Friday 2010-10-29 Dev. update and Discussion

[Trumper]

Totally amazing photo.


http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures/pictures_bf109_attacks_spitfire.html

Be careful what you read,these may be part of a propaganda set up
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=104146 Spitfire and 109 in colour,

I think it's the same Spitfire markings.

[SQB]

HA! Ain't even gonna be able to run EAW on low settings with that one! Check this shirt out:


AMD Athlon II X3 425 2.70 GHz
Club3D ATi Radeon HD4670
4GB RAM
Coffeemaker
Parasol
Binoculars
....Bear!:cool:

hey! same system as me!
getting an ati radeon 6870 1gb TOMORROW!!
my 4670 started smoking about a week ago, seems like it is not just bad for humans :P.

[klem]

GUYS PLEASE !

I nearly posted this around Page 30, then 50 then.....

I spend literally hours reading through 72 pages of publisher discussions, copyright protection opinions, irrelevant articles and a raft of egotistical ping-pong just to see if Oleg has answered questions put to him regarding his latest info. I'm not talking about the useful informative posts like those videos of the presentation.

Can we please keep Oleg's next update on topic so we can see what HE has to say and so that our questions don't get buried in a morass of posts we can't possibly expect him to wade through just to see what we are asking. Take the other stuff to one of the many existing threads or start a new one.

Thank you

[robtek]

You would be better off with a 5870!!!
In one video, the stuttering one, the pilot looks to the left wing of the hurri and waht does one see?
A beautiful shadow of a EMPTY cockpit.
While i can accept that there is no pilot when you are sitting in the cockpit i still expect, like in the reflections of the instruments, to see the shadow outside, as for the external view the pilot is there anyway.
It's a immersion thing and maybe worth to be part of a future patch.
But maybe the rest of this marvelous program has lifted my expectations too high. :-D

[TheGrunch]

Can we please keep Oleg's next update on topic so we can see what HE has to say and so that our questions don't get buried in a morass of posts we can't possibly expect him to wade through just to see what we are asking.

Oleg is at a convention. He's not likely to be answering questions on the forum until it's over.

[alexmdv]

Some my videos from expo Igromir-2010 (see in HD):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKDW9Pm6qvs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR6br0ERGhI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EvpTp12IcM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtynupR1-eA

all videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/alexeymdv

[airmalik]

Thanks for posting these videos alexmdv. If you go again, can you please fly around and into clouds? Thanks

[Hecke]

Thanks for posting these videos alexmdv. If you go again, can you please fly around and into clouds? Thanks

Yes, and please try out a bomber and drop a bomb over terrain to see how ground is affected. Thx.

[150GCT_Veltro]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtynupR1-eA

The italians rock as usual!

It's a sort of "Wellcome in England guys!".

[Hecke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feR3S11Z9hs

[Col.Flanders]

Wow! Thanks for the vids, guys. Looks absolutely insanely good!

[Flyby]

Actually, a further explanation put the minimum at 3GB RAM and they were stuck with using rental computers from the expo company. I'm thinking Oleg was unhappy when he saw the performance....

Splitter
Agreed. We're learning more about what went wrong. I think someone who was responsible to provide Oleg's team with computers is not flight-sim cognizant. It's not his fault.

Slightly OT (but not), that same entity apparently had no concept of head-tracking software. This is all pure speculation, of course.

Meanwhile, from the videos being posted, I believe the wait for SoW_BoB is well worth the wait. Congats to the Maddox team.
Flyby out

[The Kraken]

Slightly OT (but not), that same entity apparently had no concept of head-tracking software. This is all pure speculation, of course.

I don't think this is the best place to hand out TrackIR clips :-P

http://www.simhq.com/_air13/images/air_466a_007t.jpg

[Flyby]

I see what you mean. ;)
Flyby out

[undercut]

Some my videos from expo Igromir-2010 (see in HD):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKDW9Pm6qvs

all videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/alexeymdv

Hmm.. curious. I noticed the 109 in this video does not seem to have any leading edge slats. I wonder why. I thought all 109's were designed with leading edge slats.:confused:

[Bearcat]

Shouldn't that oil blotch be moving.. and eventually disappear..

[undercut]

Shouldn't that oil blotch be moving.. and eventually disappear..
I disagree. I would think that the oil on the windshield of an airplane traveling at 400+ kph would be in a fairly viscous state and therefore would tent to resist the wind to some degree.

[JG53Harti]

Shouldn't that oil blotch be moving.. and eventually disappear..

Maybe you are right, but have you read what we need now for hardware already ?

[Hecke]

Maybe you are right, but have you read what we need now for hardware already ?

:confused:

It seems that a high range setup from 2010/2011 can already handle that game at full settings. I expected to need a monster computer, but that's not the case.:mad:;)
Didn't many people here say that it needed a lot more time until hardware could handle IL-2 at full settings?

So I think there is lots of free space for Oleg to fill up with better graphics, more objects and features.

[undercut]

Shouldn't that oil blotch be moving.. and eventually disappear..

Watch the video again you will notice that the oil is moving. Pay attention to the oil behind the HUD and the oil in the top left windshield section. If you pause the video and kind of jump around the sections of the video the effect will be more apparent. You will see that the oil actually becomes more translucent as it moves around covering more surface area of the windshield.

[T}{OR]

:confused:

It seems that a high range setup from 2010/2011 can already handle that game at full settings. I expected to need an monstercomputer, but that's not the case.:mad:;)
Didn't many people here say that it needed a lot more time until hardware could handle IL-2 at full settings?

So I think there is lots of free space for Oleg to fill up with better graphics, more objects and features.


If you look at the presentation here:

I bet you haven't seen this. :grin:

Video of the presentation:

http://rutube.ru/tracks/3742502.html?v=8d73212c4f8dc85faf46b8b757bf2761

You will see that at the end of it where they show Su-26 flying low over land and water the game runs extremely smooth without any stuttering. Since Oleg mentioned the game will ship with x64 exe I presume that the game then must be able to use more than 2GB of RAM (limit for every program on x32 systems) which to me frankly, isn't a surprise when you look at all the features and the landscape itself.

Well done Oleg and co.

[JG53Harti]

:confused:

It seems that a high range setup from 2010/2011 can already handle that game at full settings. I expected to need a monster computer, but that's not the case.:mad:;)
Didn't many people here say that it needed a lot more time until hardware could handle IL-2 at full settings?

