Friday 2011-02-04 Dev. update and Discussion

[Sturm_Williger]

...
Yep. They call it it wonderwoman view and icons!

Just kidding, sorry.Couldn't resist.

I understand about the icons, natch, but I'm not talking about the e/a diving under the nose, I'm talking about following him, but you can't distinguish between the e/a and the ground textures - not for longer than perhaps 2-3 maybe 4 seconds, but that can be a long time ...

So I was wondering if they've found a way to make it stand out a bit better ( not asking for a glowing target, just want the object 200m away to stand out somewhat better from the ground 1000m away... ) - or is it just my eyes and monitor and no one else has noticed this ?

[MoHaX]

A dot can't be smaller than a pixel. Smaller resolutions gives you larger pixels. Therefore distant dots will always be larger at smaller resolutions.


Thats true, but you can blend dot color with background on low res and left it black on high res. This will make dots less visible on lower resulotions.

[Redwan]

May have had more to do with how you said it?

If people are respectful they can usually say what they want.

Why isn’t it respectful to say that the dev team is very (several years) late with the making of the whether effect ?

[Igo kyu]

or is it just my eyes and monitor and no one else has noticed this ?
Quite possibly it is your monitor. I had a CRT monitor once that made seeing enemies against the ground impossible. With LCD monitors it's better, for me.

[swiss]

Ok, it get ~6.5km at 1680*1050
-4.10
-Forgot to note alt, I think it was 8km, clouds off.

[Novotny]

Why isn’t it respectful to say that the dev team is very (several years) late with the making of the whether effect ?

Because you are implying that you have a better idea of how they should allocate their time then they have.

[HFC_Dolphin]

Actually, we do have to have better visibility than in IL-2.
Those who have flown and took a seat in a real cockpit know that visibility and awareness is much better in real life than what we've experienced in IL-2.

I hope that we never experience again those invisible green planes that could just fly over a forest and never be seen and other similar cases.

[Blackdog_kt]

What people really mean when asking about the "dots" is this: will LODs only depend on distance, or also on object size, resolution and field of view? Because if the switch to a dot representation only happens when the render size is about one pixel, then there's no issue anymore.

Actually it would be very good if the amount of pixels used for a given aircraft at a given distance would scale with the resolution used. For example, up to 1280x1024 a fighter at 5km would be 2-pixel dot, but at 1920x1080 the same fighter at the same distance would be 10-pixel dot, etc (numbers arbitrary for example's sake).

Sure. But here we are talking about the moment where the plane is still a tiny dot.
What do you do with this information?
At this stage you don't know whether it's friend or foe - all you know is there's an aircraft.

(the direction of the plane doesn't help too much, I often penetrate hostile airspace just to stab them in the back on their way to the front )

You are partially right, however there are cases when it does make a difference. A lot depends on altitudes, relative positioning and closing speeds, so for example if there's two guys approaching each other head on at 500km/h an extra 2 or 5 km of spotting distance give you a better window of time in which to respond (or a worse one in which to be surprised).

I still remember one of my online kills with a Fw190A from a few years back on my 17" CRT monitor at 1280x1024, where i spotted a lone dot against the fog almost an entire map grid away (about 7-8km) at my 10 o'clock low. I set into a pursuit curve and a shallow dive, adjusted my course by observing the dot's movement and just waited to get close enough for identification before pulling the trigger. As it turned out i had flown an almost perfect curve and doing close to 700km/h by the point he was about to cross from left to right across my windscreen, i looked closer and identified it as a Pony and let him have it. It was very satisfying because it was a kill based solely on SA, speed and surprise done in a single firing pass.

I can't replicate that in my 22" LCD at 1680x1050 however. I tried some QMB missions with icons on to judge the difference and it seems the dots can be spotted a little while before the icons kick in, at a little more than 5.5 km, and that's against the sky. Against the ground they could be sneaking up on me just fine and making it to within 3km or less.

In any case, much will depend on how CoD will deal with making camouflage useful at long range while not having planes blend into the background at point blank like it used to happen with IL2 (the problem described by Sturm Williger).

Who knows, maybe we'll have sun glinting off the canopies and other reflections, or the LOD scaling will be so good and the aircraft standing out from the backgrounds that it won't be an issue at close range but the camo will still be effective at long range. Anyway, i trust they'll do their best to do a good job on this so i'm not terribly worried. Just the fact it will support widescreen resolutions right off the bat will improve things considerably, since it's built for them from the ground up and not "forced" to used them on an engine build for 1024x768 resolutions like IL2 is.

Finally in response to Royraiden, a monitor has a much smaller resolution than the human eye. There was in fact a challenge of spotting planes in real life too and yes, sometimes it's hard even for white or brightly painted airliners to spot each other. However, the superior resolution of the human eye will pick up on movement and can distinguish silhouettes at a much higher distance. Since we can't have that with a monitor, in order to simulate how it works in real life there must be a way to offset the disadvantage.

So, in reality it's hard to spot a single dot with no apparent motion but it's far easier to make out the plane's outline and identify it once you pick him up visually and at longer ranges. On our PCs it's the opposite due to hardware limitations, they give us long range spotting of the dots because they can't give us long range silhouette on a PC monitor.


Apart from spotting issues now,

One more question Luthier and I'll leave you alone :)

Probably the one feature I really hope to see in CoD is improved crew interaction. Can you comment on AI crews, will gunners call out surface and air contacts? Will navigators give you course headings and corrections, and will bomb aimers guide you in on the bomb run?

The crew members of other sims are really only decoration and it would make the player feel far less alone (and much more immersed in the sim) if their virtual comrades could fulfil their basic functions within the aircraft.

Hope you can answer!

Luthier, thank you for these interesting, well written answers. :) The gag is finally starting to come off. You seem like you had an itch to share all this cool stuff your team has been developing over the past few ages.

Can you talk a bit about how (AI) crew members can be interacted with? Classical example is the rear gunner of the Bf110. He is mostly quiet in IL-2, and cannot speak at all in multiplayer. There was talk from Oleg of improving this area. I'll write the points numbered so replying should be a quick breeze. I expect 'No' as answer to most, but I'm curious enough to ask. :) Think of it as possibilities if nothing else.

1. Better contact reports?
2. Feeding information of someone on one's tail?
3. ..Perhaps prompted by the player by a button?
4. Instructions on his general behavior?
5. Does he have morale? Panic? Hot on the trigger?
6. Bail out without permission (panic mode)?7. MG-FF's had to be reloaded by this bordfunker in reality.
8. Report visual damage to own plane he sees? (smoke trail from engine, control surfaces damaged and so on)
9. Gets affected by your maneuvering?
10. Navigation & radio (I'm sure not).

Very interesting points, i'd love to see something like that.
Or if we can't have that on release, maybe a possibility to include a scripting language in the SDK for the community to implement similar functions on their own would be even better.

[Dano]

Actually it would be very good if the amount of pixels used for a given aircraft at a given distance would scale with the resolution used. For example, up to 1280x1024 a fighter at 5km would be 2-pixel dot, but at 1920x1080 the same fighter at the same distance would be 10-pixel dot, etc (numbers arbitrary for example's sake).

The problem with this approach is that not all 1920x1080 (insert whatever resolution) displays are the same size and thus it'll just move the advantage/disadvantage to another group of users.

If a system can be interrogated to ascertain the physical dimensions of the display along with the resolution or just the dot-pitch then a universal transparency/size could possibly be implemented, this would however be almost impossible for any users with projection displays as there is no way that I am aware of for the computer to know exactly how big the projection ends up.

[MoHaX]

Actually it would be very good if the amount of pixels used for a given aircraft at a given distance would scale with the resolution used. For example, up to 1280x1024 a fighter at 5km would be 2-pixel dot, but at 1920x1080 the same fighter at the same distance would be 10-pixel dot, etc (numbers arbitrary for example's sake).


I thought its the same nowdays. If airplane can be displayed in current res it is rendered as 3d model which occupies multiple pixels, as soon as model calculated screend size goes beyond 1 pixel it starts to be rendered as simple 1 pixel until it completely disappear

[JG53Frankyboy]

perhaps some questions will still be answered :)

- will the max startweight be calculated if you are loading your plane (espacially bombers) with fuel and bombs ?
a screenshot of the new armament screen in a next WIP update would be awesome btw ;)

- will CoD have its own "gameserver" included or will we still have to use 3.party tools like the Hyperlobby (that did a beautifull job i have to ad !!).



and just to add, wouldnt it be time to post these friday updates in the CoD forum of 1C and not here in the IL2 part anymore ;)

[JG53Frankyboy]

Wanted to address this on its own. That's not true at all. We have lots of photographs of different JG53 aircraft all showing the same red band. Geschwader Adjutant, white 8, "grey" 14, some aircraft of 5./JG53 with half-stripe extending down to the exhaust stack, etc.

indeed, the "Red Band" as replacement of the "Ace of Spade" on the JG53 (all three groups) cowlings was ordered around end of July 1940. The Ace of Spade was reintroduced in 20.November 1940. Officially because of the 500. kill of the JG53, sure it helped that von Maltzahn took over the command from Crammon-Traubadel at 10.October 1940.........

the overpainting of the Swastika was only common in the III/JG53 for a time from august 1940 to fall 1940, after Hptm. Wilcke took over command. It was done to protest against the harsh words Göring had agaisnt his fighterpilots......
III/JG53 flew it's 109s without Swastikas with Red Band and (after 20.Nov) PikAs on its cowlings.

[Dano]

Where are the soldiers ???? Where is the infantry?

Trucks are empty, and artillery fires alone. Where are the servants?

I hope in the released version we have humans. Otherwise it will be totally unrealistic.

Read. The. Thread.

[FG28_Kodiak]

It seems that many people want more a weather simulation or a Sims than a flight simulator.
I for my self prefer a flight simulator, you know planes and such things ;)

[pancake]

Where are the soldiers ???? Where is the infantry?.

Where now the horse and the rider? where is the horn that was blowing?
Where is the helm and the hauberk and the bright hair flowing?
Where is the hand on the harp-string, and the red fire glowing?
Where is the spring and the harvest and the tall corn growing?
They have passed like rain on the mountain, like a wind in the meadow;
The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow.
Who shall gather the smoke of the dead wood burning?
Or behold the flowing years from the Sea returning?

Couldn't resist :-)

[FG28_Kodiak]

@pancake
I hope you don't expect Orcs and Hobbits in CoD. ;D

[Baron]

Regarding visibility distance, iv been fortunate enough to have tried rl mock dogfighting and tracking/seeing, even though u are suppose to know where they are, is much more difficult than many seem to think, even at close range (1-2 km).

Maby spotting ac in CoD will be somewhat easier due to dynamic lighting?

[jameson]

Red Bands JG53, my bad...

Yes, apologies to Luthier, just posted off the top of my head from memory. I've done a little bit of digging about said redband and the actual reasons why JG53 ditched the pik as logo but it seems to be open to various schools of thought. Still it does appear that the entire geschwader changed over to the redband, as Frankboy says, around the beginning of August. What's a bit more difficult to find out is when it disappeared. As early as September by some accounts when the unit commander was replaced and the pik as was reinstated. To add to the confusion the yellow nose had become an official Luftwaffe BOB colour scheme by September (I understand), and was taken up by JG 53, and which may have occured when the unit moved to the Pas de Calais to perform close fighter escort for bombing attacks on London. (Could the yellow nose have been to protect themselves from their own bomber's gunners?).
The first example of the red band to have been shot down over England was on August 16th 1940, so it seems the red band was short lived. I did see a couple of shots of half of a red band over a yellow nose, one upper cowling, one lower. I would guess it died a natural death and disappeared fairly rapidly after the beginning of September. For III/JG53, I have read that there were 109's still flying without swastikas on Nov 20th 1940. Swastikas were added apparently to the actual rudder and not the tail plane on some 109's of JG53 when it was reinstated, just to add to the confusion!
Still hand up to say my initial posting was wide of the mark...

