manuals out there fairly easily to get and printed. I miss something during the procedures and the sim might punish me with a bad engine performance or even a malfunction. It happened IRL and and they had no REFLY. The manuals are there to make it safer and to make sure you do not cross the limits.

You have to remember that back in WW2 most pilots got training in plane systems(not in super detail, but something) so they would have an idea how the plane works thus giving them some knowledge what could go wrong and where if they abuse the plane or cut corners. SoW models systems and other things in more detail than anything up to date so I expect it to surpass IL-2's very simplified CEM for example. So realism is the only option for me.

Therefore I find it amusing that many just want the "instant action gratification" and realism to a level that only is favorable for them. Even with 100% realism we lack a lot of the work load a real pilot had. Sure a limitation of being a game and lack of equipment(switches, controllers, you name it) but nevertheless with a sound approach doable to make a challenge.

End of rant. I patiently will wait for SoW and see. When finally can double click on it's icon on my desktop I will know how it is done. But I have faith and trust Oleg's vision.

My thoughts exactly! I love the idea of replicating the combat flight experience as close to the real thing as possible and keeping your aircraft's systems tuned and at optimal performance levels was a big part of it.

Having to spend time and effort getting to the scene also makes it so much more frustrating getting shot and therefore makes sure you are doing everything possible not to get shot! And this was a pretty important part of flying one would think.

And having this as optional would make sure that you're not getting too frustrated if you've tried to pass your mission 10 times without success you can start using 'one-click-start - takeoff - autopilot - accelerate time' methods. And it would also enable the 'quick action' possibilities for the the more arcade minded who want to get in to the action asap and chase the nearest bogeys in a furball without too much focus on 'doing it right'.

Flanker, I'm from Finland too.. maybe I'll fly your wing one day once SOW gets out and we can fly sorties as they're ment to be flown :)

[whatnot]

thank you for focusing on that part, it is indeed the most important for 90% of us

this is MUCH more important then 2% of users wanting to go click click with a mouse on the screen

(C) SOW Community Stats Central

Preferred feature survey October 2010

Error Margin 0,02%

(7% Of the community will find this post annoying)

:cool:

[Sutts]

and that all of the intricacies that were common to all of the aircraft will be modeled (including all of those found in actual flight).

I do hope that includes simple system on/off functions such as for the electrical (battery) and fuel system. These were common to almost all aircraft and could be used in-flight (before crash landing to avoid fire) as well as being part of the startup sequence. Little things like seeing your ammeter spring to life really add to immersion IMO.

Anyhow, I agree it's too late to change anything, we'll get what we get and what we will get will be a heck of a lot better than what we have now. No argument there.:grin:

[whatnot]

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'm sure you're focusing on all the right things and as SOW will have a long future ahead of it the core functionality of the product needs to be one that stands in the test of time.

As I've mentioned in my previous posts atleast I am 100% ok not having these functionalities in the initial release or even coming from you. IL-2 has been fantastic without having startup procedures is still fun after years and years. For me it's quite ok to pay extra for this functionality from a 3rd party developer and keep you focused on the essencial parts for making SOW a commercial success for the masses.

What I am a bit concerned about however is that if there would be a 3rd party development like for example this startup procedure feature, clickable cockpits and extra aircraft or whatever does that mean that it would be usable in online servers running vanilla SOW?
Or will I be isolated running it locally or maybe with mates that have bought the same bits and pieces?

[whatnot]

I'm sorry, but it's a simple fact that we all have to accept some compromises for the commercial success of this sim. I for one am quite happy with Oleg's 'uncompromising' approach to compromises.

Commercial success of this sim I think is the number one priority for everyone here.
One thing that is a bit contradicting with my logic however is the fact that Oleg is already doing a lot of features that are not necessarily adding too many customers.

Having the diameter and shape of the carburator air intake modelled (I recall Oleg mentioned about this) won't change volumes much. However I love that level of detail and I assume everyone else here does too and it's what it's all about: a great simming / gaming experience with level of depth to last a decade. But I don't see startup procedures etc being too far fetched concidering the level of fidelity already being modelled.

I start to sound like a broken record but intend to raise no bad blood nor question Oleg's choises. The decision is made I'm happy either way and hope to get the extra bits from 3rd party one day. And getting SOW installed will be the highnote of my gaming career so far whether it has complex, simple or no startup procedures at all! :)

[Sutts]

I'm sure you're focusing on all the right things and as SOW will have a long future ahead of it the core functionality of the product needs to be one that stands in the test of time.

As I've mentioned in my previous posts atleast I am 100% ok not having these functionalities in the initial release or even coming from you. IL-2 has been fantastic without having startup procedures is still fun after years and years. For me it's quite ok to pay extra for this functionality from a 3rd party developer and keep you focused on the essencial parts for making SOW a commercial success for the masses.

What I am a bit concerned about however is that if there would be a 3rd party development like for example this startup procedure feature, clickable cockpits and extra aircraft or whatever does that mean that it would be usable in online servers running vanilla SOW?
Or will I be isolated running it locally or maybe with mates that have bought the same bits and pieces?


I think what Oleg was implying yesterday is that he'd limit third party's ability to introduce features that would give unfair advantage and ruin online play while giving free rein in other less critical areas.

If I was in his position I'd be insisting that third parties use the standard flight model and gunnery model and I'd be verifying the flight characteristics of the new aircraft before release. On the other hand, I'd let them implement as many knobs and switches as they like since these are unlikely to affect the competitive nature of the game.....I believe any engine management features that are going to affect performance have already been provided by Oleg.

[xnomad]

I think I found a mistake, if it hasn't been mentioned yet.

The landing gear handle on the Bf109 should be in a horizontal position (Ruhe). It should only be in the up position when raising the gear. It is then returned to the horizontal position when not in use.

If you don't know which handle I'm talking about it is the same one that Hecke is talking about when talking of circular abrasions.

See below:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=192504&highlight=abrasion#post192504

[zodiac]

Is the bailout procedure the same as in il2? I think that there are a lot of new possibilities with the clickable cockpits.

It would make a big difference if we could click the emergency handle of the canopy. If the plane is in a smooth glide downwards it shouldn't be that hard, but in case your wing was shot off... When the plane would be spiraling down towards the ground, it would be good to experience heavy headshakes. Then it will be a lot more difficult to direct your mouse to the handle.
I don't know in how far that could be done for the bombercrew as well... being trashed around in the aircrafts hull, trying to click the escape hatch, could be a terrifying experience.

I've read a lot of horror stories that occurred during the bail out. In the chaos sometimes people not only opened their seatbelt, but also the belts of their parachute...
The real horror of those aspects can never be put into a combat simulator, but every measure to make a player feel a little bit more powerless in the situation of a bailout is a good one, I think. If I just have to push a button like it was in il2, I feel more like detaching from the pilot than only detaching from the airplane.

It contributes to the immersion of a crash, without the need for complex animations of the pilot.

[=BLW=Pablo]

a bit more images

hi all, dear Oleg, what hardware your use for get this pics ?

and what fps your get in this hardware ?