So I think there is lots of free space for Oleg to fill up with better graphics, more objects and features.


Do you know the settings of these videos ?

[Hecke]

Do you know the settings of these videos ?

No, i don't know the settings of the videos.

But some guys said the settings of the game were pretty maxed out.

[speculum jockey]

The systems they are currently using are probably Running Vista/Windows 7. Right off the bat, those two OS's use a heck of a lot of RAM. When you have a game like SOW that requires a lot of RAM, especially for larger maps you have the OS and the Game fighting over who gets the most RAM. Hence the stuttering. Another GB or two would have probably let it run smooth as glass.

The reason they didn't have that option was the people setting up the show made them use their PC's and for some reason they didn't put nearly enough RAM in them to showcase newer game like SOW. Your average FPS or MMORPG probably isn't going to need that much RAM, but a game like SOW will, and they should have known that and made some provisions.

[The Kraken]

Since Oleg mentioned the game will ship with x64 exe I presume that the game then must be able to use more than 2GB of RAM (limit for every program on x32 systems)

The technical limit for 32bit is actually 4GB of address space, but due to internal workings of the OS when integrating other memory areas, the practical limit in 32bit Windows is around 3GB. So it may still work fine on Vista32, even without scaling down too many settings.

[swiss]

If you look at the presentation here:



You will see that at the end of it where they show Su-26 flying low over land and water the game runs extremely smooth without any stuttering. Since Oleg mentioned the game will ship with x64 exe I presume that the game then must be able to use more than 2GB of RAM (limit for every program on x32 systems) which to me frankly, isn't a surprise when you look at all the features and the landscape itself.

Well done Oleg and co.

Uh thor - that vid is not necessarily played on one of the public pcs.

[addman]

IL-2 is basically a DirectX 8 game (with some DX9 features that came later on) and it was written for hardware avaliable at the time thus the reason why people with super rigs even today see stuttering in certain parts of the game. SOW on the other hand is written with multi-core cpu, modern GPU and massive RAM allocation capabilities -thanks to the x64 exe- so don't be surprised if your computer might run SoW BETTER than IL-2.

BTW, a 32-bit OS is restricted to 3GB of RAM no matter how much you stuff in it, not 2GB that someone mentioned.

[Dano]

Watch the video again you will notice that the oil is moving. Pay attention to the oil behind the HUD and the oil in the top left windshield section. If you pause the video and kind of jump around the sections of the video the effect will be more apparent. You will see that the oil actually becomes more translucent as it moves around covering more surface area of the windshield.

Well spotted sir :)

[Dano]

Uh thor - that vid is not necessarily played on one of the public pcs.

That doesn't make a jot of difference to his comments :)

[T}{OR]

The technical limit for 32bit is actually 4GB of address space, but due to internal workings of the OS when integrating other memory areas, the practical limit in 32bit Windows is around 3GB. So it may still work fine on Vista32, even without scaling down too many settings.

I am aware of that. However, the RAM limit which any program can use for itself is 2GB.


Uh thor - that vid is not necessarily played on one of the public pcs.

Oleg has stated on numerous occasions that he and his staff are deliberately working on medium to low end machines. This was a video they recorded elsewhere, so I presume that the rig in question had sufficient RAM, compared to the ones at Igomir 2010. The effects in that footage might not even be maxed out like in the rest of the YT videos shown around here.

[addman]

Oil is not water, it doesn't just come off. I bet the friction from the speed of the aircraft would rather stick and smear the oil rather than just coming clean off.

[Ploughman]

BTW, a 32-bit OS is restricted to 3GB of RAM no matter how much you stuff in it, not 2GB that someone mentioned.

I've stuck 4GB of RAM in mine and I'd thought the system could use up to 3.7GB of it, is this incorrect and the OS can only utilise 3 of the 4 gigs available? Seems every little's going to help.

[addman]

I have 4GB in my computer and before I was running XP 32-bit and it could allocate 3.25GB of it so no, there's nothing wrong with your system.

[Hecke]

Maybe I should also stick with my q9550@4x3 GHz because then I can keep my 8 gb RAM.
Would be interesting to know from what amount of RAM the fps don't get better anymore when upgrading to more.

[The Kraken]

I am aware of that. However, the RAM limit which any program can use for itself is 2GB.

That's per process which is normally (but not always) synonymous with the application (GUI can easily run in its own process). And then there's the IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag...

But ok, in the end it's a safe bet that 64bit with enough RAM is the better choice ;)

[F19_lacrits]

IL-2 is basically a DirectX 8 game (with some DX9 features that came later on) and it was written for hardware avaliable at the time thus the reason why people with super rigs even today see stuttering in certain parts of the game. SOW on the other hand is written with multi-core cpu, modern GPU and massive RAM allocation capabilities -thanks to the x64 exe- so don't be surprised if your computer might run SoW BETTER than IL-2.

BTW, a 32-bit OS is restricted to 3GB of RAM no matter how much you stuff in it, not 2GB that someone mentioned.

Il2 supports DX8, but most of the development went into OGL support.. That's why nvidia cards run better with IL2 than AMD/ATI cards.
The RAM restriction of 32-bit Windows is 4GB. Then peripheral devices like graphic card, controllers etc. hog some RAM. That's why you won't get full 4GB available when Windows is launched. On average you get a little over 3 to 3.5GB available in Windows.

[swiss]

Maybe I should also stick with my q9550@4x3 GHz because then I can keep my 8 gb RAM.
Would be interesting to know from what amount of RAM the fps don't get better anymore when upgrading to more.

i7 can't deal with DDR2?

[Hecke]

i7 can't deal with DDR2?

dunno. You're right, my conclusion was a bit shaky.

But i7 means new board.

[addman]

Il2 supports DX8, but most of the development went into OGL support.. That's why nvidia cards run better with IL2 than AMD/ATI cards.
The RAM restriction of 32-bit Windows is 4GB. Then peripheral devices like graphic card, controllers etc. hog some RAM. That's why you won't get full 4GB available when Windows is launched. On average you get a little over 3 to 3.5GB available in Windows.

I stand corrected, totally forgot about the OpenGL part :)

[swiss]

But i7 means new board.

Which is not an option since Intel announced a new socket already.
(I'm f***d too with AM3, there will be new socket for the bulldozers)

[Osprey]

AWESOME! Look forward to more videos leaking out. :D

[undercut]

Found Another One.