[Royraiden]

mithril not correct colour, change or i not buy. Oleg obvious under spell of eye of mordor,has porked gondorian eagle fm :evil:

hahaha!

[fireflyerz]

Really :confused: thats funny.

[philip.ed]

Really :confused: thats funny.

:grin: kids these days :cool:

[Sven]

Actually people manning guns and vehicles could've been very fun with that 16 years and older mark on the box art, but my fantasy wanders off again, too bad I don't see 'em in the screenshots, I do hope we see something like in IL2 with men running out of their trucks and jumping away.

[Royraiden]

Really :confused: thats funny.

:grin: kids these days :cool:

He's being sarcastic, thats all.

[Zorin]

...The plan is to allow 3rd party developers to approve, implement and release their own work once we release the SDK. We do not plan to implement anyone's work before or after the SDK is released.

Thanks for all your answers.

Yet this one raises another two questions.

1. How will 3rd party developers know if the plane they want to bring to the game is already worked on either by 1C or another 3rd party developer?
2. You have said before that the 3rd party tools for the implementation of planes will be limited and simplified so will that always result in 3rd party developed planes that are less complex than the official 1C developed ones?

[Richie]

What does porked mean and flys like a tie fighter?

[Wutz]

What does porked mean and flys like a tie fighter?

That it is without beef.....:rolleyes:

[swiss]

not kosher...

[JVM]

Thanks for all your answers.

Yet this one raises another two questions.

1. How will 3rd party developers know if the plane they want to bring to the game is already worked on either by 1C or another 3rd party developer?
2. You have said before that the 3rd party tools for the implementation of planes will be limited and simplified so will that always result in 3rd party developed planes that are less complex than the official 1C developed ones?


I would like to know more on these subjects myself as this position is somewhat contradictory with what I hd understood (from OM inputs) so far:

- OM would like to create a business around COD similar to what exists around FSx...
This means that the SDK and FM tools would need to be complete, otherwise what's the point?

- To be allowed online (that I translate by integrated in the official game/patch whatever) any third party work (at least the A/C) would need to be vetted by OM's team.
This would probably mean only this, vetting, no completion/modification error correction: I understand OM's team will not reproduce the Il2 problems there...

In any case this a policy matter, and some time (an the SDK) will probably pass before some final decisions are made in this domain, and this can always change later on...I would stay optimistic!

JV

PS Zorin you never told me if you were interested by the (french) magazine dedicated to the Nord Pacific?

[JG53Frankyboy]

Red Bands JG53, my bad...

Yes, apologies to Luthier, just posted off the top of my head from memory. I've done a little bit of digging about said redband and the actual reasons why JG53 ditched the pik as logo but it seems to be open to various schools of thought. Still it does appear that the entire geschwader changed over to the redband, as Frankboy says, around the beginning of August. What's a bit more difficult to find out is when it disappeared. As early as September by some accounts when the unit commander was replaced and the pik as was reinstated. To add to the confusion the yellow nose had become an official Luftwaffe BOB colour scheme by September (I understand), and was taken up by JG 53, and which may have occured when the unit moved to the Pas de Calais to perform close fighter escort for bombing attacks on London. (Could the yellow nose have been to protect themselves from their own bomber's gunners?).
The first example of the red band to have been shot down over England was on August 16th 1940, so it seems the red band was short lived. I did see a couple of shots of half of a red band over a yellow nose, one upper cowling, one lower. I would guess it died a natural death and disappeared fairly rapidly after the beginning of September. For III/JG53, I have read that there were 109's still flying without swastikas on Nov 20th 1940. Swastikas were added apparently to the actual rudder and not the tail plane on some 109's of JG53 when it was reinstated, just to add to the confusion!
Still hand up to say my initial posting was wide of the mark...

its very simple, as i already said, the JG53 was officialy, by oerder (!), allowed to use the PikAs (instead of the Red Band) again from 20.Nov 1940 on. I could scan a picture out of Priens JG53 book about that, but im too lazy ;)
and yes, still after that date it was common in the III.Group to overpaint the Swastika. When this behaviour ended, i dont know.....

the yellow color was introduced for a faster IFF in the hassle of aircombat. That this had tow sides is obvious...... not only the germas were able to tell their freinds very fast, also the british thier foes :D
anyway, there were so many kinds of yellow markings during BoB......some pilots/units didnt have them at all ;)
actually, that makes skinning german fighters more interesting than RAF ones IMHO - more variants :D

the red band of JG53 and the yellow IFF markings where totaly independ things..............

[Jaws2002]

....About the Bf-108



About the BF-108.
Maybe we can somehow convince Mathias from Classic Hangar to make an addon to turn the 108 into a flyable plane.
He's working on it for FSX right now:

http://www.classics-hangar.de/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=392&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=40

And it looks bloody gorgeous.:shock:

http://www.classics-hangar.de/vorschau/bf108_panel_13.jpg

[Wutz]

About the BF-108.
Maybe we can somehow convince Mathias from Classic Hangar to make an addon to turn the 108 into a flyable plane.
He's working on it for FSX right now:

http://www.classics-hangar.de/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=392&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=40

And it looks bloody gorgeous.:shock:

http://www.classics-hangar.de/vorschau/bf108_panel_13.jpg

That looks really nice!

[CharveL]

Looks good until he has to make a damage model for it too.

[fireflyerz]

blimey:o

[Luftwaffepilot]

Luthier,

how goes the process of editing the dev videos and translating it?
Will you get it done til friday?

[kalimba]

About the BF-108.
Maybe we can somehow convince Mathias from Classic Hangar to make an addon to turn the 108 into a flyable plane.
He's working on it for FSX right now:

http://www.classics-hangar.de/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=392&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=40

And it looks bloody gorgeous.:shock:

http://www.classics-hangar.de/vorschau/bf108_panel_13.jpg

Yeah...It does..But this image looks way better than the in-game one !

:rolleyes:

Salute !

[jspec01]

Has anyone else's ignore list been growing lately?

[Richie]

I trust these guys and I know there's no way they would put out a piece of crap. Ilya wouldn't be on here answering all of these questions like he is spending, more time than ever being as honest and forthright as possible. What more do people want? What isn't included will be added later in patches.

[minvid]

Luthier, I can't believe what I hear. I feel frankly cheated.

I was right two or three years ago or so when I said on a forum to Oleg that he was being pulled by the "perfection syndrom" regarding the modeling of planes, trucks, tanks etc... But we are not paying for a bunch of technical drawings to build planes, tanks and trucks. We pay for an immersive simulation of certain historical events, that includes, airplanes, pilots, but also tanks, trucks ground objects, artillery, infantry, environment, weather, sounds etc. etc. etc. It is the combination of all this that makes it a big hit, a killer game. There must be an equilibrium between all the actors in the game.
I am not interested in flying one airplane that has been modeled to each bolt, nut and screw, each cable, wire etc.. It has to be visually excellent but there is a limit. I do not care if when hit the airplane explodes in a perfect physical dynamics way with the excact perfect structure and parts damage. Some approximation is perfectly enough. But I care to have all the other things that makes me feeling that I fly in a living dynamic environment.

Shoestring budget. Sorry but this not acceptable. Oleg said five years ago that your ambition was to build the best of the best and other than perfection was not an option. I commented at that time that the budget for such an ambition was a team of 10-15 people and 5-10 or more millions of dollars at minimum. But if you knew you had no budget for such ambition, then I feel cheated to have waited so long.
And five years later you cannot even afford to do sound recording. Or model the various categories of people that should populate and animate your flight sim. You will just dump people in the trucks!!! Com-on!

Luthier, five years of developments. That is enormous, I have the feeling you were alone, the whole team. And I have the feeling that there were many other products developed and financiall probably more interesting and this COD has been kind of sidework. It could have lasted 10 years. Realistic (and not arcade) flight simulation is a niche market in gaming (It is not the market of World of Warcraft, or GTR and similar games, completely uninteresting for me) and I understand that it is not justified to do a large investment for it. But this you should have said. Keeping us with extremely high expectations over such a long period is a terrible risk. A risk that we will feel very very disappointed. It will not become a killer flight simulator but a killed one.

Il2 Sturmovik / Pacific Fighters was a killer flight simulator with all patches and improvements had an incredible long life on my machine, about six years. Why? because it was an incredible surprise, of unexpected quality, playability and immersivity.
I am now afraid that due to extremely high expectations COD will be exactly the opposite.
A year ago it was a sure buy. Now I will wait and buy only according to what will be the experience that will be communicated buy the first fliers.

As Luthier said:

Most developers stay completely shut in from the world up until a few months from release. We choose to interact with the community throughout the process because we feel that you are mature enough to understand the concepts of "work in progress" and "subject to change".

So I'm not sure how to react when people latch on to something said 5(!) years ago while ignoring everything that's been said over the past year and a half. I guess we brought this onto ourselves.

Someone who enjoyed Il-2 for many years should be very exited and curious for the new Sim. It will be an awesome start into the future of WWII air combat simulation. We should trust that Oleg´s Team will do the best possible - and improvents will be released time after time.

It is quite unfair to judge ClofDo (:grin:) without haven´t it played a single time.

So, such massive complaints are really strange. It is obvious, that the update threads like theese not only attract the fans of IL-2, but also the competitors and rivals of Maddox´ games, maybe trying to spoil our fun.

So, we should not be irritated ;)

[Ravenous]

Luthier, I can't believe what I hear. I feel frankly cheated.

I was right two or three years ago or so when I said on a forum to Oleg that he was being pulled by the "perfection syndrom" regarding the modeling of planes, trucks, tanks etc... But we are not paying for a bunch of technical drawings to build planes, tanks and trucks. We pay for an immersive simulation of certain historical events, that includes, airplanes, pilots, but also tanks, trucks ground objects, artillery, infantry, environment, weather, sounds etc. etc. etc. It is the combination of all this that makes it a big hit, a killer game. There must be an equilibrium between all the actors in the game.
I am not interested in flying one airplane that has been modeled to each bolt, nut and screw, each cable, wire etc.. It has to be visually excellent but there is a limit. I do not care if when hit the airplane explodes in a perfect physical dynamics way with the excact perfect structure and parts damage. Some approximation is perfectly enough. But I care to have all the other things that makes me feeling that I fly in a living dynamic environment.

Shoestring budget. Sorry but this not acceptable. Oleg said five years ago that your ambition was to build the best of the best and other than perfection was not an option. I commented at that time that the budget for such an ambition was a team of 10-15 people and 5-10 or more millions of dollars at minimum. But if you knew you had no budget for such ambition, then I feel cheated to have waited so long.
And five years later you cannot even afford to do sound recording. Or model the various categories of people that should populate and animate your flight sim. You will just dump people in the trucks!!! Com-on!

Luthier, five years of developments. That is enormous, I have the feeling you were alone, the whole team. And I have the feeling that there were many other products developed and financiall probably more interesting and this COD has been kind of sidework. It could have lasted 10 years. Realistic (and not arcade) flight simulation is a niche market in gaming (It is not the market of World of Warcraft, or GTR and similar games, completely uninteresting for me) and I understand that it is not justified to do a large investment for it. But this you should have said. Keeping us with extremely high expectations over such a long period is a terrible risk. A risk that we will feel very very disappointed. It will not become a killer flight simulator but a killed one.

Il2 Sturmovik / Pacific Fighters was a killer flight simulator with all patches and improvements had an incredible long life on my machine, about six years. Why? because it was an incredible surprise, of unexpected quality, playability and immersivity.
I am now afraid that due to extremely high expectations COD will be exactly the opposite.
A year ago it was a sure buy. Now I will wait and buy only according to what will be the experience that will be communicated buy the first fliers.

Uhm, I'm not going to tell you what to feel or anything, but i want you to consider what you are saying here: you are telling him that you are "very very dissapointed" with CoD because they could'nt afford to send about a truckload of equipment from Moscow to Britain to record a real Merlin and Daimler-Benz engine, and that vehicle crew slipped their mind for the time being... You are infact so dissapointed by this that you don't want to buy CoD unless someone you trust says it's a killer sim...