[kedrednael]

*Drools*

Is it me or those images are low quality?Looks like they are from IL2...

This belonged to one of the first in game shots.
the interior has a lot more details than il2 obviously, but no fancy lightning.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Whatnot, mikä ettei. Kyllä LLv34 meinaa SoW lennellä :D Well, to the 3rd party things..we will see after release of SoW and ultimately the tools and documentation what can be done and what not.

[Blackdog_kt]

Yes sir it is. One shared by a lot of folks I might add.





And the above is pure conjecture on your part. Where did I say I don't want to learn anything? Blackdog your posts are not usually so full of invective, and frankly guesswork, as this one is.

Just another offliner slagging onliners?

Sure sounds that way to me.

Actually i was in a bit of a hurry and that's why it's worded a bit rough. Funny thing is i knew i was setting myself up for a misunderstanding but didn't have the time to do my usual proof-reading routine:-P
To clarify things a little better, i wasn't referring to you or anyone else in particular. Actually i was just hinting at a mentality that i've seen emerge in the flight sim community (and most other gaming genres really), where some people are so enthusiastic about their hobby (good) that they are starting to take unnatural pride in their in-game achievements (bad)...take that from them and they will start to moan a lot.

As for the online/offline divide, i think the distinguishing factor is once again the user's preferred difficulty settings. I haven't flown online in a long time due to a host of connectivity problems, but before that i would usually spend one month flying online and then have a break of a few weeks flying offline.
My experience was that i was actually using higher difficulty settings when flying online. Offline i keep icons and external views on, because sometimes i'm just in it to relax and the AI is a bit too good in some aspects (no overheat, perfect trim, etc). Yes, i like to have it the easy way too sometimes and have impossible carreers where i can "game the game" and score insane amounts of kills...but what i like about it is that i'm not forced or locked into this gameplay style, i can change back to high difficulty settings when i want a challenge, something i wouldn't be able to do if there was not a higher level of difficulty included in the software.

Online, i want the extra difficulty imposed on me because it's also imposed on everyone else and that creates windows of opportunity to exploit in combat. I'm not a hot-shot by any means but i still find it better to run the risk of getting bounced but also have the chance to surprise someone myself, than have perfect awareness but never be able to sneak up on somebody because of external views.

Actually, this is why i'm so much in favor of increased systems modelling. The planes of the time weren't as ergonomically designed as modern ones and they required a lot of "head in the cockpit" time. Maybe not to push buttons, as it could be done in a semi-blind, tactile fashion (just like operating your car CD player by muscle memory and fumbling about a bit, while your eyes are still on the road), but definitely to check the instruments for abnormal parameters that could signify the start of malfunctions or combat damage.

I think that this is missing from prop-driven combat sims and we're also missing out on a lot of potential tactical peculiarities that will be interesting to face. That's what i meant when saying that clicking on stuff and checklists is barely the tip of the iceberg...the core of the issue is having this complexity modelled and i'm happy mr. Maddox confirmed it's in the new game engine, start-up procedures or not.

I can't wait to have a hostile bounce me in a superior but more complex plane, only to see him stall out and wallow in front of my gunsight during his zoom climb because he forgot his carb management and his engine lost power due to icing, or have the same happen to me.
Another one...when flying a dynamic campaign and the enemy is sneaking in below radar coverage to a base that's not on readiness, the campaign engine could place you in the cockpit without a warmed up engine. Usually mechanics would start the engines every now and then, or just use external heaters to keep the oil warm enough for a smooth, fast start. But if the base is on stand-down for some reason (late in the evening/end of day's ops and suddenly a flight of 110s from ErPro 210 appears on a low lever run), you could be in trouble.
Online, this would work by having some form of radar information relayed to you on the map screen so that you could choose the best spawning location...but in a similar fashion if a hostile player approached below the radar you could be caught on the ground with a cold engine.
In both cases, you might have to slam the throttles forward, incure some damage to the engine and have to fly the rest of the mission with deteriorating performance, or you might even have to simply exit the plane and run for cover...just like it could happen back then when pilots and planes were caught on the ground with no warning.

Also, even on automatic, single-keypress startup, engines should fail to start sometimes and require a second or third attempt...it almost happens in IL2 when sometimes the engine takes longer to start, but i've never had a failed start attempt yet where i press "I" and the engine won't start. I think this is somewhat modelled in RoF. It doesn't have a manual startup sequence either, but you can see the switches move in the cockpit as you give the start command and it's possible for the engine to stall and quit instead of starting. It would be a very good compromise to have it modelled like that in SoW.

Clicking or not, flying with a checklist on your lap or not, it doesn't matter. What matters is having the possibility of these things happening (and according to developers it seems like we'll have it) to spice up our gameplay and bring it closer to what we've read about in pilot memoirs and history books, because let's face it, when i can press one key and be guaranteed an engine start every single time regardless of outside air and oil temperature, firewall the throttle without having the cold oil exceed the pressure limits and break my oil lines and then slopilly take off from a bumpy taxiway without breaking anything, it makes things a lot less exciting and immersive than they could have been.

Like i've said in the past when the topic of what we expect from SoW came up, i don't expect a simulator where i can crank everything up to full difficulty and not have to adjust to new things. I expect a simulator where setting difficulty to full will lead to being frustrated, overwhelmed and even scared the first few days, because that's as close as we'll ever get to feeling like a 19 year old reservist straight out of flight school going on his first combat mission :grin:

Hope i cleared the offending bits up a bit, cheers ;)

[Richie]

Being behind some one when they ail will look fantastic in this sim I imagine.

[T-JETTer]

news from Russia about new title! :)
IL-2 Sturmovik:Battle For Britain
announce in russian:
Посетителей ждут эксклюзивные показы «Red Orchestra 2: Герои Сталинграда», Sho 2: Total War, «Ил-2 Штурмовик: Битва за Британию», «Ведьмак 2: Убийцы королей», «Полный привод 3», Inversion, F.E.A.R. 3.
http://games.1c.ru/?type=news

[=69.GIAP=TOOZ]

news from Russia about new title! :)
IL-2 Sturmovik:Battle For Britain
announce in russian:
Посетителей ждут эксклюзивные показы «Red Orchestra 2: Герои Сталинграда», Sho 2: Total War, «Ил-2 Штурмовик: Битва за Британию», «Ведьмак 2: Убийцы королей», «Полный привод 3», Inversion, F.E.A.R. 3.
http://games.1c.ru/?type=news

This must be the expo Oleg mentioned the other week where they are testing nVidia stuff. Interesting that it is listed as IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Britain and not Storm of War.

[JVM]

news from Russia about new title! :)
IL-2 Sturmovik:Battle For Britain
announce in russian:
Посетителей ждут эксклюзивные показы «Red Orchestra 2: Герои Сталинграда», Sho 2: Total War, «Ил-2 Штурмовик: Битва за Британию», «Ведьмак 2: Убийцы королей», «Полный привод 3», Inversion, F.E.A.R. 3.
http://games.1c.ru/?type=news

Indeed it seems to be a first official presentation; developers from all over the world are expected to attend this show...But I do remember Oleg saying it would not be an open presentation but more a behind-the-doors one...