Lots of good stuff in this video including formation flying, ship strafing... and bailout with damsel in distress?.. lol wtf. The game seems to run ultra smooth in this video as well.

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

[Sutts]

I see hedges in quite a few places. Not as many as there should be but they probably are quite resource intensive articles. I guess one day soon bump mapping and tesselation will produce lots of very nice hedge lines for us. Until then I'm very happy with what I've seen. Looks very promising indeed.:grin:

[=69.GIAP=TOOZ]

and bailout with damsel in distress?.. lol wtf.

Did he hop over to france and pick up some bird for a joyride??

[JG52Uther]

Just showing off the engine for film making perhaps?

[Richie]

That pilot with that girlie is just a panic 8)

[Richie]

These are just short but I figure we want to see all we can see.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtx3PSPkN8g


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5SxEFIHfg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90EwI84bLTQ

[mazex]

Il2 supports DX8, but most of the development went into OGL support.. That's why nvidia cards run better with IL2 than AMD/ATI cards.
The RAM restriction of 32-bit Windows is 4GB. Then peripheral devices like graphic card, controllers etc. hog some RAM. That's why you won't get full 4GB available when Windows is launched. On average you get a little over 3 to 3.5GB available in Windows.

I don't get where all people get this idea that a 32-bit windows OS can only use 4Gb of memory. Ever heard of PAE? The limit for 32-bit Windows 2003 Server Datacenter Edition is 128Gb!

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEdrv.mspx

[undercut]

I don't get where all people get this idea that a 32-bit windows OS can only use 4Gb of memory. Ever heard of PAE? The limit for 32-bit Windows 2003 Server Datacenter Edition is 128Gb!

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEdrv.mspx

Ok but.. that OS is for servers... I don't think many people use that type of OS for gaming.

[undercut]

These are just short but I figure we want to see all we can see.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtx3PSPkN8g

The circumferences around the bases in this video; I wonder if that might indicate the radar ranges?
Does anyone know how the radar system will work in this sim? Will it be a realistic approach where radar detections are referred to the pilot through the radio by radar operators on the ground indicating to the pilot position, speed, and heading of incoming enemy contacts or recommend and intercept course for the pilot? Or will it be more arcade style with blips on the mini map?

[undercut]

These are just short but I figure we want to see all we can see.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90EwI84bLTQ

The guy wearing the blue shirt pointing at the screen, is that Oleg? Can anyone translate what he is describing?

[JG52Uther]

No thats Ilya.

[undercut]

No thats Ilya.

Oh

[ATAG_Dutch]

The guy wearing the blue shirt pointing at the screen, is that Oleg? Can anyone translate what he is describing?

Nope, that's Ilya Shevchenko, or Luthier as he's known on here.

[=69.GIAP=TOOZ]

One thing that surprised me.... Oleg has shaved his moustache!! When did that happen??? I loved that moustache...

[undercut]

One thing that surprised me.... Oleg has shaved his moustache!! When did that happen??? I loved that moustache...
lol that reminds me of this video I just watched recently... :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq89U1rUqHE

[undercut]

Gun Sight View

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo01s9iWWps

[mazex]

Ok but.. that OS is for servers... I don't think many people use that type of OS for gaming.

There are no problem at all using Windows 2003 for gaming... I've played a lot of games on 2003 server and I've recently had many good games of RoF on a Windwos 2008R2 Server (64-bit though as there are no 32-bit editions of 2008R2). Naturally my prime gaming rig is a window 7 64-bit but now we are discussing theory here ;)

[Ailantd]

maby because wip, but, nobody else thinks that the speed of sea waves is too fast?

[Hecke]

The graphics here don't look good :(

[undercut]

There are no problem at all using Windows 2003 for gaming... I've played a lot of games on 2003 server and I've recently had many good games of RoF on a Windwos 2008R2 Server (64-bit though as there are no 32-bit editions of 2008R2). Naturally my prime gaming rig is a window 7 64-bit but now we are discussing theory here ;)

Interesting. I'll have to educate myself on this operating system. Does this OS require a specific CPU or MoBo or special kind of RAM to use more than 3.5 gb?

[undercut]

The graphics here don't look good :(

Yes it looks as though the lighting is turned "off" or something, no shadows really. Maybe they are playing it on the most minimal graphics settings, and if so I would say it looks pretty damn good.

[Hecke]

I think the Editor menu should also get a modern look.

[chiefrr73]

Hecke, will you ever be sattisfied, or are you just like that???????

[Hecke]

Hecke, will you ever be sattisfied, or are you just like that???????

Will you ever stop spamming or are you just like that???????

[chiefrr73]

true words, it wont help anyway

[kedrednael]

The graphics here don't look good :(

You really know what picture to choose from when you comment...
That picture looks like low graphic settings.

[swiss]

Will you ever stop spamming or are you just like that???????

You really need a break.
The thing is almost done, Oleg does not need you as an advisor(you'd be a pitiful one btw.)
Do you understand that?
No one gives a flying fu** about your opinion, it's just annoying.
The game is the box, just some bug hunting left - END OF STORY.

However:
If you do find a thread where Oleg asks for input, feel free to post all your thoughts there.
thx.

[klem]

i7 can't deal with DDR2?

I don't thnk so. All the i7 mobos I looked at for 1156 socket (P55 chipset) or 1366 socket ( X58 ) chipset were built for DDR3.

As for the new socket (next year I think?) I wonder if I will be able to afford it :)

Ther's another thread that focusses on questions regarding system specs:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=16401

I just hope it doesn't get overrun with off topic crud and remains readable.

[SQB]

wow! first of all, all these vids are amazing!
the graphics and especially the work on glass based lighting is amazing, first sim i have seen to get these in cockpit shadows correct, well done!

just one issue, and it may just be because this is WIP:
the waves in the ocean seem too big, it looks like the aircraft are RC aircraft flying over a pond... My thoughts? slow down the animation or scale it down.
anyway as i said that is my opinion, the game is turning out brilliantly. hurry up and release it :grin: :rolleyes:

[Richie]

You really know what picture to choose from when you comment...
That picture looks like low graphic settings.

You have to remember also we're looking at all of this stuff 2nd hand threw video cameras some I'm guessing aren't too good. The clearness colour and over all quality of this is nothing compared to what it will look like on the monitor but you all know that.