The way I see this is: OK, they don't have a real Merlin/DB engine, BUT they recorded real engines of other planes and engineered the sound to be a stand-in for them. As far as i know, that seems to be the only way they could get their hands on the engine sounds of, say a Zero..or even a M163 Comet etc. etc.

So to me this is just as good as the real thing when you realize that they aren't just half-assing this by slapping the sounds of a lawnmower in there and then call it a Tiger Moth.. they have professional equipment and i'd assume that since they could have recorded the real thing if they had access, their sound engineer is most likely a professional too.

Besides, Luthier already said that the sound feels right, and I'll take his word for it.. You've been waiting for 5+ years? I would have assumed that you have seen these people's passion for what they do, so i would have thought that you could take his word too untill you could judge it for youself..Or do you consider 50-ish dollars or whatever your currency is, to be waaaay too much to pay for something that is supposed to be the successor of IL2 in every way when it gets off the ground?

And regarding Luthier's choice of words that you freaked out about...

would you please relax for a second, take a breath, and then try to think about the quality of the rest of the sim...They aren't LITERALLY going to just dump somebody into the driver's seats of the vehicles just to put something in'em..

and even if they weren't too good-looking...what do you care?? You're supposed to be zipping by at alittle more than 1m altitude AND you're going to be going alittle faster than walking-pace...atleast I choose to believe that you're supposed to be engaging COMBAT while in FLIGHT in this SIMulator..

I'll be using a ram on the door of my local gamestop if they aren't open at the very second they're supposed to:D

Can't wait to get the new incarnation of WW2 CFS's, and to actually take part in the "childhood" of it:)

sorry, if this somehow offends you, that was not the point of this, I simply got fed up with all the panic about the green, and the small pilots..and the wrong eye-color in the reflection of the pilot in instrument-glass in the cockpit..and tracers that look like starwars (which btw was made to look like WW2 AIRCOMBAT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!) and all the other nitpicking people have had the spare time to bother the lead developers with in the updates..

*sigh* I guess what I'm trying to say is that I wish people would take the history of every game into account when thinking about CoD too..They almost without exception get patches and fixes to correct anything wrong with it, and in IL2's case it was also ADDED to the content by the patches

[Kikuchiyo]

Crazy talk about lack of people in vehicles being a complete deal breaker. Long winded rant, etc.

Just because there aren't INITIALLY going to be people manning every piece of equipment you now believe the whole thing is going to be a huge bust? It will get in there as long as we support them (buy this epic product). I would much rather have the highly detailed aircraft in a FLIGHT SIMULATOR. Than see a dude in a truck for 1/10th of 1 millisecond. Some of you seem to have gotten lost in the weeds, and forgot about the field. I know I come off as a white knight, but honestly some of the nitpicking, especially on things that the devs have said they will patch it in, is absurd.

Regarding the whole "dot" issue a few pages back I have a terrific solution that will require little effort on the devs parts. DON'T PLAY WITH PEOPLE THAT YOU THINK ARE BASICALLY CHEATING.

Yes, I am disappointed that there won't be people in every vehicle at launch. I do find it irksome to fly against people that are more worried about their kill death ratio or points than enjoying the spirit of the game. No initial dynamic weather hurts (that runs reasonably). I will miss dynamic campaigns, but none of that is tantamount to what all the included features will bring to the table.

Thank you Luthier for giving up part of your weekend to reveal some really cool stuff to us.

[Meusli]

Hypernova let me tell you now, this will be a killer sim. The best in the world, in fact. So go out and buy it when it's ready and don't post things that will make you look silly next month.

[kendo65]

Hypernova - have you heard the old saying about the 'best laid plans'?

Perfection probably was the goal, but reality unfortunately decided it would have to be delayed temporarily.

Rest assured that just about everyone with an interest in the game (and certainly, I'm sure, the devs) feels disappointed that it will initially be without some much sought-after features.

There is a commitment though that they will be added in time. So a degree of patience will be required.

Try not to take it so personally. The devs didn't didn't do it deliberately to spite you.

[fireflyerz]

Uhm, I'm not going to tell you what to feel or anything, but i want you to consider what you are saying here: you are telling him that you are "very very dissapointed" with CoD because they could'nt afford to send about a truckload of equipment from Moscow to Britain to record a real Merlin and Daimler-Benz engine, and that vehicle crew slipped their mind for the time being... You are infact so dissapointed by this that you don't want to buy CoD unless someone you trust says it's a killer sim...

The way I see this is: OK, they don't have a real Merlin/DB engine, BUT they recorded real engines of other planes and engineered the sound to be a stand-in for them. As far as i know, that seems to be the only way they could get their hands on the engine sounds of, say a Zero..or even a M163 Comet etc. etc.

So to me this is just as good as the real thing when you realize that they aren't just half-assing this by slapping the sounds of a lawnmower in there and then call it a Tiger Moth.. they have professional equipment and i'd assume that since they could have recorded the real thing if they had access, their sound engineer is most likely a professional too.

Besides, Luthier already said that the sound feels right, and I'll take his word for it.. You've been waiting for 5+ years? I would have assumed that you have seen these people's passion for what they do, so i would have thought that you could take his word too untill you could judge it for youself..Or do you consider 50-ish dollars or whatever your currency is, to be waaaay too much to pay for something that is supposed to be the successor of IL2 in every way when it gets off the ground?


Two of the most famous aircraft in the world one with an instantly recognisable engine note , the other being one of my favorite engine sounds "db.600.series" the cost of audio equipment is under £500 and the rest is some polite airfield diplomacy , a favour or two and knowing how to place yourself via the conditions , the editing....childs play , but what do I know and its like you said , so what if a spit sounds like a skyvan. :grin:

[winny]

Come on people, stop judging Developers updates by Marketing campaign standards :)

Hopefully Ubi will start to push this professionally, if they don't (Should probably have already started!) than that's when we should be complaining.. On the Ubi forum that is.

In fact, get over there now and start kicking off...

[el0375]

i think taht we owe a big thank you to luthier now as he tried to aswer dozens of questions.
THANK YOU! You and all the team

[Ravenous]

Two of the most famous aircraft in the world one with an instantly recognisable engine note , the other being one of my favorite engine sounds "db.600.series" the cost of audio equipment is under £500 and the rest is some polite airfield diplomacy , a favour or two and knowing how to place yourself via the conditions , the editing....childs play , but what do I know and its like you said , so what if a spit sounds like a skyvan. :grin:

I didn't say i don't care what it sounds like at all, i said that i doubt they'll just record a lawnmower and call it a Tiger Moth..

and Luthier said that they had engineered the sounds of the engine of a russian (can't remember if it was a fighter) plane to sounds like the real thing..
it's not like the 109 is going to sound like a piper cub..atleast not as far as i can understand.. and just to clarify: the same goes for the spitfire..i doubt it'll sound like skyvan:P

oh, and
"We're still working on sounds. Engine and gun sounds are pretty good in my opinion, but a lot of people will take some time to get used to them because they're not what you expect, especially guns as heard from inside the cockpit. We got some funny bug reports about that from some beta testers.

You can hear outside noises, yes. As you should. We can argue this based both on memoirs and on scientific formulas."

and
"We couldn't record the real Merlin or a Daimler Benz or basically any real engine from BoB era due to a limited budget. There aren't any in Russia, and we couldn't fly out our sound engineer to the UK or Germany with all his equipment.

We do have the recordings of the real engines of course made with various Russian aircraft this summer. Using advanced SFX magic we transformed our samples to sound the way we needed."

doesn't really give me the impression that all you need is a laptop and a singstar-mic to record it in BINAURAL audio;)

[el0375]

IN my opinion teh sound will be good, i have never heard a merlin engine but i will be very enthusiastic that teh tried to put soem similar one, for teh budged they hav ethis is very nice job. I might understand that for some people this is an important thing but in order to see mor ethings added up, all will depend on game success, i hope it will

[Abbeville-Boy]

sounds were terrible in years after the first release
they got to be better
in cod
cant be worse

[meplay]

Two of the most famous aircraft in the world one with an instantly recognisable engine note , the other being one of my favorite engine sounds "db.600.series" the cost of audio equipment is under £500 and the rest is some polite airfield diplomacy , a favour or two and knowing how to place yourself via the conditions , the editing....childs play , but what do I know and its like you said , so what if a spit sounds like a skyvan. :grin:

I hope you get hold of them mod tools :)

[Peffi]

There are many engine recordings available for every airplane we are going to fly in CoD. No need to go anywhere just to make own recordings. I very much doubt engine sound will be an issue for serious complaints. It is less than 2 months until we will have our hands on this sim and everything we want to know and Luthier patiently answers now will be answered then. If you are unsure you want to buy the game, then wait for some days after the release and read the reviews before you decide. Really simple really.

[Ravenous]

There are many engine recordings available for every airplane we are going to fly in CoD. No need to go anywhere just to make own recordings. I very much doubt engine sound will be an issue for serious complaints. It is less than 2 months until we will have our hands on this sim and everything we want to know and Luthier patiently answers now will be answered then. If you are unsure you want to buy the game, then wait for some days after the release and read the reviews before you decide. Really simple really.

I don't think you'll find any in Binaural audio?

I have no idea if you could "make" binaural by multisampling a regular recording or anything, but the video Oleg had in an update a while ago had BINAULAR AUDIO BETA or something like that in the name, so...

[LukeFF]

Has anyone else's ignore list been growing lately?

Yes

[major_setback]

Yes, exactly. Slower machines will run at much worse than 1 fps, but yes, you can render a giant high-res full settings video on a minimum specs machine. You'll probably need to leave it rendering for the night.....




Fantastic!!

This will be great for doing screenshots too.

[fireflyerz]

I didn't say i don't care what it sounds like at all, i said that i doubt they'll just record a lawnmower and call it a Tiger Moth..

and Luthier said that they had engineered the sounds of the engine of a russian (can't remember if it was a fighter) plane to sounds like the real thing..
it's not like the 109 is going to sound like a piper cub..atleast not as far as i can understand.. and just to clarify: the same goes for the spitfire..i doubt it'll sound like skyvan:P

oh, and
"We're still working on sounds. Engine and gun sounds are pretty good in my opinion, but a lot of people will take some time to get used to them because they're not what you expect, especially guns as heard from inside the cockpit. We got some funny bug reports about that from some beta testers.

You can hear outside noises, yes. As you should. We can argue this based both on memoirs and on scientific formulas."

and
"We couldn't record the real Merlin or a Daimler Benz or basically any real engine from BoB era due to a limited budget. There aren't any in Russia, and we couldn't fly out our sound engineer to the UK or Germany with all his equipment.

We do have the recordings of the real engines of course made with various Russian aircraft this summer. Using advanced SFX magic we transformed our samples to sound the way we needed."

doesn't really give me the impression that all you need is a laptop and a singstar-mic to record it in BINAURAL audio;)

Lol , not trying to get your back up , im simply making a point of what you said , we are all more than a little how shall i say....worried about the mounting pile of things that are not going to be in the release , for me the sound side is very important it is over 50% of the game , and as an ex AAA moderator I would say that there is about 50 thousand potential buyers out there thinking the same thing , and they know what a spitfire sounds like.
I am optamistic that they will pull it off , but at this stage in the game no one is rushing to show off there audio creations I would say audio disapointment looms , and my game will have to be dubbed if I want to make a movie out of it , which is sad as the original game was broken so that the audio could be improved so why was sound not a priority this time round ? , dont make no sense to me.

Jafa.

[Freycinet]

Luthier, I can't believe what I hear. I feel frankly cheated.