But it is the first harbinger of things to come!

JV

[C_G]

The Babelfish translation is of:
"Visitors wait exclusive showings [...]
which jives with Oleg's indication of a closed-door presentation.

I've got to say, looks like they're getting close to Beta... dare we hope for a Q1 2011 release?
It certainly looks like they've got the bones and flesh of the sim set up and are down to tweaking and bug-hunting...

[csThor]

What's that old saying? "I'd love to be a fly on the wall in that room." :mrgreen:

[ElAurens]

You and me both!!!

:grin:

[Osprey]

Oleg, if you are back on this thread could you please give me some insight into the scoring system planned for SoW? Are you intending to do the same as IL2 or something more complex, or even customisable?

As you know, basically IL2 scores 100 points per engine provided you RTB, otherwise 10% in event of death and higher % according to bailout/ditch position. The problem is that this is not a pleasant system for many reasons which I could bore you to death with and it makes life difficult when trying to replicate 'real life' battles in squadron matches (www.uslglobal.com). I wondered if you are able to concede some information to us in advance.

Many thanks

[addman]

I have a question for Oleg, everybody's talking about different shades of grass or if the hedgerows will be fluffy enough. My question is more about the game and less about the appearance of vegetation (grass is green violets are blue etc.), how will the game interface look? The IL-2 interface was very functional but oh so uninspired -even back in -01-. What have you done to improve the interface this time around? will we be treated to a virtual airbase were we can walk around to the different parts of the campaign functionality (?), squadron management office, mechanics hangar, weapons/fuel storage etc? You see, since I'm an offline player mostly, I find immersion to be very important and just clicking "next-arming-fly" doesn't really do it for me. Will we at least have a small office like in the silent hunter series?

Cheerio...s! are tasty :!:

[PhilHL]

I have a question for Oleg, everybody's talking about different shades of grass or if the hedgerows will be fluffy enough. My question is more about the game and less about the appearance of vegetation (grass is green violets are blue etc.), how will the game interface look? The IL-2 interface was very functional but oh so uninspired -even back in -01-. What have you done to improve the interface this time around? will we be treated to a virtual airbase were we can walk around to the different parts of the campaign functionality (?), squadron management office, mechanics hangar, weapons/fuel storage etc? You see, since I'm an offline player mostly, I find immersion to be very important and just clicking "next-arming-fly" doesn't really do it for me. Will we at least have a small office like in the silent hunter series?

Cheerio...s! are tasty :!:

good point, it would give me also way more immersion if I could walk with my pilot to the hangar and jump into the cockpit. That should be on a wishlist for the next addons..

and please Oleg Maddox, SoW looks very nice but the clouds.. they really look like the ones in il2 and they are very ugly.. I never ever found a situation in real life where the clouds had the similar shapes like ones in SoW at the moment.. If you are on a big field you can see often very very different shaped clouds in the horizon or direct around you. Looks like you have now just a few types of clouds.. please make them look better. and if you reworked them already (we still saw just good weather conditions) then see this post as a compliment for your new nice looking clouds ;)

Thank you.

[speculum jockey]

good point, it would give me also way more immersion if I could walk with my pilot to the hangar and jump into the cockpit. That should be on a wishlist for the next addons..

First Person perspective walking to the plane might be possible, but I'd be happy if they just had more immersive menus and screens like in Silent Hunter III.

[Osprey]

and please Oleg Maddox, SoW looks very nice but the clouds.. they really look like the ones in il2 and they are very ugly.. I never ever found a situation in real life where the clouds had the similar shapes like ones in SoW at the moment.. If you are on a big field you can see often very very different shaped clouds in the horizon or direct around you. Looks like you have now just a few types of clouds.. please make them look better. and if you reworked them already (we still saw just good weather conditions) then see this post as a compliment for your new nice looking clouds ;)

Thank you.

Not this old chestnut. I get the feeling that you haven't been following the updates much, and you haven't really looked hard enough. Take a look at the clouds and light effects on them in this video

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

1.12-1.14 Check the sunlight catching the edge.

[PhilHL]

thank you osprey. yes the clouds are looking good in the video. But still i think they are looking a bit like cotton. The lightning and shaddow effects are looking much better than on the screenshots oleg has posted here and i think i saw all public content of SoW until now.

I aim to the shape of the clouds and they look they they are all on a same or nearly same level. but often there are different layers of clouds in different altitudes.

And I aim also to different looking clouds... all the clouds I saw until now from SoW (screens and videos) are nearly same looking. There is not much individual stuff.

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

for example from 1:36

must be great while you are in dogfight.. you can orientate on the different looking clouds.. "oh yes I saw him firstly next to the huge cloud looking like a big paint brush.."

I just want to write my impression, if oleg and team are already satisfied with their clouds, then they will skip my post. thats okay!

[kalimba]

Not this old chestnut. I get the feeling that you haven't been following the updates much, and you haven't really looked hard enough. Take a look at the clouds and light effects on them in this video

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

1.12-1.14 Check the sunlight catching the edge.

Wow...I forgot about this video...Just imagine this with the marvelous new cockpits we saw friday...:-P ANd all the new little details we have'nt see yet !!!

It is gonna be CRAZY...oups sorry....I just found my pills...:rolleyes:

Salute !

[Chivas]

Clouds.... They are still fixing some cloud bugs, so we haven't seen all of SOW clouds yet. Their is one developer dedicated to doing the clouds and weather and has a library of material at his disposal. Will we see all possible variations of cloud formations....probably not, but i have little doubt that it could set a new benchmark in combat flight sims.

[Abbeville-Boy]

Clouds.... They are still fixing some cloud bugs, so we haven't seen all of SOW clouds yet. Their is one developer dedicated to doing the clouds and weather and has a library of material at his disposal. Will we see all possible variations of cloud formations....probably not, but i have little doubt that it could set a new benchmark in combat flight sims.


the main complaint seems to be that the base is not flat, dont ask me how they know that from the few wip shots shown ;)

[svanen]

And I aim also to different looking clouds... all the clouds I saw until now from SoW (screens and videos) are nearly same looking. There is not much individual stuff.

Well, if you read the whole thread Oleg talks alot about compromise, if we would get clouds like in that video, there is perhaps no more computer power left, all we get is clouds. ;)

[tourmaline]

Agree it's a spelling mistake...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

[Tte. Costa]

Dear Oleg:
After seeing the video posted by Osprey I just remembered one thing that worries me, and is the need to press Ctrl + F1 to aim in the Revi of the German planes.
Honestly, I never saw the need to press Control + F1 to aim. As I always assumed that the Revi was shifted to the right to aim with the right eye without moving the head to the right, i.e. as when you aim in a shotgun or rifle.
When using the 6-DOF Tracker is not a problem to aim and shoot with allied aircraft since its collimator is centered, but it becomes a problem when aiming in the German planes.
I asume is becouse in the IL-2 code light collimator is always centered on screen.