[=69.GIAP=TOOZ]

I really like the GUI shots we've had so far - looks really more advanced and slick with some nifty splash screens and backgrounds!

[The Sheepherder]

Awesome vid, I can't wait for it to be released.

The graphics look great (Nice shot of the messed up Hurricane) but will SOW feature anti-aliasing?

[LukeFF]

The graphics look great (Nice shot of the messed up Hurricane) but will SOW feature anti-aliasing?

Of course it will. What game these days doesn't feature it?

[The Kraken]

Of course it will. What game these days doesn't feature it?

Starcraft II, for a start. Also many games using the Unreal 3 engine, like Mass Effect 2. You'd be surprised :)

But yes, SoW will allow AA. Visible in the Spitfire & Beaufighter screens in this update: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=16862

[Redwan]

wow! first of all, all these vids are amazing!
the graphics and especially the work on glass based lighting is amazing, first sim i have seen to get these in cockpit shadows correct, well done!

just one issue, and it may just be because this is WIP:
the waves in the ocean seem too big, it looks like the aircraft are RC aircraft flying over a pond... My thoughts? slow down the animation or scale it down.
anyway as i said that is my opinion, the game is turning out brilliantly. hurry up and release it :grin: :rolleyes:

I agree that in the video you talk about, the water looks strange, althought in an other video it looks very good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67kAczLHcXg



I’m also worried by another feature of BoB. I think that nobody noticed that point. The grass looks strange in some update screens as well as in the videos:

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/9245/grass2.jpg
http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/5640/grass3.jpg

WIP or low settings ?


I think that ROF does better on that point. This is also 3D grass:

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/6506/grass4.jpg

[robtek]

Well, that might be a trick, like the trees in il2, to get a good view from most angles with a affordable processor-load.

[Hecke]

I agree that in the video you talk about, the water looks strange, althought in an other video it looks very good:

I’m also worried by another feature of BoB. I think that nobody noticed that point. The grass looks strange in some update screens as well as in the videos:




Redwan:

"will you ever be sattisfied, or are you just like that???????" (chiefrr73)

"You really know what picture to choose from when you comment..." (kedrednael)

"You really need a break.
The thing is almost done, Oleg does not need you as an advisor(you'd be a pitiful one btw.)
Do you understand that?
No one gives a flying fu** about your opinion, it's just annoying.
The game is the box, just some bug hunting left - END OF STORY.

However:
If you do find a thread where Oleg asks for input, feel free to post all your thoughts there.
thx." (swiss)

[Foo'bar]

just one issue, and it may just be because this is WIP:
the waves in the ocean seem too big, it looks like the aircraft are RC aircraft flying over a pond...

Exactly what I think each time I see a plane flying over the sea in IL2/SoW.

[The Kraken]

WIP or low settings ?

I think that ROF does better on that point.

RoF uses the exact same method for rendering grass, just at this point it has more densely distributed grass objects (detail setting?) and the colours seem better adjusted to the underlying texture (which Oleg is still working on). So I don't think there's much to worry about here.

[philip.ed]

We've seen corn fields in BoB, so surely it's a graphic setting? It'd make sense, considering the memory issue.

[Redwan]

Thanks for your comments about grass. Maybe it will look better if the density settings are higher.

Hecke,
Please don't talk in the name of the community asking me to stop to post here. It's just your own opinion and who are you to allow or not allow somebody to post here ?

Let me tell you one thing, it's not the end of the story and I will post what I want, where I want and when I want as long as it's related to the subject.

But finally I have pity of agressive people like you, who's master word is 'Intolerance' and I think you must be suffering a lot in your life to react like that. Maybe you should talk to someone to get you out of your problems and in the mean time take a bath with candles around and soft music after a good colon cleanse to feel better.

[Hecke]

Hecke,
Please don't talk in the name of the community asking me to stop to post here. It's just your own opinion and who are you to allow or not allow somebody to post here ?

Let me tell you one thing, it's not the end of the story and I will post what I want, where I want and when I want as long as it's related to the subject.

But finally I have pity of agressive people like you, who's master word is 'Intolerance' and I think you must be suffering a lot in your life to react like that. Maybe you should talk to someone to get you out of your problems and in the mean time take a bath with candles around and soft music after a good colon cleanse to feel better.

You didn't get it, right?

I wanted to show with what kind of crap comments I get flooded when I post things like you did in your post.
I am not the one who arrogates to shut other people up, I am actually pretty happy when people mention such things, but I get insulted when posting them.

[philip.ed]

I think there is a line, though. Some of the things you have asked for, Hecke, have just been way too complex IMO for the team to model; and Oleg himself said as such.
Don't get me wrong, I think posts where people point out inaccuracies or improvements is fine, but one has to draw a line somewhere.
Now before people say, "hang on, aren't you being hypocritical?" I would say, in my own defence, that any improvements I've ever suggested have been cosmetic. For example, the cloud shape to me is just wrong; and the recent videos have highlighted this. I don't think it would take a lot to change the model; as it is the model looks like Il-2, so perhaps it's never been tweaked?
And regarding terrain, the videos have made it look a lot better :D Considering any improvements that will come from updates, I'm more than happy. Not that my opinion matters though; I'm just throwing this out there. Ignore me :oops:

[Hecke]

I think there is a line, though. Some of the things you have asked for, Hecke, have just been way too complex IMO for the team to model; and Oleg himself said as such.

And how the hell shall I know what is too complex for these russian developers?
We are at end of 2010, I think almost everything is possible, it's just if the developers want it or not. So why don't you let Oleg decide what he thinks is worth an answer and what is crap.
I don't assume to know their skills, you guys do.

[airmalik]

Exactly what I think each time I see a plane flying over the sea in IL2/SoW.

I noticed the same about the waves but with all the other great visuals, didn't want to whine about it. At the altitude most of the planes in the videos were flying and with the fair weather shown, the sea should look pretty flat. Perhaps the scale of the waves was increased for visual impact but I agree this makes the planes look smaller.

Noticed the same thing about the hurricane with the collapsed landing gear. The size of grass in that shot was quite big, making the plane look smaller.

[philip.ed]

And how the hell shall I know what is too complex for these russian developers?
We are at end of 2010, I think almost everything is possible, it's just if the developers want it or not. So why don't you let Oleg decide what he thinks is worth an answer and what is crap.
I don't assume to know their skills, you guys do.