I was right two or three years ago or so when I said on a forum to Oleg that he was being pulled by the "perfection syndrom" regarding the modeling of planes, trucks, tanks etc... But we are not paying for a bunch of technical drawings to build planes, tanks and trucks. We pay for an immersive simulation of certain historical events, that includes, airplanes, pilots, but also tanks, trucks ground objects, artillery, infantry, environment, weather, sounds etc. etc. etc. It is the combination of all this that makes it a big hit, a killer game. There must be an equilibrium between all the actors in the game.
I am not interested in flying one airplane that has been modeled to each bolt, nut and screw, each cable, wire etc.. It has to be visually excellent but there is a limit. I do not care if when hit the airplane explodes in a perfect physical dynamics way with the excact perfect structure and parts damage. Some approximation is perfectly enough. But I care to have all the other things that makes me feeling that I fly in a living dynamic environment.

Shoestring budget. Sorry but this not acceptable. Oleg said five years ago that your ambition was to build the best of the best and other than perfection was not an option. I commented at that time that the budget for such an ambition was a team of 10-15 people and 5-10 or more millions of dollars at minimum. But if you knew you had no budget for such ambition, then I feel cheated to have waited so long.
And five years later you cannot even afford to do sound recording. Or model the various categories of people that should populate and animate your flight sim. You will just dump people in the trucks!!! Com-on!

Luthier, five years of developments. That is enormous, I have the feeling you were alone, the whole team. And I have the feeling that there were many other products developed and financiall probably more interesting and this COD has been kind of sidework. It could have lasted 10 years. Realistic (and not arcade) flight simulation is a niche market in gaming (It is not the market of World of Warcraft, or GTR and similar games, completely uninteresting for me) and I understand that it is not justified to do a large investment for it. But this you should have said. Keeping us with extremely high expectations over such a long period is a terrible risk. A risk that we will feel very very disappointed. It will not become a killer flight simulator but a killed one.

Il2 Sturmovik / Pacific Fighters was a killer flight simulator with all patches and improvements had an incredible long life on my machine, about six years. Why? because it was an incredible surprise, of unexpected quality, playability and immersivity.
I am now afraid that due to extremely high expectations COD will be exactly the opposite.
A year ago it was a sure buy. Now I will wait and buy only according to what will be the experience that will be communicated buy the first fliers.

This posting is the funniest I have read in a long time. Thanks for the laugh.

[Freycinet]

Will it be possible to fly the Tiger Moth online with two human pilots? E.g. can it be flown by a experience human teacher and a inexperienced human cadet and the control of the plane can be exchanged between both of them?



Yes, that's what we hope to see, real humans teaching you to fly online.


Hehe, I remember suggesting exactly that several years ago. Back when suggestions actually had a chance of making it into this sim ;)

Don't know if the original idea was mine, but I'm soo thrilled to see this getting into CoD. It will be revolutionary!

Back then I also suggested that people should be able to "fly along" with others, virtually, even in one-seaters, so they could learn by watching (and listening to their teacher via Teamspeak). Would be super cool.

[Triggaaar]

Re "Both players run il2 In Those Resolutions - this is what I mean is that a player with a monitor number 2 has a much larger problem, for spoting enemy "dot"Because of pixel sizes in the monitor - unless he reduces the resolution, which creates its kind of a little paradox - we have the hardware to play at high resolution but reduce it in order to have an equal chance of spotting enemy (thiss happen online all time)
I understand exactly what you mean. I have no idea what kind of resolution you'd propose.So the problem is that when an aircraft is far enough away that it is smaller than a single pixel on a low res monitor, that you still have to display a pixel, so the aircraft is shown as bigger than it should be. Solutions (I assume that the software knows what res the player is using, and can vary the display based on that):
1) if at the aircraft should start to be shown smaller than a pixel at distance X, and the aircraft should disappear from view at distance Y, then make it so the pixel stops being shown at X+Y / 2 (ie, between X & Y). That way the lower res monitor has an advantage from x to X+Y/2, and a disadvantage from X+Y/2 to Y.
or
2) for higher res monitors, at distance X, when the aircraft should be down to 1 pixel, actually show more than 1 pixel - it's not accurate, but it puts the high res monitor at an equal footing with the low res monitor, which is more imporant (and accuracy at that distance and size is a moot point, as it's nothing like real life whichever way you do it).

EDIT - I see others have made the same suggestion as point 2.

[proton45]

As I read these forums, I'm reminded of my first experiences with the Ubi-zoo way back at the start of all this (IL2 Sturmovik)...I don't remember if it was 2002 or 03, but I was so turned off by the negative banter that I didn't come back for 5 years (lol). I'm reminded of all the "know-it-all's" that didn't have time to answer my questions, and all the arrogant "sob's" that felt the game was a waste of time because of the porked ME109, or the 50cal's, or whatever...its a shame, it really is. I know that their are good people here but I just feel like I'm wasting my time reading most of this stuff...

I'm sorry for this little comment, and I promise not to flood the forums with my own negative observations, but I had to post something (or I might have smashed my computer_lol)...I have actually edited myself of three occasions, where I started to reply to "someones" asinine comment and stopped myself before hitting the "post" button...lol

Anyway...onwards and upwards !!!

[zakkandrachoff]

About the BF-108.
Maybe we can somehow convince Mathias from Classic Hangar to make an addon to turn the 108 into a flyable plane.
He's working on it for FSX right now:

http://www.classics-hangar.de/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=392&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=40

And it looks bloody gorgeous.:shock:

http://www.classics-hangar.de/vorschau/bf108_panel_13.jpg

yep. the fw190 is more exquisit yet!
http://www.screenshotartist.co.uk/images/classics_hangar/fw190early/1000/ch_fw190early_12.jpg

http://www.screenshotartist.co.uk/images/classics_hangar/fw190early/1000/ch_fw190early_09.jpg

http://www.screenshotartist.co.uk/images/classics_hangar/fw190early/1000/ch_fw190early_06.jpg

http://www.classics-hangar.de/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=307

[hiro]

Thanks,

I laughed at the Gap band you dropped the bomb on me song during the bomb run, awesome.


Thanks for the WIP statement.

And also the funny videos with the double youtube is great!



Guys remember the games out soon and they are working hard at it, as for making everything the way you want it, there has to be some compromise.

Regarding the posts saying feeling cheated or lied to, etc, don't judge the game until it comes out. I'll bet you if you have the system that matches the specs and a joystick, the IL-2 COD experience will be awesome.

I always wondered what happened if I ran into Il-2 way back in 2001 and now I get that chance.

Guys and gals, even if the game has low expectations in your standards, look at what Oleg n Luthier and everyone on their team, team d, has done to help make things better.

Don't be a product of today's convenience / cynicism society. Make the world a better place and smile & be thankful this game is being worked on by dedicated and intelligent people. Be the virtue of patience and wait, for it will be rewarding.

And if not, you can always return the game and go back to ROF or IL-2 1946, MS Flight, Red Baron 3D, Ace Combat 10 (or whatever they are at), or WOP. But I feel that this will not be the case.

[Sturm_Williger]

Quote: Originally Posted by jspec01
Has anyone else's ignore list been growing lately?
------
Yes

Meh, I don't even have an ignore list - I read it all. It can be interesting, it can be laughable, but it's my choice to get worked up about it or not.
I may disagree with something someone says, but I don't have to post a rebuttal. I don't have any real flight experience, gaming programming experience, hell I don't even have some of the books some people clearly have. If the devs take umbrage at some of the stuff people post, it will be all our loss, but I'm sure the moderators are well aware of that.

I do find it hard to comprehend how people can feel cheated or somesuch because planned features aren't going to be in the initial release. I'm sure the devs wanted to have them as much or more because ... after all - THEY'RE the ones who planned to have them in the first place.
WE just have expectations - and why ? Because these same devs were kind enough to interact with their customers and tell us their plans. Now we castigate them when some plans haven't made it to fruition ? Sorry I just don't see the logic.
But this is just my opinion.

Hell, I remember getting the first IL2 ( pre-FB ). After flying EAW, it was just "WOW!"
And even then - how much better did it get ?
So I can't see the devs working on something new for 5+ years which is going to be rubbish, for all the features that didn't make the final ( initial ) cut. But that's just me using that pesky logic again.
Your opinion may differ. :)

[DC338]

We're still working on sounds. Engine and gun sounds are pretty good in my opinion, but a lot of people will take some time to get used to them because they're not what you expect, especially guns as heard from inside the cockpit. We got some funny bug reports about that from some beta testers.

You can hear outside noises, yes. As you should. We can argue this based both on memoirs and on scientific formulas.

What sort of outside noises? Other aircraft? Can you point to the memoirs and formulas? I would like to see the arguments that you can hear much that goes on outside the cockpit.

[Oleg Maddox]

Sure. But here we are talking about the moment where the plane is still a tiny dot.
What do you do with this information?
At this stage you don't know whether it's friend or foe - all you know is there's an aircraft.

(the direction of the plane doesn't help too much, I often penetrate hostile airspace just to stab them in the back on their way to the front )

Perfect answer really.... :)

I would also add for all, that we can't track the size of pixel for the different physical size of monitors with the same resolution in pixels.
For example I have two monitors with the same pixel resolution at home... both full HD, however one is 13 inches of high end ligth weight carbon noterbook, but another is 24 inches standard monitor... Cheat? Definitely cheat speaking about size of the dot in this case ! :):)

[Oleg Maddox]

What sort of outside noises? Other aircraft? Can you point to the memoirs and formulas? I would like to see the arguments that you can hear much that goes on outside the cockpit.

I have modern video record where the sound of P-39 we may hear from another fighter from which this record was done. And it was done with the professional equipment but not with the light, small and simple camcoder that can record nothing really (most records on youtube are done exactly by camcoders with internal mics).... or by other words don't selectively working like it is with the system of Human ears + brain...

Another my own experinece in yak-52 flying near the Yak-18T... I was able to hear and to define the directions of outside flying plane flying some 30 menters near my plane... And I was in a helment that is very similar to WWII time...

Also, please tell me, can the bullet hit to the wing of the aircratf hear the pilot? If you will say me can, then I will put here the real measurement of the sound from the hit of bullet to the wing and the sound of fighter propeller (not the engine even!) on a distance of the 50 meters in decibels for comparison. Then you will tell me who is right :):):)

[proton45]

Hi Oleg...I'm just wondering about the level of detail we can expect to hear in the damage model? How much damage (and what kind of damage) can we expect to hear in the game? Will various kinds of engine damage be modeled (differently) in the sound engine...can we expect to hear a damaged piston? Or will the engine sounds indicate damage as the oil leaks out?

Thanks for your hard work...

[julien673]

Can propeller be damaged ? very big vibration... ? If the windows are damaged... what append ?

Tks so much for all the awnser, i was tired of all this post about the green colours of the field......

[swiss]

Two of the most famous aircraft in the world one with an instantly recognisable engine note , the other being one of my favorite engine sounds "db.600.series" the cost of audio equipment is under £500 and the rest is some polite airfield diplomacy , a favour or two and knowing how to place yourself via the conditions , the editing....childs play , but what do I know and its like you said , so what if a spit sounds like a skyvan. :grin:

500quid?
You sure get some bad ass equipment for that.
What makes you think they will run the engine for free?
Just because it's a for a certain Oleg Maddox whos name is(most likely) completely unknown to the plane owner? And it's for a commercial purpose.
They will you $1800 just to put that microphone near their running BD6xx engine - and that probably doesn't even cover cost....
Please repeat for EACH engine.
Plus travel, accommodation, expenses.
You will top out $20k before you know.

[Zorin]

500quid?
You sure get some bad ass equipment for that.
What makes you think they will run the engine for free?
Just because it's a for a certain Oleg Maddox whos name is(most likely) completely unknown to the plane owner? And it's for a commercial purpose.
They will you $1800 just to put that microphone near their running BD6xx engine - and that probably doesn't even cover cost....
Please repeat for EACH engine.
Plus travel, accommodation, expenses.
You will top out $20k before you know.

Well, if you chase down every single plane on its own, MAYBE. But with a bit of planing ahead you only need to visit two air shows, record what you need on arrival or departure day to get the plane owners sole attention and you should be covered.

That way you only need to travel, ship your equipment and ensure it, twice.