So:
Will there be the need to press Control + F1 to aim with the Revi in German planes in SOW-BOB?

P.S:
Thank you very much for the effort and hard work you and your team are getting on to develop what is sure to be the best WWII combat flight simulator.
... and for the Friday updates!

[Richie]

Shift F1 keeps your head behind the gun sight or behind the armor glass. When you get behind the gun sight you are much more likely to get a bullet threw your head.

[RAF74_Winger]

I always assumed that the Revi was shifted to the right to aim with the right eye without moving the head to the right, i.e. as when you aim in a shotgun or rifle.

Depends what side your 'dominant' eye is; the dominant eye always controls the sight picture. You can check which eye is dominant by alternately covering one eye then the other. If the position of the thing you're looking at changes when you cover the right eye, then your right eye is dominant and vice versa

Doesn't work when you've had a couple though.

W.

[C_G]

I would gladly trade off "pretty" clouds for more generic clouds if it means that the AI-bot pilots can't see through them.... anybody know if this is a feature planned for Oleg's BoB?
Rise of Flight wanted to include this feature but didn't on release, I don't know if any of the RoF patches so far have corrected that.

[xnomad]

As far as I can tell we are completely in the dark with details about AI. I did a bit of a search on posts by Oleg but couldn't find him ever mentioning anything about AI behaviour etc. Then again the forum search function isn't that great.

If anyone has any details on anything AI related, please tell as I'd like to know about it. Also any info on AI controlled planes in terms of DM and FM.

I'm a bit worried that the market is all about online play, so offline features are likely to have taken a bit of a back seat.

[mazex]

I would gladly trade off "pretty" clouds for more generic clouds if it means that the AI-bot pilots can't see through them.... anybody know if this is a feature planned for Oleg's BoB?
Rise of Flight wanted to include this feature but didn't on release, I don't know if any of the RoF patches so far have corrected that.

Yes, I'm 99% sure that Oleg has said that the AI wil be unable to look through clouds, or their own wings for that sake... Wasn't there even talk about this coming to IL2 in 4.10?

[addman]

A.I, yeah that's also VERY important. Something that almost ruins offline play is the A.I's "spider-sense" when you get to a certain distance to it and it immediately senses you. Imagine using real tactics and be able to swoop down on an enemy formation and rip some apart before it even knows you're there and even after that struggles to find you as you ascend back in to the clouds. Now THAT is more important to ME than clickable cockpits and historical correct farm yards.

[MOG_Rumboy]

Absolutely great Oleg. Reflections are fantastic. Not sure if someone else mentioned - so many pages of positive response here well deserved.

The reflections very nice but not a reflection? Pic 9, the picture is the image of the pilot from the front rather than the mirror image.

I'll still buy it straight away though!

Keep up the great work.
Rum

[Robert]

A.I, yeah that's also VERY important. Something that almost ruins offline play is the A.I's "spider-sense" when you get to a certain distance to it and it immediately senses you. Imagine using real tactics and be able to swoop down on an enemy formation and rip some apart before it even knows you're there and even after that struggles to find you as you ascend back in to the clouds. Now THAT is more important to ME than clickable cockpits and historical correct farm yards.

Actually, everything Oleg and crew have worked for would be wasted if there's not a marked improvement in AI. I don't fly online so this is important to me. I am highly impressed with the progress of BoB and as such maintain my hopes based upon all that I've seen so far, that the AI WILL be much better than IL2.

Frankly, I'm not all that impressed with RoF's AI. Though it does have some good routines, it relies on cheating a lot.

The proof will be in the release.

[addman]

The proof will be in the release.

I guess so, video/PC games A.I -in general- have NOT kept up with other parts of game developing the last decade IMO. It's sad really, things are almost going the opposite direction with games like CoD were MP is probably more popular than SP. All those cores and calculation power only going to waste. Here's hopes that SoW will be leaps ahead of what IL-2 had to offer, though I'm cautiously optimistic :)

[The Kraken]

Actually, everything Oleg and crew have worked for would be wasted if there's not a marked improvement in AI. I don't fly online so this is important to me. I am highly impressed with the progress of BoB and as such maintain my hopes based upon all that I've seen so far, that the AI WILL be much better than IL2.

Same here. Now we haven't heard too many details about the AI (just like with other core features), but what we did hear sounds like some nice progress. Mostly the possibility to have different skill levels in different areas (aiming, flying, awareness etc.) and that the AI will no longer have x-ray vision in all directions.

Looking forward to see how this will add up :)

[philip.ed]

the main complaint seems to be that the base is not flat, dont ask me how they know that from the few wip shots shown ;)

Quite a lot of shots have been shown with clouds in them to be fair; all from lots of different angles. Check out foo-bars excellent site to see.

[Magusfunk]

Ouh my god! (i don't know why to say that as atheist, maybe Oleg is god)

Looks very fine indeed. I just started playing IL2 again, but now after seeing these images i don't know if i want to go back :confused:

[SlipBall]

Same here. Now we haven't heard too many details about the AI (just like with other core features), but what we did hear sounds like some nice progress. Mostly the possibility to have different skill levels in different areas (aiming, flying, awareness etc.) and that the AI will no longer have x-ray vision in all directions.

Looking forward to see how this will add up :)



The rumor going around, is that the AI are much improved, highly intelligent, and will be allowed the use of full start up procedures.:grin:

[Tte. Costa]

Shift F1 keeps your head behind the gun sight or behind the armor glass. When you get behind the gun sight you are much more likely to get a bullet threw your head.

So...
You are not protected by the armored glass wen aiming?

[Tte. Costa]

Depends what side your 'dominant' eye is; the dominant eye always controls the sight picture. You can check which eye is dominant by alternately covering one eye then the other. If the position of the thing you're looking at changes when you cover the right eye, then your right eye is dominant and vice versa
W.

Then there are no reason to put the Revi in the right side unless they aimed with the left eye closed. ;)

[onlyforbrian]

Fantastic job Oleg.!! In fact..good enough for me so let's get it on the store shelves..:):):)

[major_setback]

Fantastic job Oleg.!! In fact..good enough for me so let's get it on the store shelves..:):):)

+1

[NLS61]

+1

ah I like to get it of the shelf, and on my pc asap, as is and I wont complain about anything.

[PilotError]

As far as I can tell we are completely in the dark with details about AI. I did a bit of a search on posts by Oleg but couldn't find him ever mentioning anything about AI behaviour etc. Then again the forum search function isn't that great.

If anyone has any details on anything AI related, please tell as I'd like to know about it. Also any info on AI controlled planes in terms of DM and FM.

I'm a bit worried that the market is all about online play, so offline features are likely to have taken a bit of a back seat.

There hasn't been a lot said about the AI in SOW, but in the few statements Oleg has made it looks like there will be a big improvement over Il2.