Hmm, good point. In this situation, I think people who get annoyed should just keep it to themselves. This isn't real life (LOL if it was) and so if people get annoyed at this stuff then......
But surely you can guess that thousands of bomb craters 30ft deep would just not work?

I think people only get annoyed when you moan about the graphics. I mean you did post the one picture that showed bad graphics :eek:

[The Kraken]

And how the hell shall I know what is too complex for these russian developers?
We are at end of 2010, I think almost everything is possible, it's just if the developers want it or not. So why don't you let Oleg decide what he thinks is worth an answer and what is crap.
I don't assume to know their skills, you guys do.

That's some seriously twisted thinking and probably explains the demanding tone in a lot of your posts. So you seriously think that whatever feature does not make it into the game is because Oleg and his team don't "want" it or are too lazy to do it? As you admit yourself, you don't have an idea about the complexity of such a project, the required work and the limitations they have to overcome. Your conclusion that therefore it should be fine for you to expect and demand anything you can dream of is seriously flawed.

Welcome to the real world.

[Hecke]

Hmm, good point. In this situation, I think people who get annoyed should just keep it to themselves. This isn't real life (LOL if it was) and so if people get annoyed at this stuff then......
But surely you can guess that thousands of bomb craters 30ft deep would just not work?

I think people only get annoyed when you moan about the graphics. I mean you did post the one picture that showed bad graphics :eek:

Thousand bomb craters :rolleyes:
30ft would be awesome, for my sake he can then limit it to 50 craters. :grin:
No no, you are right that's too much.

But actually I seemed to be the only one who was interested in whether it's just simple texture or a 3D hole.

[philip.ed]

I had asked if it'd be 3D before. But that was a while ago ;)

[Hecke]

So you seriously think that whatever feature does not make it into the game is because Oleg and his team don't "want" it or are too lazy to do it? As you admit yourself, you don't have an idea about the complexity of such a project, the required work and the limitations they have to overcome.



Actually, yes, if Oleg doesn't include a feature then it's most likely because he doesn't want to waste that much time for programming it due to what he thinks bad cost-benefit-ratio.


I had asked if it'd be 3D before. But that was a while ago ;)

And what was the answer, if you got one?

[philip.ed]

I don't recall getting an answer. Anyway, it negates the fact that Oleg has now said they will be 3D which is awesome.

[Hecke]

...Oleg has now said they will be 3D which is awesome.

I think it wasn't Oleg, it was a russian at the sukhoi forum.
But the translation of it imo wasn't that clear.

But 3D craters is really awesome and a huge step forward.

[ElAurens]

I think that ROF does better on that point. This is also 3D grass:

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/6506/grass4.jpg

You can do great 3D grass when there is no realistic damage model for the game engine to calulate...

:rolleyes:

[addman]

I get p*ssed off when I hear people complaining about the graphics, saying they "should be better". Maybe some people should stop comparing SoW graphics with i.e Gears of War, Crysis and such. Don't you understand that those games are extremely scripted and things like A.I and DM in those games are almost non-existant. You can shoot a bad guy in those games in the head, arms, legs but that's all there is, just a few hit boxes. Sure, they can run for cover and try to flank you but even in a few games where it actually works it's nowhere near the sophistication that a flightsim requires. Even IL-2 at it's respected age still today has better A.I AND DM than most other games coming out these days.

I'm actually surprised -by the vids we've seen so far- that the game actually seems to perform so well DESPITE having all the nice bells and whistles. You want "better" graphics? buy H.A.W.X or some other Michael Bay esq. game.

P.S I like Kinder Eggs...

[dduff442]

It's all about the gameplay and I've a feeling this game is going to do things no other sim will match for a very long time. The feedback on the screenshots has been useful for Oleg & crew I'm sure, but the big reveals start from here on out.

dduff

[addman]

It's all about the gameplay and I've a feeling this game is going to do things no other sim will match for a very long time. The feedback on the screenshots has been useful for Oleg & crew I'm sure, but the big reveals start from here on out.

dduff

+1 Feel of flight, first time I felt it was when I played the IL-2 demo all those years ago, it was so worth sitting and downloading it all night on that lousy 56k connection. Swooping down flying almost ground level, I'll never forget that.

[150GCT_Veltro]

You can do great 3D grass when there is no realistic damage model for the game engine to calulate...

:rolleyes:

What damn are you talking about? Are you joking us?

Look at the second video, 1'30'', when the SE5a pilot died. Bullets hit the fuselage and soon after the pilot, killing it. You can also see the holes. Rise of Flight's physics is wonderfull, and i really hope to have the same in the BoB.

http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=14498

I'm drolling myself for the Battle of Britain, but Rise of Flight is a work of art, no more no less than a work of art. Don't touch it.

[ElAurens]

Do the planes still bounce off the ground when they crash?

Do they still fly in formation with wings twisted almost off or with half of one missing?

If you shoot into the floor of the cockpit from below are you now able to kill the pilot and or gunner? Or even damage the engine?

When last I flew RoF there were big problems.

*Waits for the now trite reply..."Learn to shoot!" :rolleyes:*

Sorry don't want to turn this into a thread hijack.

*Now waits for Jason to show up as well as the rest of the rabbid dog fanbois.*

And no I 'm not going to re-install it to see how it has improved, because I don't have an extra $100 US lying around to get all the planes I would need to be competitive online.

[150GCT_Veltro]

Do the planes still bounce off the ground when they crash?

Do they still fly in formation with wings twisted almost off or with half of one missing?

If you shoot into the floor of the cockpit from below are you now able to kill the pilot and or gunner? Or even damage the engine?

When last I flew RoF there were big problems.

*Waits for the now trite reply..."Learn to shoot!" :rolleyes:*

Sorry don't want to turn this into a thread hijack.

*Now waits for Jason to show up as well as the rest of the rabbid dog fanbois.*

And no I 'm not going to re-install it to see how it has improved, because I don't have an extra $100 US lying around to get all the planes I would need to be competitive online.

When will you see something better than RoF damaged models and physics, BoB included, tell us about it. Thank.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe8OOw5tRcY

[SaQSoN]

When will you see something better than RoF damaged models and physics, BoB included, tell us about it. Thank.

Wow! Rubber planes! I love that! :lol:

[Sven]

Wow! Rubber planes! I love that! :lol:

it's still superb to any other flight simulator currently existing today, people like Elaurus are form the old breed of RoF critisisers, too bad for them really, they're missing something which is called "Fun".