I do believe that the name rings a bell and that owners, if approached in the right way, would love to donate the sound of their engines. At the end of the day, they are as much in love with them as Oleg is, so they are of a similar mind.

[swiss]

I do believe that the name rings a bell and that owners, if approached in the right way, would love to donate the sound of their engines. At the end of the day, they are as much in love with them as Oleg is, so they are of a similar
mind.

They have to pay their bills too.
Warbirds are a very expensive hobby - and there is no such thing as free lunch.

[Zorin]

They have to pay their bills too.
Warbirds are a very expensive hobby - and there is no such thing as free lunch.

It is not like you ask them to do anything that they wouldn't have done anyway. Startup, priming, etc...

[swiss]

It is not like you ask them to do anything that they wouldn't have done anyway. Startup, priming, etc...

No - you just have to install all your gear in and around the plane, possibly go through a certain rev course...etcetcpp

I really don't think you can just stand next to the plane, put the mic as close as possible to engine and record some warm-up.

;)

[combatdudePL]

Perfect answer really.... :)

I would also add for all, that we can't track the size of pixel for the different physical size of monitors with the same resolution in pixels.
For example I have two monitors with the same pixel resolution at home... both full HD, however one is 13 inches of high end ligth weight carbon noterbook, but another is 24 inches standard monitor... Cheat? Definitely cheat speaking about size of the dot in this case ! :):)

For goodness sake, who would play the 13-inch thingy ....

Go play il2 on some closed pit serve at 1600x1200 - and I guarantee that after an hour you will be angry and frustrated to the max, because time and time again you will not be able to see that you're near an enemy who will about to shoot you down.

Please read THIS (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18473) thread - its all about equal opportunities to spot the enemy!

[NN_LUSO]

Hello Oleg,

I would like to know if the rendering of the Map changes with the seasons(summer, autumn, winter,etc...).

[White Owl]

What sort of outside noises? Other aircraft? Can you point to the memoirs and formulas? I would like to see the arguments that you can hear much that goes on outside the cockpit.

I realize Oleg himself already answered this question very thoroughly... but I can't resist.

I have personally heard other aircraft passing by while I was in the air. This was in a small single-engine plane, wearing noise-cancellation headphones, and the other planes were two radial-engined warbirds passing by in formation about 100 yards away. And I'm a little hard of hearing too.

You're correct that you can't hear much detail about those other planes no matter how close they get, but it's certainly possible to hear if somebody's above and to the left, for example.

[kendo65]

For goodness sake, who would play the 13-inch thingy ....

Go play il2 on some closed pit serve at 1600x1200 - and I guarantee that after an hour you will be angry and frustrated to the max, because time and time again you will not be able to see that you're near an enemy who will about to shoot you down.

Please read THIS (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18473) thread - its all about equal opportunities to spot the enemy!

How many times and from how many people (including NOW the creator of the series) do you need to hear before you finally LISTEN?!

If it matters that much to you, then reduce your resolution!!

[SlipBall]

I realize Oleg himself already answered this question very thoroughly... but I can't resist.

I have personally heard other aircraft passing by while I was in the air. This was in a small single-engine plane, wearing noise-cancellation headphones, and the other planes were two radial-engined warbirds passing by in formation about 100 yards away. And I'm a little hard of hearing too.



That's crazy talk:grin:

[MoHaX]

For thoose who is eager for details, here is Youss's (he is expirienced il2 pilot) first impressions from CoD:
http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=66721

Use google translator please, as my english is not good enough to give you good translation of his exciting impressions, but hopefully I can clarify some things if google translator would be hard to understand.

Some features:
- "Press I button" doesnt start engine with "complex engine management on". Rotation starts and then stops very soon
- Bf-109 tends to roll during takeoff, no heavy yaw movements as in il2
- There is no runway as in IL2, there is just flat field surronded by hangars and other buildings. You can takeoff in any direction.
- lots of details on airfield makes it much easier to take of and landing as you feel speed better
- he was amazed with low altitude flight. Its feel of speed is much improved compared to IL2. Main thing is there is no flat surfaces. Whole ground is non flat, and his first thought was "how can I do emergency landing here?" He wasnt able to find any flat and big enough area.
- contacts visibility is very good if they are on same level as you. If you are above them you lost them immediately. Sea is very noisy because of waves and you cant see enemies. If contacts are above you they are blended with sky and its hard to find them again.
- on a high G (he did vertical loop) heads tends to move down and sight (aiming device) goes up on your screen, you have to correct your view direction.
- you need to turn on sight illumination, otherwise its hard to use it. Cabin lighting is amazing.
- bots behaviour is very diffrerent from IL2. He knows Il2 bots very well , but he wasnt able to shot down any one. They lowered from 4 km to sea level and still no one was heavily damaged
- he wasnt able to hit a spitfire with cannons, very very hard to aim. Guns fire slightly unsynchronously and BF-109 starts to yaw right and left. Hard to continue to fire for more than 2-4 rounds.
- even slight roll without proper work with pedals make airplane to slide and its your tracers start to drift away from sight center.
- smoke tracers are very very beautifull
- sound is amazing, huge "BAANG" on every cannon shot
- Airplane is very sluggish, stalls start immediately without any pre-stall shake
- on low speed airplane doesnt react on you controll. It seems that stall fighting is not possible anymore
- he wasnt able to hear spitfire on his 6. Once he saw a tracers he immediately did roll and jump into clouds
- once he jumped into clouds all windows become misted. When he goes from cloud it was hard to tell where is sky and where is ground, he had to wait some time whiled windows became unmisted
- he approached 2 spitfires on his way back. He missed in his first attack then he went up and after that he lost spitifires. He flew in that aread for a while but wasnt able to find them.
- airfield visibility on a shore is very good: big field surrounded with buildings
- use flaps you have to press "F" once and then hold it again until you satisfied with flaps angle
- he pressed "G"once to extend landing gear, but as it appeared later he failed with that
- there was no speed bar or other text on screen, neither for flaps nor for gears
- he landed without gears. Propeller was damaged and airplane was covered with cloud of dust once he stopped to slide
- after mission stats showed the Do-215 was shot down, 2 spitfires and one Bf-109. He had 3% fire accuracy for 1 spitfire and deliver 10% damage to him.
- His Bf-109 had 15% damage. There are no details how much of that damage came from enemies and how much from his langing or other wrong actions
- In "zoom view" you cant pan too much, just +- 20 degrees (maybe +- 30)

[kendo65]

Thanks MoHax. Some very interesting (and exciting!) details there.

Don't worry about your translation - much better than Google ;)


---
"he wasnt able to hit a spitfire with cannons, very very hard to aim. Guns fire slightly unsynchronously and BF-109 starts to yaw right and left. Hard to continue to fire for more than 2-4 rounds."

Some people won't be happy! I can see the comments already :)

[combatdudePL]

How many times and from how many people (including NOW the creator of the series) do you need to hear before you finally LISTEN?!

If it matters that much to you, then reduce your resolution!!

Most of monitors tooday are full hd 1920x1080 - reducing resolution down from its native one makes the image looking cra**y (in most cases) :(

[Pierre@]

@ MoHax:
Thanks for the link and for your translation of this very interesting thread!

[EAF51/155_TonyR]

Thx a lot MoHax !

[MoHaX]

Update from that thread:

- to extend gears you have to press "G" twice: one to make switch neutrall, and one to actually extend gears. Same for "F" for flaps: one to make switch neutrall and then hold it as long as you need.
- on full zoom view sight can go off screen due to head movement on high G
- there are two "zoom view" types. One simply moves camera closer to sight device, and another keeps camera where it was, but FOV becomes much narrower (real zoom).

[Tree_UK]

Hi Luthier, this may have been covered before so if it has please ignore it.
Could you tell us if its Possible with Cliffs Of Dover to see damage on a ship after strafing, for example, is it possible whilst strafing a ship to maybe hit a magazine or orther explosives maybe even sink it if extremely lucky.

Many thanks.

[Jg2001_Rasputin]

Tree Luthier already commented on a similar question

Originally Posted by Wutz View Post
Will the ships be more detailed in their damage model than IL2?
I mean by that, that when hit either parts fly off, they start to burn, or sink, and the sinking happening at various speed from very fast to very slow. Also that a differance is made between a freighter and a tanker, meaning that a tanker will most likely burn intensively while sinking. As in IL2 all ships sank at the same speed, and all sank as if they where empty, no burning tankers or exploding munitions ships. Any chance we might see this in CoD?
Yes, yes, yes and yes.

[Tree_UK]

Tree Luthier already commented on a similar question

Thanks for that, does that apply to strafing as well or just bomb hits?

[Freycinet]

For goodness sake, who would play the 13-inch thingy ....

Go play il2 on some closed pit serve at 1600x1200 - and I guarantee that after an hour you will be angry and frustrated to the max, because time and time again you will not be able to see that you're near an enemy who will about to shoot you down.

Please read THIS (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18473) thread - its all about equal opportunities to spot the enemy!

Too bad you're not a real-life fighter pilot, because you'd be dead then, and we wouldn't have to listen to your whining.

Are you aware of the fact that the guy you are telling that he will be "angry and frustrated after playing an hour of Il-2" happens to be the one who made the sim for you, so you are actually able to fly it for half your life?

If you didn't have Il-2 you'd have no realistic combat air sim at all to bitch about. But obviously you'd find some other thing to whine about, probably gardening or basket-weaving.

[klem]

How many times and from how many people (including NOW the creator of the series) do you need to hear before you finally LISTEN?!

If it matters that much to you, then reduce your resolution!!

Personally I think Oleg should fix the minimum resolution at 1280x1024 to get rid of most of this argument. Or make it a server setting if that's possible. That's the resolution I found began to cause dots to be more difficult to see and without splitting hairs its roughly the same physical size pixel on a typical size monitor as the now popular 1680x1050 or similar. 1900 gets more difficult I suppose but frankly, tough luck.

It's been years since lower resolution screens were available and who would want one in a modern game with it's more sophisticated graphics? Perhaps only those who need a false edge?

CoD will be a cutting edge game/simulation. You can't expect IL-2 or CoD to run well on a 1GHz single core pentium and over the years most people have found it necessary to upgrade their PC boxes just to be able to play even IL-2. Why not the monitor? What's the point of playing such great games if you dumb down 50% of the graphics?

If people are so passionate about their hobby they need to invest a little more in it and move on, it's not like it costs an arm and a leg, especially compared with a PC box upgrade. Otherwise, they are inevitably going to be left behind as the world of PC gaming moves on.

[Jg2001_Rasputin]

That wasn´t specified. But I think I can recall that it was stated long time ago that it would be possible to damage shipswith guns in CoD. We already have the feature to sink small ships with guns in Il2 so why shouldn´t they have it implanted it in CoD. Im optimistic in this regard.

[Dano]

For goodness sake, who would play the 13-inch thingy ....

The point stands, resolution is meaningless as there is no direct correlation between resolution and physical pixel size.

[Freycinet]

Guys remember the games out soon and they are working hard at it, as for making everything the way you want it, there has to be some compromise.

Regarding the posts saying feeling cheated or lied to, etc, don't judge the game until it comes out. I'll bet you if you have the system that matches the specs and a joystick, the IL-2 COD experience will be awesome.

I always wondered what happened if I ran into Il-2 way back in 2001 and now I get that chance.

Guys and gals, even if the game has low expectations in your standards, look at what Oleg n Luthier and everyone on their team, team d, has done to help make things better.

Don't be a product of today's convenience / cynicism society. Make the world a better place and smile & be thankful this game is being worked on by dedicated and intelligent people. Be the virtue of patience and wait, for it will be rewarding.

And if not, you can always return the game and go back to ROF or IL-2 1946, MS Flight, Red Baron 3D, Ace Combat 10 (or whatever they are at), or WOP. But I feel that this will not be the case.

Lovely posting Hiro, thx!

And I can tell you it was a huge thrill back in 2001! - I followed Il-2 since the earliest screenies Oleg posted, and waiting for it was excruciating. Then, one fine day a gaming magazine came with a cd with the demo. THEN I had to borrow my brother's PC to even try it on a computer that could run it. And, then, the magic moment of sitting in the P-39 on a rainy Soviet airfield, about to take off and intercept a couple of Ju-88's.