I'm going from memory here but my understanding is that AI won't be able to see through cockpits, clouds or hills. A multi crewed plane can have each crew member with a different level (rookie to ace) of ability. And one of the most interesting points is that AI can panic ! Not sure how that will be displayed but it sure sound good.:cool:

If my memory has been playing tricks then I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will correct me.:grin:

[kendo65]

Regarding the AI, i think Oleg said that there will be more emphasis on individual pilot differences - thinks like aggression levels, aerobatic ability, calmness/panic, etc than in il-2.

Believe the LOS and AI-awareness levels will be realistic - so we will be able to 'bounce' AI flights.

Oleg said recently that the AI are behaving very like their real-life equivalents. :)

I'm intrigued to find out just how advanced this is going to be. Will we see 110s that are attacked form a defensive circle for instance? :!::!::!:

[Mustang]

hi all, dear Oleg, what hardware your use for get this pics ?

and what fps your get in this hardware ?

Pablo.

Maybe this is the problem.

Storm Of War - Battle Of Britain


Request over Request an more Request for Oleg :(

And more... and more ...players request, = more harware

More perfection in Graphics, physics and polygons = more harware

More request + more request = more harware and more Delay over Delay.

if you want perfection in all, you must pay for it in harware :(


Will be need a 2014 hardware ?
_______________________________________



Great work Oleg !!!

All screen shots looks very nice !

[philip.ed]

How on earth can Oleg play the game on his home PC if 2014 hardware is not out yet? You ,ay not be able to play it on full-settings, but who cares? It looks amazing on Oleg's PC.
Seriously....

[swiss]

How on earth can Oleg play the game on his home PC if 2014 hardware is not out yet? You ,ay not be able to play it on full-settings, but who cares? It looks amazing on Oleg's PC.
Seriously....

Buddy, he said:


A:

He does not have it on his home PC, due an attempt to steal it via internet

B:

He cannot play it on his home PC due it's (crappy) hardware.

C:

He plans to acquire an new PC for SoW

[philip.ed]

But he has taken shots on his home PC....and they still looked great
He did move to a new location, but he could still play it on his home PC.
Anyway, whatever PC, they can still play the game which means that we can. They've used a large variety of hardware, so although you'll need a gaming PC to run it, I'm sure that it won't be impossible to play; that just wouldn't be viable.

[ElAurens]

In the beginning, SoW will be just like IL2 was on initial release. No one will be able to play it on maximum graphic settings. Then slowly, over time the hardware will catch up, just like it did with the various upgrades of IL2.

And we all remember how ground breaking IL2 looked back then, even on our 1.3 gig Pentiums with 512 of ram and a GF4 Ti 4400.

:cool:

[C_G]

Thanks to those who replied re: AI infor (Mazex, Pilot Error)... I'd like to hear it from the Big Cheese himself, of course.

I can imagine how making the AI unable to see through clouds would be a very computationally expensive undertaking.
Unable to see through their wings/fuselage would be fairly easy as the parameters are fixed.
But for the clouds, you'd have to define the 3D parameters of clouds and you'd have to calculate the position of the AI pilot in relation to the cloud to define areas of "visual obstruction" beyond which the AI could not have "knowledge".
On top of that, ideally, the RAF AI (but not lufties) would be given some "approximate" but not precise knowledge of Luftwaffe position to take into account the advantage conferred by radar (so as to enable general vectoring but not accurate shooting while in clouds, for example).
And all that would be further complicated if you wanted to take cloud opacity (on the fringes of clouds, for instance) into account, rather than just boxes of space where the AI can either "see" or "not see".

When you think of the calculations that would be necessary to calculate the relative AI bot views of a flight of 20 aircraft spread out over 2 kms of airspace on a day with puffy white cumulus dotting the sky every kilometer or so! I dunno.... (literally, I don't- I'm not a programmer).

Perhaps Oleg will find some magic shortcuts (perhaps the calculations could be reduced by calculating only the view of the AI flight leader and assume that the AI aircraft in that flight all share the same field of view?)....

The more I think about it, the more I think I understand why RoF did not include this feature!

C_G

[Chivas]

The AI programming is the most difficult by far feature to develop in any sim. If it were easy we would all have robots doing everything around our homes.

[Richie]

How on earth can Oleg play the game on his home PC if 2014 hardware is not out yet? You ,ay not be able to play it on full-settings, but who cares? It looks amazing on Oleg's PC.
Seriously....

He mentioned on one post he was playing on XP. Isn't the limit for XP 4 gigs of Ram?

[C_G]

Yep, XP limit RAM usage to 3.7 gigs (or something like that).

[speculum jockey]

Yep, XP limit RAM usage to 3.7 gigs (or something like that).

And no DirectX 10 or 11 as well.

[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)

Thank you Mr. Maddox giving answers to questions 1) and 2).

Two big very intriquing questions still remain - In the end of the day we need something to do with near perfect simulation of WW2 era airplanes that SoW will give us - What we can do with it and the questions 3) and 4) are more likely targeted to the successful future of the game, millions of SoW players wants to diversify and play 24/7 war in environment with player controlled tanks, at & aa guns, trucks, trains, ships, etc..

I know SoW: BoB will be state of the art of ww2 era aerial combat simulation compared to any simulation today in the market. Heck, SoW will be state of the art aerial combat simulation of any era and genre :)

[Richie]

Something everyone may like to see. A working Revi gun sight from the guys at Jagdgeschwader 4


http://s158.photobucket.com/albums/t91/waffe109/?action=view&current=JG4-Movie-Revi-Bf109.flv&newest=1

[=69.GIAP=TOOZ]

He mentioned on one post he was playing on XP. Isn't the limit for XP 4 gigs of Ram?

He also said that he is planning to upgrade his machine so that he can play SoW at a reasonable level which is part of the reason why he hasn't posted much about the min specs coz he's not exactly sure what they are yet!

[Igo kyu]

In the beginning, SoW will be just like IL2 was on initial release. No one will be able to play it on maximum graphic settings. Then slowly, over time the hardware will catch up, just like it did with the various upgrades of IL2.
My first built PC in 2000 had an Athlon 1000Mhz/1GHz and a Geforce2GTS 64MB. It played IL*2 and FB at 1600x1200 (no anti aliasing, I still don't set anti aliasing). Before that, I had a 486/66, now that had problems running Quake, not that I noticed except that the grenades speeded up considerably on the new machine. I played CFS and CFS2 before I played IL*2, which I probably came to late in its life, but I have no doubts whatever that 2000 ad machine could have played it at full settings from the first if I'd bought IL*2 earlier.

[Richie]

I'm sure $4000 will solve the problem

[major_setback]

It really seems pointless asking what machine screenshots were taken on when we don't know if wind and turbulence etc. are turned off; how many other objects are loaded; if AI is present (and calculated for); if he was gaming at a quarter normal speed or not, or even what frame rate he had.
And like Oleg said, the game isn't finished yet, so how can he know what is required? A simple cloud improvement (or flames, explosions, sound, hedgerows, trees etc.) might affect everything.