Anyway, back to the news, BoB is really coming together in those videos:), someone mentioned the grass still being ugly or something, I don't think so, it looks good actually.

[Rodolphe]

...


BTW, I don't think this "Spitfire ditching at sea" animation is doing much better than the above "Crash Test videos" of RoF.


Crystal wings with Iron Man fuselage. :rolleyes:

Watch at the very end (1'20") of this video .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67kAczLHcXg&feature=related

Where do these wings go ?

...

[The Kraken]

Buy the way - RoF has the best flight and damage physics in flight sims. Sure you don´t have that much planes and sure 2. WW planes are faster and even cooler, but RoF is the undefeated number 1 in flight sims.

DCS Black Shark is better. There, I said it.

[arjisme]

Do the planes still bounce off the ground when they crash?

Do they still fly in formation with wings twisted almost off or with half of one missing?

If you shoot into the floor of the cockpit from below are you now able to kill the pilot and or gunner? Or even damage the engine?

When last I flew RoF there were big problems.

*Waits for the now trite reply..."Learn to shoot!" :rolleyes:*

Sorry don't want to turn this into a thread hijack.

*Now waits for Jason to show up as well as the rest of the rabbid dog fanbois.*

And no I 'm not going to re-install it to see how it has improved, because I don't have an extra $100 US lying around to get all the planes I would need to be competitive online.
The game as it is today is not the same as when you apparently flew it. But what do your comments have to do with comparing its grass rendering with SoW's?

LOL, btw, at your invoking "fanboi (tm)" as a preemptive argument! It's a standard tactic in gaming forums after all...

[undercut]

IL-2 Sturmovik was a technical masterpiece for its time and is still a very fun and exciting game to play despite its age. Rise of Flight is a technical/graphical masterpiece and is an excellent WW1 Flight Sim, much respect to the computer wizards/artists who made this game. Storm of War is a technical/graphical masterpiece and will be a benchmark for other WW2 flight simulators to follow and will be a very fun and exciting game to play...

Let us respect the work of these artists by not pretentiously pointing out flaws or demanding changes or enhancements while having NO clue as to what kind of work would be necessary to achieve these demands and having NO clue how difficult or impossible it may be. Instead be grateful for their efforts and admire their artistic brilliance...

They never promised to build us the Matrix people.. They simply set out to build us the most gorgeous, realistic and fulfilling wwII flight simulator that has been created to date.. and they are well on their way to achieving their goal. ;) Peace.

[AndyJWest]

^ What undercut said. +1.

It seems to me that most of the nit-picking, whinging about colours or the shape of clouds, and complaints about things tha 'must be included but aren't' on this forum come from people who don't have a clue about the complexities of software development. Tedious...

[Blackdog_kt]

Truth be told, i didn't like a lot of RoF's decisions and trying out the demo (on more than one occasions and several months apart from each other) highlighted most of the flaws ElAurens pointed out. However, i'm not going to go on a campaign against it (not saying that ElAurens does by the way) just because i don't like it because frankly, its design choices made it a game that didn't appeal to me enough.

Translation being, i cared a lot when it was close to release and got in a lot of heated arguments trying to tell people they would lose customers with the choices they were making, but i don't actually care about it anymore.

However, there are a few things i liked about RoF and i think it would be cool to see something similar implemented in other sims, SoW included. For example, having the ability to define and save custom views separately for each aircraft is a very nice feature.
Also, while RoF doesn't feature full start-up sequences and uses a single-keypress engine start method, that "engine on" toggle is neither instantaneous nor guaranteed. You can see the appropriate switches turning on in the cockpit and the ease or difficulty with which the engine springs to life is dependent on proper mixture settings by the pilot, maybe even on atmospheric conditions at the time. That would be cool to have in SoW as well, so for example on a cold day even if i pressed the engine on key it would struggle to start compared to starting on a hot day.

Now, having the CFS3 modders that did over flanders fields jump to the SoW engine would be something i'd really like to see, as they have a much more historically accurate approach and completeness of theaters/airframes to cover as much tactical situations as possible in regards to WWI simming, but they are limited by the outdated engine they are using.
I used to have the free phase 2 edition before it went payware and while the base CFS3 engine was terrible compared to IL2, they managed to make wonders out of it. Proper squadron positions and movements, realistic mission objectives, realistic opponents (no Fokker DVIIs when you are flying a DH2, which is what happens in RoF sometimes because they don't have enough planes to cover all the time periods yet), even historical weather from WWI records, it's just a terrible pity that they were forced to use CFS3 as the foundation.

I'd be easily willing to part with 50-60 Euros for a WWI sim made by those guys on the SoW engine.

[Billy885]

It wasn't me. It was novice AI. I can seat in any aircraft that has cockpit (there is now such feature).
Is there any chance of doing that in real time or just with recordings?

Great work you all and cant wait for the release!

[airmalik]

Actually, yes, if Oleg doesn't include a feature then it's most likely because he doesn't want to waste that much time for programming it due to what he thinks bad cost-benefit-ratio.


Hecke, even more important factor is balance. Even if Oleg's team had all the time in the world, there would be missing details simply because there's a limit to what today's PCs can handle. So in the interest of keeping the game playable on current PCs, certain details wouldn't make it to the game even if Oleg had all the time or resources in the world.

For instance, I recall Oleg mentioning that they had actually implemented grass in IL2 back in 2000 but it never made it into the released game due to performance reasons.

Just because you don't see a certain detail in the game doesn't mean they can't do it or don't want to do it.

[ElAurens]

Wow! Rubber planes! I love that! :lol:

Exactly

What 100$? You could buy the planes from 2,90$ at the special sale.

Just looking at the web store tonight, to get the 14 aircaft I don't have would cost $106.68, three times the cost of the original sim.

P.T. Barnum was right.

To be fair there were things I did find to my liking about RoF. The 3D models are excellent. The FMs by and large are believable. The dogfighting was fun. But for me the pluses did not outweigh the minuses, and coupled with a totally hair brained business model I could not see continuing my support of a sim that I orginally had very high hopes, and large support, for. Lots of others feel the same way I might add.

And I was correct about the attack of the zombie fan boys. All too predictable. And sad really.