After three failed take-off attempts (due to skidding, not gaining height, and slamming into the countryside because of torque) I was totally sweaty and giddy with excitement in the knowledge that finally a sim had arrived which approximated the feeling of WWII flight I had read so much about since early adolescence. Finally the time had come to kill the nazi enemy! - After which the Ju-88's unceremoniously dispatched me with a well-aimed burst from their rear gunners, of course. :)

If you are young and a student with lots of time on your side, then you are a lucky guy and I can only wish you a great coming-of-age with CoD. As a jaded older guy, with work and life digging into my gaming time, I can already feel now that it won't be the same as in 2001.

What saddens me is to read all the (obviously very young) whiners in this very forum. The ones that attract attention with rude criticism and then keep coming back and coming back and coming back for just one more inane worthless question again and again. It seems they feel absolutely no wonder and no excitement at soon being able to play a new-gen combat sim. Just incessant moaning over absolutely ridiculous little issues that only they themselves care about. Can I tell you a bigger problem than not having dynamic weather or a dynamic campaign or the right colour green fields or sufficient hedgerows or drivers at the wheels of ground vehicles at release? - Not having a combat flight sim at all! - And it is not as if it is some shabby Microsoft job in the offing. An obviously ground-breaking piece of programmiong is heading our way, so much is clear.

But, really, to be so young and then just be so overcome with anger and moaning and grief because of non-existent issues with a flight sim coming out... What gives? If they are not happy and bursting with excitement now, when will they ever be happy?

[klem]

I always thought Il-2's landings and gear compression was pretty good.



You don't get off that easily :)

How does the Spitfire landing compare with IL-2 please?

[Sauf]

There will be no need to land your spitfire, 109s will do all the hard work for you, but please feel free to ask about bailing out procedures ;)

[Dano]

There will be no need to land your spitfire, 109s will do all the hard work for you, but please feel free to ask about bailing out procedures ;)

Well you 109 pilots would know all about bailing out ;)

[Sutts]

You don't get off that easily :)

How does the Spitfire landing compare with IL-2 please?


Real Spits do tend to bounce a bit unless greased in. I've managed to land without bouncing many times but you've got to make sure your speed is close to a stall at the end of the flare. Any excess speed will get you airborn again.

Personally I think IL2 provides a very realistic touch down experience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_3YuwerLCQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TOTF9rdX2Y

[Hoverbug]

What sort of outside noises? Other aircraft? Can you point to the memoirs and formulas? I would like to see the arguments that you can hear much that goes on outside the cockpit.

I can give you one from personal experience. I was in a Lake Amphibian (a very noisy plane) with some excellent David Clarks (headsets) on and we had an F-18 on a low-level training route cross in front of us at the same altitude at a distance of half a mile. I heard him at the same time I saw him and it was loud. That said, that's the only time in 4,000 hours of flying that I heard something outside the airplane while airborne, but then I never made any gun runs on Heinkels and passing within fifty feet of them.

So yes, it's possible to hear things outside a plane in flight - but only really loud things.

[Ctrl E]

luthier,

i know u have said distribution is up to the distributer, but surely you could raise concerns with UBI on behalf of your potential customers about the way this product is being rolled out in some parts of the world.

here in australia the UBI website directs you automatically to the AU region, where we are only able to buy CoD by download - no box or collectors' editions are being made available.

As you may have seen several people here have contacted UBI australia about this and have been told the product will not be shipped here.

the crime of it is the download does not take into account recent large rises in the price of the australian dollar, meaning the price we are being asked to pay for a download is almost equal to the cost of a boxed collectors' edition in europe. this is simply unfair.

the Il2 series has a large following in Australia, and I hope they will be treated properly.

[zakkandrachoff]

For thoose who is eager for details, here is Youss's (he is expirienced il2 pilot) first impressions from CoD:
http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=66721

Use google translator please, as my english is not good enough to give you good translation of his exciting impressions, but hopefully I can clarify some things if google translator would be hard to understand.

Some features:
- "Press I button" doesnt start engine with "complex engine management on". Rotation starts and then stops very soon
- Bf-109 tends to roll during takeoff, no heavy yaw movements as in il2
- There is no runway as in IL2, there is just flat field surronded by hangars and other buildings. You can takeoff in any direction.
- lots of details on airfield makes it much easier to take of and landing as you feel speed better
- he was amazed with low altitude flight. Its feel of speed is much improved compared to IL2. Main thing is there is no flat surfaces. Whole ground is non flat, and his first thought was "how can I do emergency landing here?" He wasnt able to find any flat and big enough area.
- contacts visibility is very good if they are on same level as you. If you are above them you lost them immediately. Sea is very noisy because of waves and you cant see enemies. If contacts are above you they are blended with sky and its hard to find them again.
- on a high G (he did vertical loop) heads tends to move down and sight (aiming device) goes up on your screen, you have to correct your view direction.
- you need to turn on sight illumination, otherwise its hard to use it. Cabin lighting is amazing.
- bots behaviour is very diffrerent from IL2. He knows Il2 bots very well , but he wasnt able to shot down any one. They lowered from 4 km to sea level and still no one was heavily damaged
- he wasnt able to hit a spitfire with cannons, very very hard to aim. Guns fire slightly unsynchronously and BF-109 starts to yaw right and left. Hard to continue to fire for more than 2-4 rounds.
- even slight roll without proper work with pedals make airplane to slide and its your tracers start to drift away from sight center.
- smoke tracers are very very beautifull
- sound is amazing, huge "BAANG" on every cannon shot
- Airplane is very sluggish, stalls start immediately without any pre-stall shake
- on low speed airplane doesnt react on you controll. It seems that stall fighting is not possible anymore
- he wasnt able to hear spitfire on his 6. Once he saw a tracers he immediately did roll and jump into clouds
- once he jumped into clouds all windows become misted. When he goes from cloud it was hard to tell where is sky and where is ground, he had to wait some time whiled windows became unmisted
- he approached 2 spitfires on his way back. He missed in his first attack then he went up and after that he lost spitifires. He flew in that aread for a while but wasnt able to find them.
- airfield visibility on a shore is very good: big field surrounded with buildings
- use flaps you have to press "F" once and then hold it again until you satisfied with flaps angle
- he pressed "G"once to extend landing gear, but as it appeared later he failed with that
- there was no speed bar or other text on screen, neither for flaps nor for gears
- he landed without gears. Propeller was damaged and airplane was covered with cloud of dust once he stopped to slide
- after mission stats showed the Do-215 was shot down, 2 spitfires and one Bf-109. He had 3% fire accuracy for 1 spitfire and deliver 10% damage to him.
- His Bf-109 had 15% damage. There are no details how much of that damage came from enemies and how much from his langing or other wrong actions
- In "zoom view" you cant pan too much, just +- 20 degrees (maybe +- 30)
:-D
like reading a book

[Wutz]

Real Spits do tend to bounce a bit unless greased in. I've managed to land without bouncing many times but you've got to make sure your speed is close to a stall at the end of the flare. Any excess speed will get you airborn again.

Personally I think IL2 provides a very realistic touch down experience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_3YuwerLCQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TOTF9rdX2Y
Ah then you are familiar on a certain quote from that 1969 "Battle of Britain" movie, on a nice basket ball landing where the other pilots say to each other
"You can teach...*monkeys* to fly better than that! " :mrgreen:

[Sturm_Williger]

Real Spits do tend to bounce a bit unless greased in. I've managed to land without bouncing many times but you've got to make sure your speed is close to a stall at the end of the flare. Any excess speed will get you airborn again.

Personally I think IL2 provides a very realistic touch down experience.


It's not the bounce on landing that is a real problem when you're landing on non-airfield, it's the way the tailwheel will bounce madly on touching the ground, practically guaranteeing to dig your nose in :(
Heavier aircraft don't seem to have such a "bouncy" tail - I can land a 110 for example fairly easily on rough terrain, but single engines, almost never.
The main gear seems fine, but the tailwheel seems to have a jack-in-the-box built in.

[fireflyerz]

Real Spits do tend to bounce a bit unless greased in. I've managed to land without bouncing many times but you've got to make sure your speed is close to a stall at the end of the flare. Any excess speed will get you airborn again.

Personally I think IL2 provides a very realistic touch down experience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_3YuwerLCQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TOTF9rdX2Y

Interesting , do you fly one ?

[HFC_Dolphin]

Nice to know that cheats will be enabled from day 1 :D

Not everyone has to understand this ;)

[T}{OR]

Nice to know that cheats will be enabled from day 1 :D

Not everyone has to understand this ;)

Define "cheats".

[Robert]

OLEG WROTE: Perfect answer really....

I would also add for all, that we can't track the size of pixel for the different physical size of monitors with the same resolution in pixels.
For example I have two monitors with the same pixel resolution at home... both full HD, however one is 13 inches of high end ligth weight carbon noterbook, but another is 24 inches standard monitor... Cheat? Definitely cheat speaking about size of the dot in this case !


For goodness sake, who would play the 13-inch thingy ....

Go play il2 on some closed pit serve at 1600x1200 - and I guarantee that after an hour you will be angry and frustrated to the max, because time and time again you will not be able to see that you're near an enemy who will about to shoot you down.

Please read THIS (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18473) thread - its all about equal opportunities to spot the enemy!



Thank you for the greatest laugh of all time on this forum. LOL Honestly. Comedy doesn't write itself as well as that. Ohhhhhhh the irony.... the IRONEEEEEEEEEEEY

[Tree_UK]

I currently play Il2 at 1920X1200, Obviously the dots are a little harder to see especially against terrain, but they can be seen you just have to look real hard, which i imagine the most successful fighter pilots would be good at. In fact I have found that sometimes you can see the dot but when you zoom in you lose it, I have also found that darker dots tend to be the enemy and lighter ones are usually friendly, as anyone else noticed this?

[recoilfx]

Instead of increasing the 'dot' size under higher resolution, how about we decrease the apparence of dot at low resolution?

I say we have the dot (1 pixel) gradually fades into the surrounding depending on distance. This way there is no apparent advantage by having lower resolution.

[ghodan]

Oleg can you please say something about the gauge output for simpit builders.
Or just guys who use 2nd monitor on their desk for gauge output.

How wil it work in Cliffs of dover?
Official drag and drop style like flight sim x or menu option to have instruments on your 2nd monitor?
Or will it be do it yourself style again like IL2?

And if its do it yourself style, will online use be supported?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=17057

[swiss]

There will be no need to land your spitfire, 109s will do all the hard work for you, but please feel free to ask about bailing out procedures ;)

ROFLMAO! http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/midi/boese/a150.gif



In fact I have found that sometimes you can see the dot but when you zoom in you lose it, I have also found that darker dots tend to be the enemy and lighter ones are usually friendly, as anyone else noticed this?

They do indeed get smaller as you zoom in(gunsight view), you'll get the best results on "wide view" and "normal view".
It could be AA related, don't know.
Don't really care either.

[Freycinet]

Only Tuesday and the dot discussion has resurfaced. I see this thread hitting 100 pages before Friday...

BTW, Luthier and Oleg, I think you should get off the forum and hand over the updating to Ian Boys. Ship him a copy of CoD and let him do some mission reports. It was wonderful in the months before Forgotten Battles came out!

[Hecke]

BTW, ship me a copy aswell, I'll capture some high res vids with everything maxed out and AA and AF enabled. ;)

[addman]

Only Tuesday and the dot discussion has resurfaced. I see this thread hitting 100 pages before Friday...

BTW, Luthier and Oleg, I think you should get off the forum and hand over the updating to Ian Boys. Ship him a copy of CoD and let him do some mission reports. It was wonderful in the months before Forgotten Battles came out!

+1

I remember those :) Ian should do mission reports for every IL-2 sequel/add-on that is released.