[Triggaaar]

It really seems pointless asking what machine screenshots were taken on when we don't know if wind and turbulence etc. are turned off; how many other objects are loaded; if AI is present (and calculated for); if he was gaming at a quarter normal speed or not, or even what frame rate he had.Agreed
And like Oleg said, the game isn't finished yet, so how can he know what is required? A simple cloud improvement (or flames, explosions, sound, hedgerows, trees etc.) might affect everything.I don't agree with you there. I think Oleg should have a rough idea of what's needed, but there could be a few reasons he hasn't said yet. He may not want to set himself up for a fall (why make a prediction that gains you nothing but will be critisised when it turns out not quite right), he may have agreed with the publishers to leave that sort of information to them, who knows.

While unfinished details (like your examples) will effect requirements, simple improvements shouldn't cost too much performance, or they wouldn't be able to justify them. You wouldn't want the development team saying they'd tweaked the clouds, flames and trees a little, but the game was now half the speed.

[Mustang]

A present PC cannot handle all the polygons in IL2.

In a city with many, many buildings, the use of the GPU (video Card) can be of 10%.

But your CPU generates a FPS fall, if you have intel I7 also you get FPS fall.
The number of polygons causes fear to me.

DX11 Tessellation, CPU multi-threading‎, CUDA and others new technology maybe make all more easy

I am not programmer,

But Everything is into the hands of the motor of BOB. maybe...


I find this site

http://heinkill.webs.com/stormofwarnews.htm

Have a screen shot FPS AVG 14 FPS. over sea.


Sorry for my bad english

[Skoshi Tiger]

I'm sure $4000 will solve the problem

Hmmm! Then I probably have to sell one of my children to pay for the rig to play SOW on. Maybe if I start telling my wife how bad they are now, by the time SOW is released she will probably be receptive to the idea!

Cheers and thanks for the idea!

Damn! who's that at the door? Probably those pest from Child Welfare again! ;)

[major_setback]

Hmmm! Then I probably have to sell one of my children to pay for the rig to play SOW on. Maybe if I start telling my wife how bad they are now, by the time SOW is released she will probably be receptive to the idea!

Cheers and thanks for the idea!

Damn! who's that at the door? Probably those pest from Child Welfare again! ;)

Ahh, now I understand. Everyone has to sell their children to buy SoW:BoB. The children will be bought by unscrupulous game developers and put to work making even more irresistible games so that even more children will have to be sold!
Damn these Russians!! :-(
:-):-)

[Richie]

Horses...

Horses played a big role in the German army. I think it would be great if we could have them in some special types of convoys....More horses than trucks :)


http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/germanhorse/index.html

[Skoshi Tiger]

Ahh, now I understand. Everyone has to sell their children to buy SoW:BoB. The children will be bought by unscrupulous game developers and put to work making even more irresistible games so that even more children will have to be sold!
Damn these Russians!! :-(
:-):-)

I was thinking more along the lines of scientific experimentation, but Software Development would be almost as humane! ;)

[Bearcat]

In the beginning, SoW will be just like IL2 was on initial release. No one will be able to play it on maximum graphic settings. Then slowly, over time the hardware will catch up, just like it did with the various upgrades of IL2.

And we all remember how ground breaking IL2 looked back then, even on our 1.3 gig Pentiums with 512 of ram and a GF4 Ti 4400.

:cool:

I had an Athalon XP1600 with a Radeon 9000128 card and 512M of RAM.. and it was enough to et me hooked and started on the path to upgrade hell... Truth be told the only reason I haven't upgraded again since my last GPU died is because my current rig Fx-60, GF-260, 4G DDR 400 .. handles this sim fine.. and this is the most intensive thing I do on my PC.

[Robert]

Hmmm! Then I probably have to sell one of my children to pay for the rig to play SOW on. Maybe if I start telling my wife how bad they are now, by the time SOW is released she will probably be receptive to the idea!

Cheers and thanks for the idea!

Damn! who's that at the door? Probably those pest from Child Welfare again! ;)


At least you HAVE kids to sell. I've been selling blood for the last 15 months to buy a new PC for BoB. I love the shortbread cookies and OJ after the blood letting.

[swiss]

Horses...

Horses played a big role in the German army. I think it would be great if we could have them in some special types of convoys....More horses than trucks :)


http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/germanhorse/index.html

And while we're at it, could we have some Russian recon pilots also?

[IceFire]

A present PC cannot handle all the polygons in IL2.

In a city with many, many buildings, the use of the GPU (video Card) can be of 10%.

But your CPU generates a FPS fall, if you have intel I7 also you get FPS fall.
The number of polygons causes fear to me.

DX11 Tessellation, CPU multi-threading‎, CUDA and others new technology maybe make all more easy

I am not programmer,

But Everything is into the hands of the motor of BOB. maybe...


I find this site

http://heinkill.webs.com/stormofwarnews.htm

Have a screen shot FPS AVG 14 FPS. over sea.


Sorry for my bad english

That poor performance in certain portions of IL-2 regardless of how powerful your system is has more to do with the age of the game engine and it's ability to pump out objects than it does with the specific number of polys on screen. Newer games have far more detail than some IL-2 scenes and they run without problem.

Also regarding that FPS number... until they start going through final checks the game engine will have a lot of inefficiencies PLUS debugging code. All of this can slow the game down significantly. We also have no idea what kind of system was displaying that. This is why we don't want the game now... we want the finished game later :D

[Skoshi Tiger]

That poor performance in certain portions of IL-2 regardless of how powerful your system is has more to do with the age of the game engine and it's ability to pump out objects than it does with the specific number of polys on screen. Newer games have far more detail than some IL-2 scenes and they run without problem.

Also regarding that FPS number... until they start going through final checks the game engine will have a lot of inefficiencies PLUS debugging code. All of this can slow the game down significantly. We also have no idea what kind of system was displaying that. This is why we don't want the game now... we want the finished game later :D

I've just upgraded my graphics card to a GTX460, in the black death track In IL2, I'm normal getting from about 50FPS up to 100+ frames per second, but there are a couple of points over the airfield where the frame rates drop, the worst being there the La and 190 colide which drops down to about 24FPS. This minimum speed is just about identical with the 9800GTX I replaced. There must be something funny happening there???

When it comes down to it, the high and average frame rates are good for bragging rights (I normally run with Vsync on anyway) but the minimum speeds will make or break the sim for me.

Hopefully the optimisation process for SOW doesn't take too long! (Ifi it does take a while I'll be able to afford another '460 for some SLI goodnesss - If it's of any use in the new sim of course)

Cheers

[Skoshi Tiger]

at least you have kids to sell. I've been selling blood for the last 15 months to buy a new pc for bob. I love the shortbread cookies and oj after the blood letting.

lol!

[albx]

I've just upgraded my graphics card to a GTX460, in the black death track In IL2, I'm normal getting from about 50FPS up to 100+ frames per second, but there are a couple of points over the airfield where the frame rates drop, the worst being there the La and 190 colide which drops down to about 24FPS. This minimum speed is just about identical with the 9800GTX I replaced. There must be something funny happening there???