[BadAim]

I only just bought ROF recently (the ICE edition). I am not allowed to talk about my previous experience with the game, but I will say my opinion has changed and I think that the new version with Eight planes and it's current level of sophistication and smoothness is a fair buy.

I was also not very impressed by the business model either, but have since changed my mind. WWI is not conducive to the add on style that Oleg uses, the only way that they can have continuing revenue for game development is the model they are using, and they are developing and improving the game, and everyone gets the benefit of that.

I'm only talking about ROF on this forum because I feel that it is a complimentary product, not a competitive one, and that comparisons are valid. (I will concede that while I consider the damage model to be superb, a hard crash kind of looks goofy. There are limits as to what can be done with a computer)

I won't comment on this any further.

[BadAim]

I wish people would stop quoting Hecke, so I don't have to see his banal and senseless posts. I wish the Ignore function on this forum extended to quotes, so that I can completely eliminate my contact with people that are just too stupid to deal with here. I have to deal with idiots all the time at work and I'd just as soon not waste my free time on them.

Come to think of it I wish I had an ignore button at work.......

[arjisme]

To be fair there were things I did find to my liking about RoF. The 3D models are excellent. The FMs by and large are believable. The dogfighting was fun. But for me the pluses did not outweigh the minuses, and coupled with a totally hair brained business model I could not see continuing my support of a sim that I orginally had very high hopes, and large support, for. Lots of others feel the same way I might add.
But what does any of this have to do with the original point that RoF models 3D grass and wouldn't it be great if SoW did too?

And I was correct about the attack of the zombie fan boys. All too predictable. And sad really.
LOL, btw, at your invoking "fanboi (tm)" as a preemptive argument! It's a standard tactic in gaming forums after all...
What's sad is your repeated use of this logical fallacy.

[ElAurens]

The reason I pointed out the post about the grass in RoF is that RoF is held up as an example of a very good piece of work, and frankly it is far from it IMHO.

You like it, and that's fine. I don't, but for some reason that's not fine with you. Curious double standard you have there.

I have never purchased a flight sim just to help support the genre, except for RoF, and after my total let down, I never will again.

Now, I am done jousting with you fan boys about RoF.

Have a good night, and on to better things.

[undercut]

The reason I pointed out the post about the grass in RoF is that RoF is held up as an example of a very good piece of work, and frankly it is far from it IMHO.

You like it, and that's fine. I don't, but for some reason that's not fine with you. Curious double standard you have there.

I have never purchased a flight sim just to help support the genre, except for RoF, and after my total let down, I never will again.

Now, I am done jousting with you fan boys about RoF.

Have a good night, and on to better things.

I'm just curious, what did you not like about RoF?

Off Topic discussions are prohibited in Update threads in order to promote productive discussion and comments between forum members and the developer. Discussions that are of considerable interest to both.
If you (the poster of this Off-Topic discussion) made this posting, you must edit or delete your posting. If you persist to violate the policy “No Off-Topic discussion in Update threads” sanctions will be applied in other ways on an individual basis.
Alternatively, discussions about IL2, SOW, War, Air Combat and Flight topics are allowed within the non-sticky threads. Off-Topic discussions aren't enforced as they are in the update threads unless a posting is reported.

[Richie]

...


BTW, I don't think this "Spitfire ditching at sea" animation is doing much better than the above "Crash Test videos" of RoF.


Crystal wings with Iron Man fuselage. :rolleyes:

Watch at the very end (1'20") of this video .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67kAczLHcXg&feature=related

Where do these wings go ?

...

This Spitfire is probably traveling at a speed of at least 220 mph so as soon as he hits the water the ripped off wings will catch tons of air and be braked. The fuselage would carry on further. The wings are back behind the Spitfire.

[150GCT_Veltro]

Wow! Rubber planes! I love that!

Exactly

Exactly what? What Vladimir said about "rubber" planes? Please tell us where you see rubber planes here or "realisitc DM not calculated":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j3UcSELlqo

Simple you say something that's not true.

Landscape and grass in RoF are really great (at least at low altitude), and you don't need DX10 or a Goldrake's PC to run it. In spite of this, you can also calculate advanced FM and DM.

SoW will be better? Probably it will, but it will be probably also the best sim ever.

[SaQSoN]

Exactly what? What Vladimir said about "rubber" planes? Please tell us where you see rubber planes here or "realisitc DM not calculated":

If you think, this is realistic, you, probably, haven't seen even a model plane crashes, leave along real wood+fabric planes.

It really makes me laugh, seeing a 500-600 kg plane hit ground almost vertically with at least 80 km/h speed and stops immediately, just some wings and tail bend a little.

IRL, in the same situation, you'd find a piece of tail, may be some outer wing pieces and a lot of very small debris, which were fuselage and centerwings, in a crater, made by the engine, while the engine itself will be somewhere 1-2 m under the ground. And this is in the case, the fuel wouldn't ignite by impact (possible). Otherwise all the above would form a nice smoky bonfire.

Verdict: rubber planes

[undercut]

I think these physics in RoF look great...If you want to experience true to life plane crashes go to your local flying club, take an introductory flight.. and crash the plane into the ground. :D

[SaQSoN]

If you want to experience true to life plane crashes go to your local flying club, take an introductory flight.. and crash the plane into the ground. :D

Well, this is a really good advise for anyone, who thinks, the crash physics is realistic in RoF...

Not me, apparently...

[Hecke]

I wish people would stop quoting Hecke, so I don't have to see his banal and senseless posts. I wish the Ignore function on this forum extended to quotes, so that I can completely eliminate my contact with people that are just too stupid to deal with here. I have to deal with idiots all the time at work and I'd just as soon not waste my free time on them.

Come to think of it I wish I had an ignore button at work.......


Banal and senseless posts? That's exactly what you do all the time.
And that you pick on me permanently just shows that you are the real stupid idiot.

[150GCT_Veltro]

If you think, this is realistic, you, probably, haven't seen even a model plane crashes, leave along real wood+fabric planes.

First of all is better is we say this to ourself: probably we are asking to much from a simulation.

However about your quote, i can answer this to you: i've seen (thank to an italian "KIA body pilots recovery association") what did happen when a fighter crashed in my area (around Bologna where we did have a lot of dogfights in WW2). There was a sort of "drill engine effect" when an aicraft crashed from high altitude. Wings were cut off but engine, pilot, and fuselage did penetrate terrain for some meters (this was due probably also to the farmland terrain). We'll see it in SoW? I doubt it....it would be really too much. Realistic in a flight sim, is always an hard and questionable statement to say.