[Freycinet]

New interview out:

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/02/08/il-2-sturmovik-cliffs-of-dover-interview-we-talk-to-oleg-maddox-and-ilya-shevchenko/

Finally the explanation for the girl in the Spit.... and Oleg prefers the Mediterranean for a sequel!

[Hecke]

Man, they could at least have used new screenshots. Anyway, interesting interview.

[JG52Uther]

There was at least one screenshot I had not seen before!
Its great that now we are on the final stretch,information is coming out fast!

[kendo65]

Who would have thought it?

Both the renegade pilot thing and the love interest turn out to be based on reality!?

Could be some interesting missions - "Careful with your joystick, darling";)

Wonder if there's a key toggle for that...?

[klem]

Real Spits do tend to bounce a bit unless greased in. I've managed to land without bouncing many times but you've got to make sure your speed is close to a stall at the end of the flare. Any excess speed will get you airborn again.

Personally I think IL2 provides a very realistic touch down experience.



Yes Sutts, I understand it will skip on occasions like that but in IL-2 if you put one wheel down a fraction before the other you are bounced into a sideways lurch that repeats itself in alternate directions until the inevitable pile-up.

I have a friend who regularly flew in the back of a two seat spitfire (you can probably guess which one) and maintained it at the airshows for the owner. I asked him about this. He confirmed that bounces/skips do indeed happen (like your video clip) and I have seen enough of them close up at airshows. When I asked him about one wheel touching before the other he said it would bounce around a little but no, it didn't lurch around but settled fairly quickly.

At the local 2007 airshow a Hurricane crashed during the mock-dogfight. One or two of the landings that followed, just thirty yards in front of me, were a little more shaky than usual but none lurched around like we see in IL-2.

[zapatista]

I don't really think this is a 'problem' - ie something that needs to be 'fixed'

A side-effect of running a monitor with higher resolution is that you get a more realistic experience - in this case distant aircraft are rendered more precisely.

The result, of course, for those who value the competitive gaming experience is that they suffer a disadvantage in being able to spot enemy ac.

For those who value realism over getting a competitive edge there is no problem.

you are incorrect there kendo, but maybe you just didnt put enough thought into what you wrote.

first, when the original il2 came out most monitors were 15' or 17' crt's, using resolutions similar to 1024 x 768, and that is exactly what il2 was designed to display these "distant dots of aircraft" correctly on (being for ex 2 black and 2 grey pixels combined in a 4 pixel dot). the scenery might not have been all that high rez and pretty, but at least you could spot the bogey at 2 km correctly (approximating visibility in real life)

fast forward 10 years and run the same game engine (and dot display method) on a nice 30' lcd at 2560 x 1600, and the scenery might look great but that same 4 pixel dot at the very high resolution is now much harder to find (because these same 4 pixels are MUCH smaller now). hence many people with those large monitors will 1/2 their resolution to 1280 x 800 to play online and be competitive, and suddenly those distant dots have become 2x easier to spot.

additionally, however good lcd's and other flatscreens are now, they still are not as good as the original crt's in displaying sharp clean video (unless you have some high grade professional ips lcd), so trying to find a small moving dot against a background of forest and other landscape is significantly higher now. further, the most distant lod models in the original il2 did not have "3D volume" to them, they were simple flat clumps of grey and black pixels, making them MUCH harder to identify then a real 3 dimensional object in real life at the same distance (when viewed on a less then perfect pc display technology). the end result is that on a modern pc system in il2 you are flying in a myopic mini bubble of SA which is 2/3 smaller then what it should be, compared to the historical visibility real pilots had to deal with in ww2 aircraft. "harder to spot" might be one ignorant persons idea of playing a game online which is "difficult" , but it is not simulating the environment and visibility real pilots had to deal with in ww2 (and after all most of us here are interested in the "simulation" part i presume).

all this has been extensively discuses in the main il2 forums over the years, and oleg is well aware of this problem and has tried to address it for BoB/Sow. as you might have noticed in some of the early video clips we have seen, distant LoD models now have "volume" to them, and these distant aircraft stand out much more as a result. additionally instead of 3 LoD models there are 7 or 8 iirc, so the transition to having pixels represent a distant object is much better

there are major compromises we still have to deal with in pc games in 2010/2011, and one of those in BoB/SoW will be "pretty" versus "realistic distant aircraft spotting distances", and obviously the focus should be on the latter.

in your statement of "....running a monitor with higher resolution is that you get a more realistic experience - in this case distant aircraft are rendered more precisely..." you were incorrect in assuming a prettier landscape and "more precisely rendered" also meant aircraft were more realistically displayed at far distances, which has never been the case in il2 from FB onwards (when oleg reduced the dot sizes, and the earlier uglier big dots were replaced with "prettier ones" which were MUCH harder to spot).

[kendo65]

Ok Zappa. Thanks for the considered reply. i'll look into it a bit more.

But surely the most distant depiction of any aircraft at maximum range will be a single pixel? This is what i understood, and a post earlier today from Oleg ( I think - could've been Luthier?) said as much.

For newer high-res monitors that single pixel will appear smaller on screen and thus be harder to spot. My point was that real-life pilots had to contend with similar issues - and that the max distance depiction of a near-invisible single pixel would be closer to that reality than the larger, more easily visible pixel on say an 800x600 screen?

----

ok, home now, and had another look. Yes - I can see what you're getting at.

Part of the problem too was a bit of sloppy use of language in my original post - as you identified concerning 'rendered more precisely'.

Seems I have made a few assumptions which may not have been correct. Seems the key issue as to whether it is more realistic or not is when the lod-switching is triggered - and I can see that in the move to higher res that could skew the original balance.

Basically, I'm not a competitive online flyer, so it isn't something that has been an issue for me

[GT182]

Must be nice. ;) I see Oleg has bought the Devs the new Thrustmaster Cougar Warthog stick and throttle setup.

Can't see getting it... no rudder pedal connection or support.

[Raven2B]

Meh, I don't even have an ignore list - I read it all. It can be interesting, it can be laughable, but it's my choice to get worked up about it or not.
I may disagree with something someone says, but I don't have to post a rebuttal. I don't have any real flight experience, gaming programming experience, hell I don't even have some of the books some people clearly have. If the devs take umbrage at some of the stuff people post, it will be all our loss, but I'm sure the moderators are well aware of that.

I do find it hard to comprehend how people can feel cheated or somesuch because planned features aren't going to be in the initial release. I'm sure the devs wanted to have them as much or more because ... after all - THEY'RE the ones who planned to have them in the first place.
WE just have expectations - and why ? Because these same devs were kind enough to interact with their customers and tell us their plans. Now we castigate them when some plans haven't made it to fruition ? Sorry I just don't see the logic.
But this is just my opinion.

]Hell, I remember getting the first IL2 ( pre-FB ). After flying EAW, it was just "WOW!"
And even then - how much better did it get ?
So I can't see the devs working on something new for 5+ years which is going to be rubbish, for all the features that didn't make the final ( initial ) cut. But that's just me using that pesky logic again.
Your opinion may differ. :)[/QUOTE]

IL-2 (pre-FB) has been out awhile when I bought it. My Microsoft CFS3 has been broke :( ;) and I have been reviews about IL-2. So I think that maybe I try it...and been hooked... Yes sir.

Been reading a lot WW2 battles but they all are about ground war, but IL-2 has got me interesting about air war and especially about East Fronts air war.

Then comes IL-2 FB and here I am, spending many hours with this great sim, has been upgraded my rig many times ( by bought new components ) etc. etc.

And when look over my shoulder to bookshelf... there are lot a books in air combat and IL-2 games (IL-2, IL-2 FB, 2xIL-2 FB AEP, PF, IL-2 Complete Edition FB+AEP+PF, 2x IL-2 1946 & add-ons: The Last Days, Battle Over Europe, Ostfront and Der Stern Von Afrika).

And yes, I have real life too :grin:

[Il2Pongo]

Really sad.
Now you wasted a lot of time and money for such a "downfall"

Is there any unexpected good news on this sim?

Yes, great news, the built in dick head detector just passed its open beta

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

ROFLMAO! http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/midi/boese/a150.gif





They do indeed get smaller as you zoom in(gunsight view), you'll get the best results on "wide view" and "normal view".
It could be AA related, don't know.
Don't really care either.


There will be no need to land your spitfire, 109s will do all the hard work for you

Aye, you keep telling yourself that Sunshine......*pats the squarehead on his square dome sympathetically* :grin: :grin: :grin:

[swiss]

There will be no need to land your spitfire, 109s will do all the hard work for you

Aye, you keep telling yourself that Sunshine......*pats the squarehead on his square dome sympathetically* :grin: :grin: :grin:

quoting is not one of your strong skills, aye?

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

It was directed at Suef, who should have been quoted in the whole post.

I see humour is not one of your strong suites either, it was a frikkin joke I know you are Swiss mate. :grin: Still, you are a squarehead because you are guilty by association, and thats final. :grin: :grin::grin:

(Hope thats enough smileys so your feelings aren't hurt sweetness.....LMAO :grin:)

[Flanker]

The Gap Band-You Dropped A Bomb On Me:grin::grin::grin:

[Blackdog_kt]

For thoose who is eager for details, here is Youss's (he is expirienced il2 pilot) first impressions from CoD:
http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=66721

Use google translator please, as my english is not good enough to give you good translation of his exciting impressions, but hopefully I can clarify some things if google translator would be hard to understand.

Some features:
- "Press I button" doesnt start engine with "complex engine management on". Rotation starts and then stops very soon
- Bf-109 tends to roll during takeoff, no heavy yaw movements as in il2
- There is no runway as in IL2, there is just flat field surronded by hangars and other buildings. You can takeoff in any direction.
- lots of details on airfield makes it much easier to take of and landing as you feel speed better
- he was amazed with low altitude flight. Its feel of speed is much improved compared to IL2. Main thing is there is no flat surfaces. Whole ground is non flat, and his first thought was "how can I do emergency landing here?" He wasnt able to find any flat and big enough area.
- contacts visibility is very good if they are on same level as you. If you are above them you lost them immediately. Sea is very noisy because of waves and you cant see enemies. If contacts are above you they are blended with sky and its hard to find them again.
- on a high G (he did vertical loop) heads tends to move down and sight (aiming device) goes up on your screen, you have to correct your view direction.
- you need to turn on sight illumination, otherwise its hard to use it. Cabin lighting is amazing.
- bots behaviour is very diffrerent from IL2. He knows Il2 bots very well , but he wasnt able to shot down any one. They lowered from 4 km to sea level and still no one was heavily damaged
- he wasnt able to hit a spitfire with cannons, very very hard to aim. Guns fire slightly unsynchronously and BF-109 starts to yaw right and left. Hard to continue to fire for more than 2-4 rounds.
- even slight roll without proper work with pedals make airplane to slide and its your tracers start to drift away from sight center.
- smoke tracers are very very beautifull
- sound is amazing, huge "BAANG" on every cannon shot
- Airplane is very sluggish, stalls start immediately without any pre-stall shake
- on low speed airplane doesnt react on you controll. It seems that stall fighting is not possible anymore
- he wasnt able to hear spitfire on his 6. Once he saw a tracers he immediately did roll and jump into clouds
- once he jumped into clouds all windows become misted. When he goes from cloud it was hard to tell where is sky and where is ground, he had to wait some time whiled windows became unmisted
- he approached 2 spitfires on his way back. He missed in his first attack then he went up and after that he lost spitifires. He flew in that aread for a while but wasnt able to find them.
- airfield visibility on a shore is very good: big field surrounded with buildings
- use flaps you have to press "F" once and then hold it again until you satisfied with flaps angle
- he pressed "G"once to extend landing gear, but as it appeared later he failed with that
- there was no speed bar or other text on screen, neither for flaps nor for gears
- he landed without gears. Propeller was damaged and airplane was covered with cloud of dust once he stopped to slide
- after mission stats showed the Do-215 was shot down, 2 spitfires and one Bf-109. He had 3% fire accuracy for 1 spitfire and deliver 10% damage to him.
- His Bf-109 had 15% damage. There are no details how much of that damage came from enemies and how much from his langing or other wrong actions
- In "zoom view" you cant pan too much, just +- 20 degrees (maybe +- 30)

Update from that thread:

- to extend gears you have to press "G" twice: one to make switch neutrall, and one to actually extend gears. Same for "F" for flaps: one to make switch neutrall and then hold it as long as you need.
- on full zoom view sight can go off screen due to head movement on high G
- there are two "zoom view" types. One simply moves camera closer to sight device, and another keeps camera where it was, but FOV becomes much narrower (real zoom).