When it comes down to it, the high and average frame rates are good for bragging rights (I normally run with Vsync on anyway) but the minimum speeds will make or break the sim for me.

Hopefully the optimisation process for SOW doesn't take too long! (Ifi it does take a while I'll be able to afford another '460 for some SLI goodnesss - If it's of any use in the new sim of course)

Cheers

more CPU demanding, i just upgraded my CPU and got more FPS

[Skoshi Tiger]

more CPU demanding, i just upgraded my CPU and got more FPS

Unfortunately I'm stuck on socket 775 for the moment, My recent cpu upgrade (which by the way made ROF quite a bit smoother) was from a core2Duo@3.6Ghz to a Quad core @3.6Ghz - unforuantely IL2 get's no advantage from this. hopefully SOW will take advantage of the extra cores!

Cheers!

[WTE_Galway]

Unfortunately I'm stuck on socket 775 for the moment, My recent cpu upgrade (which by the way made ROF quite a bit smoother) was from a core2Duo@3.6Ghz to a Quad core @3.6Ghz - unforuantely IL2 get's no advantage from this. hopefully SOW will take advantage of the extra cores!

Cheers!

Il2 is an older game engine and GPU's were limited back then. I suspect a lot of the graphics workload that IL2 currently offloads to the CPU will be handled by the GPU in SOW.

Also as you say SOW should take more advantage of multiple cores.

[albx]

Unfortunately I'm stuck on socket 775 for the moment, My recent cpu upgrade (which by the way made ROF quite a bit smoother) was from a core2Duo@3.6Ghz to a Quad core @3.6Ghz - unforuantely IL2 get's no advantage from this. hopefully SOW will take advantage of the extra cores!

Cheers!

i got a Phenom II 965 BE and IL-2 is awesome.... i had a AMD 4600+, that's the good of AMD, didn't change the socket every year, you can still use the old mainboard and are much cheaper than Intel and i really have seen good FPS improvements in all areas.

[addman]

I think some posts regarding the system requirements are borderline fanatic. Why the panic? just try the game when it comes out with your current, modest (one GTX460, not good enough? really?) setup. We already know the system reqs. IMO, more than 1 core preferably, at least 2GB of ram and a 512MB direct x 9/10/11 GPU. Of course there are different groups of gamers here, some upgrade more frequently than others, some buy a brand new Alienware rig as soon as their long awaited game arrives whilst some are chugging along on almost outdated hardware. I guess I'm in between there somewhere, willing to upgrade some parts after evaluating the said games performance on my current hardware setup.

No real point of this post except for me being somewhat perplexed of the hardware upgrade mania that's going around. On the other hand, I'm starting to notice that very special pre-going gold tension/anticipation gaining momentum amongst many of us. I post like 10 il-2 posts/year since '00 so me posting as much as I've been lately means that anticipation must be on a high, oh what a wonderful feeling :grin:

[KOM.Nausicaa]

I think some posts regarding the system requirements are borderline fanatic. Why the panic? just try the game when it comes out with your current, modest (one GTX460, not good enough? really?) setup. We already know the system reqs. IMO, more than 1 core preferably, at least 2GB of ram and a 512MB direct x 9/10/11 GPU. Of course there are different groups of gamers here, some upgrade more frequently than others, some buy a brand new Alienware rig as soon as their long awaited game arrives whilst some are chugging along on almost outdated hardware. I guess I'm in between there somewhere, willing to upgrade some parts after evaluating the said games performance on my current hardware setup.

No real point of this post except for me being somewhat perplexed of the hardware upgrade mania that's going around. On the other hand, I'm starting to notice that very special pre-going gold tension/anticipation gaining momentum amongst many of us. I post like 10 il-2 posts/year since '00 so me posting as much as I've been lately means that anticipation must be on a high, oh what a wonderful feeling :grin:

+1

[Skoshi Tiger]

I think Oleg said in one of his posts that he was waiting for SOW to be released before he upgraded his home computer. This is fairly good advice if your planning your upgrade cycle around SOW.

Moores law is good news for gamers and works to our advantage! Computers are just going to get more powerful and cheeper over time.

My recent upgraded have been to get other sim up to scratch on my system. Just have to wait and see what we'll need for SOW.

Cheers!

[swiss]

i got a Phenom II 965 BE and IL-2 is awesome.... i had a AMD 4600+, that's the good of AMD, didn't change the socket every year, you can still use the old mainboard and are much cheaper than Intel and i really have seen good FPS improvements in all areas.

I got an 955/260GTX+ OC, my results are the same as skoshis's.

Can't be all about the cpu.

[dduff442]

It's more a very brief freeze than an FPS drop. I get the same effect at the exact same point with a HD 5870.

As regards fanatics and their upgrades, I bought a new PC this year that definitely qualifies as 'fanatic'. The thing is the manufacturers know what they're doing. Unless you go for the absolute best equipment, they price things very cleverly. Once you've bought an expensive graphics card, it feels like a waste to put it in a crap computer. Plus, a 64-bit O/S with tonnes of RAM is the future. The hardware makers just add in the inconvenience of an upgrade in 2 years to their prices.

dduff

[swiss]

It's more a very brief freeze than an FPS drop. I get the same effect at the exact same point with a HD 5870.

As regards fanatics and their upgrades, I bought a new PC this year that definitely qualifies as 'fanatic'. The thing is the manufacturers know what they're doing. Unless you go for the absolute best equipment, they price things very cleverly. Once you've bought an expensive graphics card, it feels like a waste to put it in a crap computer. Plus, a 64-bit O/S with tonnes of RAM is the future. The hardware makers just add in the inconvenience of an upgrade in 2 years to their prices.

dduff

tell us me more about this pc.

[dduff442]

i7/920 (modest OC to 3.2GHz initially; beats i7/960 in 5 of 6 benchmarks)
HD5870 (undervolted)
Win 7 64-bit Home Premium
12GB Corsair RAM
Analog/Digital TV Tuner
EAX 3.0 Sound Card
VW266H 1920x1200 TFT Monitor


Fair enough, lacking the RAM drive and latest sound card I'm embarrassed in front of the other fanatics, but still it's the biggest outlay on a PC I've made by miles.

dduff

[swiss]

which progi(game) makes use of 12gb?

[dduff442]

The games of the future -- SoW, for instance.

[Hecke]

Putting SoW in a Ramdrive will be smooth as hell I think.

[Auger73]

Putting SoW in a Ramdrive will be smooth as hell I think.

A ramdrive would make the game load incredibly fast (compared to a regular hard drive), but won't improve the FPS.

While no drive is faster than a ramdrive, the incredible expense and volitility (they need power to preserve data) makes that investment seem better placed elsewhere. You can put that money into a bleeding edge video card and have a bit of change left over. Unless you already have everything else maxed out, in which case, my hat is off to you.

[domian]

Hardware questions doesn´t matter at this time. There will be more than a dozen CPU and GPU generations, until the SoW release.

[major_setback]

At least you HAVE kids to sell. I've been selling blood for the last 15 months to buy a new PC for BoB. I love the shortbread cookies and OJ after the blood letting.