Considering some shoots (terrific) of WW1 crashed scouts, we can see aircrafts like collapsed and somentimes the pilot killed still inside, so not too much different from what we have seen in RoF. Some more piece of fuselage would be better during the crash, but i think we could say that realistic or not, RoF DM is good enough for our PC, at least for now.

This video is very sad, please look at it with respect, but it's also a document about crashed WW1 aircrafts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63-Jg-dKiQU&feature=player_embedded#at=44

[JG52Uther]

Title of thread:
Friday 2010-10-29 Dev. update and Discussion

RoF forum is somewhere else,and if people want to argue with each other,thats what PM's are for.

[robtek]

Sorrily i cant watch the movie because of the censorship of the DRM-mafia

[Necrobaron]

Just an observation but it's interesting to note that generally the folks that don't like RoF really don't like RoF and are strangely vitriolic toward it. Sure it isn't perfect but most of the criticism levelled at RoF tends to be either woefully outdated or inaccurate to begin with. I do admit that I don't like having to buy new planes, and have yet to do so, but I've been spoiled by Oleg and his many freebies. The game is updated regularly and the design team seems determined to stand behind and continually improve the game and also does a good job of communicating with the...err...community. Although WWI air combat isn't really my forte, I look forward to seeing what RoF's future holds.
________
Wendie 99 (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[klem]

Title of thread:
Friday 2010-10-29 Dev. update and Discussion

RoF forum is somewhere else,and if people want to argue with each other,thats what PM's are for.

+100

Is there a moderator here that could cut this thread down to a manageable 20 relevant pages?

And a serious question (if anyone can find it) Can someone tell me if Oleg has a 'cutoff point' of say 2 days or 10 pages which he just doesn't go beyond, trawling through all the irelevant stuff looking for our questions? We could hardly blame him. If so I won't have to waste my time reading through them either.

<bookmarks page 89 for tracking purposes>

[ElAurens]

Sir,

If you wish me to delete my posts kindly say so, and it will be done.

[arjisme]

Title of thread:
Friday 2010-10-29 Dev. update and Discussion

RoF forum is somewhere else,and if people want to argue with each other,thats what PM's are for.RoF was initially brought up in order to compare what that flight sim does with grass rendering vs. what we are seeing in SoW. The idea was to encourage Oleg to do something similar. It was a valid point in that context. There was no intent to start a general discussion about that sim here.

Unfortunately, it then veered off topic when one member started making inaccurate statements about RoF. Normally, that could be ignored, but as this is a flight sim forum and there is always some cross-interest in other sims, it needed to be addressed. His overall condescending and insulting attitude only fed the discussion.

But I agree, one's personal feelings about sims other than SoW have no place here. And, unless we are comparing what another sim does to what is done in SoW, they have no place here either.

[swiss]

First of all is better is we say this to ourself: probably we are asking to much from a simulation.

However about your quote, i can answer this to you: i've seen (thank to an italian "KIA body pilots recovery association") what did happen when a fighter crashed in my area (around Bologna where we did have a lot of dogfights in WW2). There was a sort of "drill engine effect" when an aicraft crashed from high altitude. Wings were cut off but engine, pilot, and fuselage did penetrate terrain for some meters (this was due probably also to the farmland terrain). We'll see it in SoW? I doubt it....it would be really too much. Realistic in a flight sim, is always an hard and questionable statement to say.


My father was examining magistrate during his service time.
He had two fatal aircraft crashes(both) were venoms if I remember correctly.
Sure those are jets, therefore a little faster than ww2 fighters.

But: The largest piece of the aircraft the could find was about 60cm, they found it 1m under surface (alpine meadow)
They remains of the pilot were collected in minigrips...


Back to the question: What are you asking for? Pieces dug deep in the soil?

[swiss]

Actually, yes, if Oleg doesn't include a feature then it's most likely because he doesn't want to waste that much time for programming it due to what he thinks bad cost-benefit-ratio.


You really believe that?
Wow.
That's actually pretty sad.

But even if you were right - what makes you think he could change his mind based on your criticism?

Anyway, I suggest you download some benchmarking tools, 3dmark or vantage, that should give you a clue how little it takes to bring your (2010! wow!) hardware to its knees.

[150GCT_Veltro]

My father was examining magistrate during his service time.
He had two fatal aircraft crashes(both) were venoms if I remember correctly.
Sure those are jets, therefore a little faster than ww2 fighters.

But: The largest piece of the aircraft the could find was about 60cm, they found it 1m under surface (alpine meadow)
They remains of the pilot were collected in minigrips...


Back to the question: What are you asking for? Pieces dug deep in the soil?

Don't worry mate, i've been myself in military rescue (Firefighting, F-104), so i know what you say.

We were talking about how realistic could be a crash in a sim. I wasn't asking for nothing, but simple saying that RoF DM is good enough for me.

I don't complain about the Spitfire crashing on the sea, is ok for me.

[undercut]

Sorrily i cant watch the movie because of the censorship of the DRM-mafia

Serious? Thats bs...

[klem]

Sir,

If you wish me to delete my posts kindly say so, and it will be done.

ElAurens, at the risk of padding this thread even more, I just got fed up with trying to find a needle in this haystack. It's a discussion about the 'Dev update' and I reckon more than half of it has become about other issues. Please forgive me if I don't trawl through it again to see if your posts are on-topic.

I suppose I'm expecting too much on an open forum where some people can't resist the temptation to repeatedly argue that they are right on every point (like we didn't understand them the first time) and then throw in their off-topic garbage of choice. I've chaired enough meetings where they would simply have been censured or kicked out, but forums don't have chairmen.

<sigh> Maybe I'm just getting too old.

[Desgobbi]

1:2300 = 3 orders of magnitude ;-)

BTW if my memory is good enough, during the BoB the Hurricanes didn't have Hispanos, but 8 Brownings .303, and the muzzle speed of the 11 g bullet was some 2500 km/h, and the weight of the Hurricane was 3950 kg, and when attacking bombers I'd fly a little faster than 300 km/h ... details of course my friend :D

It's been a long time. Hope to see you this post someday, as I did.
We've got to consider the explosion which occurs whenever every bullet gets fired. Of course momentum things still working.

Trajectories of bullet look not good and seem to be laser beam.