Yes, he's very lucky. I don't have children either. 'Been selling other peoples children though...soon got enough for the triple-head-to-go!
:-)

[dduff442]

Selling children is so old fashioned. What you really want is to buy kids. You'd be amazed how much 30 of the little devils can manufacture in even the smallest basement and their union reps tend to be terrible negotiators. A lollipop once a month is a great victory as far as they're concerned.

[Richie]

I think any good i7 system will be fine

[Blackdog_kt]

I'm planning to run this on a stock i7 920 (2.7 Ghz) with 3GB of RAM and an Ati 4890 1GB. Later on down the road i might double the RAM to 6Gb (as i think it's been mentioned sometime ago that 3GB will be the absolute minimum) and get a 58xx series card when they drop in price. Should be fine i think.

I've said this in another thread that was purely tech-related by the way. I think that any amount of RAM over 6GB is somewhat overkill for gaming today, unless someone works with specific professional software suites that do make use of it on the same PC (eg, very high resolution photo/video editing with multiple instances running at the same time).

Future proofing a new PC is one thing and it's good, but buying something that might end up being superseded and replaced without ever once being used to its full potential is a waste of resources that could be spent elsewhere in a more efficient manner.
For example, if the next set of RAM sticks is a different kind of slot/frequency/voltage, i've never once used my 12 GB to their full by the time i do my next upgrade and my next CPU is incompatible with my old RAM sticks, then i've wasted money pure and simple. It's actually better to get a good motherboard, get an adequate but modest amount of RAM and stick with that until it's not enough for the job before buying more of it, as chances are it will also be cheaper down the road.

I don't know how much RAM goes for these days but i'd be more inclined to get 6GB and use the spare cash on or towards something else if its any meaningful amount, or just go out and have dinner and a few drinks if it's a small one.

[swiss]

you guys are aware the 920 beat AMD's X4(>=955) in everything BUT gaming? ;)

[fireflyerz]

x

[Skoshi Tiger]

Future proofing a new PC is one thing and it's good, but buying something that might end up being superseded and replaced without ever once being used to its full potential is a waste of resources that could be spent elsewhere in a more efficient manner.
For example, if the next set of RAM sticks is a different kind of slot/frequency/voltage, i've never once used my 12 GB to their full by the time i do my next upgrade and my next CPU is incompatible with my old RAM sticks, then i've wasted money pure and simple. It's actually better to get a good motherboard, get an adequate but modest amount of RAM and stick with that until it's not enough for the job before buying more of it, as chances are it will also be cheaper down the road.


Tell me about it! The day after I purchaced my 790i Ultra Motherboard (socket 775) Intel announced the i7's !!!!!! Doh! :(

[TheSwede]

Tell me about it! The day after I purchaced my 790i Ultra Motherboard (socket 775) Intel announced the i7's !!!!!! Doh! :(

Did the same thing back in the Intel Pentium 3 era when the development didnt had the same pace as of today. ;)
Bought the first P3 500mhz because my friend had a P2 450 that rocked for like 2 years. :) Thought I could manage an equal amount of time "on the top" but then Intel released all the 600 up to 800mhz variants. :(

My P3 500 didnt fare so well and the money felt wasted. :(

[philip.ed]

Has this been posted before...?

The reflection of the pilot is WRONG! The gun-button is on the wrong side in the reflection and consequently the pilot looks left-handed...

[Sotyj]

Because it's not reflection . It's kind of trial static picture .

[philip.ed]

Really...doesn't make much sense if that is the case.
I think that this is quite final, though. Oleg said the reflection was just a pre-made picture which would be inserted into the gauges.
In any case, all that needs to be done is for the image to be flipped...

[Sotyj]

yap.....Photoshop flip horizontally ...lol :grin:

[dduff442]

I'm planning to run this on a stock i7 920 (2.7 Ghz) with 3GB of RAM and an Ati 4890 1GB. Later on down the road i might double the RAM to 6Gb (as i think it's been mentioned sometime ago that 3GB will be the absolute minimum) and get a 58xx series card when they drop in price. Should be fine i think.

I've said this in another thread that was purely tech-related by the way. I think that any amount of RAM over 6GB is somewhat overkill for gaming today, unless someone works with specific professional software suites that do make use of it on the same PC (eg, very high resolution photo/video editing with multiple instances running at the same time).

Future proofing a new PC is one thing and it's good, but buying something that might end up being superseded and replaced without ever once being used to its full potential is a waste of resources that could be spent elsewhere in a more efficient manner.
For example, if the next set of RAM sticks is a different kind of slot/frequency/voltage, i've never once used my 12 GB to their full by the time i do my next upgrade and my next CPU is incompatible with my old RAM sticks, then i've wasted money pure and simple. It's actually better to get a good motherboard, get an adequate but modest amount of RAM and stick with that until it's not enough for the job before buying more of it, as chances are it will also be cheaper down the road.

I don't know how much RAM goes for these days but i'd be more inclined to get 6GB and use the spare cash on or towards something else if its any meaningful amount, or just go out and have dinner and a few drinks if it's a small one.

The 4890 is cartainly the nicest price/performance card. 12GB is definitely overkill for RAM right now, but RAM is so cheap... Plus, selling 6GB in a couple of years for an upgrade won't bring in much cash.

Last time I bought a PC was 2003 -- I couldn't play Il-2 before that. The problem is if a PC runs out of power it's guaranteed to do it at just the wrong moment, and that was always what happened to me. Just as things livened up, it would start stuttering.

I used to ramp up the graphics, watch a pretty slide show for a few minutes just to see what it was like and then switch back to much more basic settings for playability. These years of frustration made me go PC crazy this time around...

dduff

[*{64s}Takeo_I]

great !!!!!!!!!!!!!!:o

[Rodolphe]

...

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).


Bringing this update thread back to life as till today there was no official reply/acknowledgement from a member from the Dev Team.
That "clandestine" Hawker Hurricane thread could have been misted over. ;)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=17128


...

[Diligent Flosser]

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).

Better is the enemy of good. Please just publish this game!! NOW!!

Stop all work on 'improvements'. Take anyone who tries to 'improve' the game at this point out in the parking lot and shoot them dead. Your one and only concern at this point should be to assure that the basic functionality is there and that there are no (or few) game freezes. I am an old engineer and am telling you that if you keep trying this constant 'improvement' cycle, you will never publish! Just stop it NOW. Stop trying to make it perfect for first release. If it works - go. NOW.

[LukeFF]

Better is the enemy of good. Please just publish this game!! NOW!!

Stop all work on 'improvements'. Take anyone who tries to 'improve' the game at this point out in the parking lot and shoot them dead. Your one and only concern at this point should be to assure that the basic functionality is there and that there are no (or few) game freezes. I am an old engineer and am telling you that if you keep trying this constant 'improvement' cycle, you will never publish! Just stop it NOW. Stop trying to make it perfect for first release. If it works - go. NOW.

I think Oleg knows better than you when to release the program.

[JG1_Wanderfalke]

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.

poor