Excellent information and just what i was hoping to see!

Most of all, these caught my eye:
- "Press I button" doesnt start engine with "complex engine management on". Rotation starts and then stops very soon

So, even if we don't have the full start-up with primers and boost coils, we'll have to use our brains and turn on the fuel supply and ignition first. Excellent compromise that gives an idea of managing the aircraft without having to research separate checklists for each one. It's like the only thing that's missing is actually "turning the key" and i'm happy enough with it.

The crucial point is, will people who don't take the time to learn some new things be at a disadvantage when flying full switch? The answer is obviously yes and that's good, because it gives us more variety. Up till now we had virtual pilots with good SA, pilots who shoot well, pilots who know how to maneuver or manage their energy and pilots who rely on superior tactics. It seems than in CoD we'll have a new category, pilots who really know their airplane inside out and get an advantage from this.


- use flaps you have to press "F" once and then hold it again until you satisfied with flaps angle

I guess he's not referring to the Spitfire and Hurricane because they only had two stages: no flaps and full flaps.

For the rest, the system is very accurate. A lot of aircraft during the war had only a 3-way lever with neutral, up and down positions instead of predefined notches and the pilot usually had to look to the sides and read the degrees marked on the flaps themselves as they extended (in the P47 for example), or on some kind of mechanical indicator on the wings (eg, in the FW190).

This means no more selecting combat flaps with a single keypress while focusing on the bandit, we'll have to either look at the wing and lose sight of him or just do it by feel while looking through the gunsight.

- there was no speed bar or other text on screen, neither for flaps nor for gears

Once again, a more "head in the cockpit" approach will be needed.

It's all these little details that will make full switch flying closer to what usually happened in real life. We rarely hear about protracted engagements and when they happened, it was usually either a small duel isolated from the main fight (where pilots can afford to devote their entire attention to one bandit), or a group effort to make one pass and disengage but being caught by the rival group and having to defend.

Most of the times, pilots preferred to configure their aircraft for what they would try to do the next minute or so, execute their attempt and try to get out as fast as possible, simply because it was not easy to manage both the aircraft and the enemy at the same time.

Also, the talk about how easy it is to lose contact with bandits during an engagement will also reinforce this style of fighting.

All this might seem less inviting and certainly less frantic to those who like action packed dogfights, but it's not a problem because we have the difficulty options to tweak to our taste.

Personally speaking, for me these features are not only welcome but also a huge step towards more realism, where preparation and knowledge counts as much as, or even more than, reflexes and talent.
Like i already said, the added complexity will give us the ability to use some new flying styles, variety is good ;)

[Chivas]

OK just trying to get this aircraft dot idea straight in my head. At what distance is the one pixel dot enabled in COD, or is the dot always there, and only appears to the user depending on their eyesight, and display resolution? I heard that IL-2 was designed so that the dot appeared for the average pilot at a relatively proper distance when viewed at the 1024x786 resolution.

[Sindrio]

Your attention to detail is just plain awesome!

[JG4_Helofly]

As usual, I agree with Blackdog.

Looks like we are getting closer to realistic dogfights. No more F16-like HOTAS flying and care free handling.

According to Ilya, fighting with complex engine management set to "on" will be pretty hard. That´s going to be interesting :)

It will also be interesting to see how people will react to the increased realism level. At the moment even in Il2 most people fly with arcade settings (no cockpit, externals on, etc.). I wonder if "full real" will still be played online.

[furbs]

only after ALOT of offline full real to work it all out :)

[Richie]

I guess we'll have to remember to always lock our tail wheels and do three point landings in our 109s.

[mazex]

I have modern video record where the sound of P-39 we may hear from another fighter from which this record was done. And it was done with the professional equipment but not with the light, small and simple camcoder that can record nothing really (most records on youtube are done exactly by camcoders with internal mics).... or by other words don't selectively working like it is with the system of Human ears + brain...

Another my own experinece in yak-52 flying near the Yak-18T... I was able to hear and to define the directions of outside flying plane flying some 30 menters near my plane... And I was in a helment that is very similar to WWII time...

Also, please tell me, can the bullet hit to the wing of the aircratf hear the pilot? If you will say me can, then I will put here the real measurement of the sound from the hit of bullet to the wing and the sound of fighter propeller (not the engine even!) on a distance of the 50 meters in decibels for comparison. Then you will tell me who is right :):):)

Agree, You can definitely hear other planes when flying near them. I have also
flown the YAK-52 in formation with another 52 and you sure hear the engine (and that is the "most" WWII plane I've flown - and the engine in the YAK is really far from an over reving DB601 ;)) ... Which goes for a bunch of other aircraft I've been formation flying with IRL.

Anyone that has heard a Warbird close can try to shield the sound with some plexiglass ;) Sure - the own engine is loud - but as it is in one resonance band the other engine never will be in the same "sound spectra" and you will hear it if near even with a thick helmet and headset. I just read "First Light" by Geoffrey Wellum where he mentions hearing the engines of the first He 111 he attacked (and nearly crashed into while being to eager to keep firing as long as he could). We know that from IL2 online, don't we? ;). Sorry! Noob! wft? Etc..

[F19_Klunk]

It's not the bounce on landing that is a real problem when you're landing on non-airfield, it's the way the tailwheel will bounce madly on touching the ground, practically guaranteeing to dig your nose in :(
Heavier aircraft don't seem to have such a "bouncy" tail - I can land a 110 for example fairly easily on rough terrain, but single engines, almost never.
The main gear seems fine, but the tailwheel seems to have a jack-in-the-box built in.

I make perfect 3-point landnings every time in every tailwheeled aircraft in Il2... ;)
no noseovers..

practice makes excellence ;)

[JG52Uther]

The fairly limited planeset will not matter at all,because I have a feeling that people are going to have to pick a plane and learn it inside out before being any good at all.
I think the days of multiple kills per sortie in full switch servers will disappear.It will be hard enough just to fly a mission and get back in one piece.
Brilliant! :)

[furbs]

For thoose who is eager for details, here is Youss's (he is expirienced il2 pilot) first impressions from CoD:
http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=66721

Use google translator please, as my english is not good enough to give you good translation of his exciting impressions, but hopefully I can clarify some things if google translator would be hard to understand.

Some features:
- "Press I button" doesnt start engine with "complex engine management on". Rotation starts and then stops very soon
- Bf-109 tends to roll during takeoff, no heavy yaw movements as in il2
- There is no runway as in IL2, there is just flat field surronded by hangars and other buildings. You can takeoff in any direction.
- lots of details on airfield makes it much easier to take of and landing as you feel speed better
- he was amazed with low altitude flight. Its feel of speed is much improved compared to IL2. Main thing is there is no flat surfaces. Whole ground is non flat, and his first thought was "how can I do emergency landing here?" He wasnt able to find any flat and big enough area.
- contacts visibility is very good if they are on same level as you. If you are above them you lost them immediately. Sea is very noisy because of waves and you cant see enemies. If contacts are above you they are blended with sky and its hard to find them again.
- on a high G (he did vertical loop) heads tends to move down and sight (aiming device) goes up on your screen, you have to correct your view direction.
- you need to turn on sight illumination, otherwise its hard to use it. Cabin lighting is amazing.
- bots behaviour is very diffrerent from IL2. He knows Il2 bots very well , but he wasnt able to shot down any one. They lowered from 4 km to sea level and still no one was heavily damaged
- he wasnt able to hit a spitfire with cannons, very very hard to aim. Guns fire slightly unsynchronously and BF-109 starts to yaw right and left. Hard to continue to fire for more than 2-4 rounds.
- even slight roll without proper work with pedals make airplane to slide and its your tracers start to drift away from sight center.
- smoke tracers are very very beautifull
- sound is amazing, huge "BAANG" on every cannon shot
- Airplane is very sluggish, stalls start immediately without any pre-stall shake
- on low speed airplane doesnt react on you controll. It seems that stall fighting is not possible anymore
- he wasnt able to hear spitfire on his 6. Once he saw a tracers he immediately did roll and jump into clouds
- once he jumped into clouds all windows become misted. When he goes from cloud it was hard to tell where is sky and where is ground, he had to wait some time whiled windows became unmisted
- he approached 2 spitfires on his way back. He missed in his first attack then he went up and after that he lost spitifires. He flew in that aread for a while but wasnt able to find them.
- airfield visibility on a shore is very good: big field surrounded with buildings
- use flaps you have to press "F" once and then hold it again until you satisfied with flaps angle
- he pressed "G"once to extend landing gear, but as it appeared later he failed with that
- there was no speed bar or other text on screen, neither for flaps nor for gears
- he landed without gears. Propeller was damaged and airplane was covered with cloud of dust once he stopped to slide
- after mission stats showed the Do-215 was shot down, 2 spitfires and one Bf-109. He had 3% fire accuracy for 1 spitfire and deliver 10% damage to him.
- His Bf-109 had 15% damage. There are no details how much of that damage came from enemies and how much from his langing or other wrong actions
- In "zoom view" you cant pan too much, just +- 20 degrees (maybe +- 30)

Does anyone know who this guy is and how come he got to try out COD?

[SlipBall]

For thoose who is eager for details, here is Youss's (he is expirienced il2 pilot) first impressions from CoD:
http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=66721


Does anyone know who this guy is and how come he got to try out COD?


Russian expo?

[JG52Uther]

Youss was ROSS_Youss,now in BY squad I think.One of the big Russian online squads.I would not be at all surprised if they were beta testing CoD.

[Dano]

Creator of IL2Compare I believe.

[JG52Uther]

And of course,if these guys have been beta testing for months,they are going to rip us apart online! ;)

[brando]

As usual, I agree with Blackdog.

Looks like we are getting closer to realistic dogfights. No more F16-like HOTAS flying and care free handling.

According to Ilya, fighting with complex engine management set to "on" will be pretty hard. That´s going to be interesting :)

It will also be interesting to see how people will react to the increased realism level. At the moment even in Il2 most people fly with arcade settings (no cockpit, externals on, etc.). I wonder if "full real" will still be played online.

I have to say I've flown an awful lot of coops in the last 8-9 years without ever coming across the 'no cockpit' setting enabled. Externals yes, mainly because downed players want to see the action, and icons anything from 'on' to 'off', with all the differences that can be written to a .rcu file in between.

So, unless you consider anything that isn't "full real" to be arcade, I'd say arcade settings aren't as universal as you suggest.

IMO, much of the reluctance to fly "full real" has been due to the limitations of the IL-2 workings. HUD logs where you have no visible indication of flap positions or rad opening - or headings info where you are unable to view the compass - all lead to a difficulty with regard to "full real". Mini-map on is presumably not "full real" but how to avoid this if the compass is not visible? Hopefully the new difficulty settings will be somehow easier to use in the new, highly-detailed cockpits.

[kendo65]

A small snippet from the google translation (right at the end) of Youss's Sukhoi report:

"impressed by the sound of the engine Messer and fire - a mighty roar in the cabin and "bang-bang" really hits the ears."



amended :)

[MoHaX]

A small snippet from the google translation (right at the end) of the MoHax Sukhoi report:

"impressed by the sound of the engine Messer and fire - a mighty roar in the cabin and "bang-bang" really hits the ears."

Its Youss's report, not mine =) As far as I understand he met luthier somewhere (I believe it was Maddox games studio) and he gave Youss some time to do flight, not much though. So Youss did one flight and wrote his impressions in report.

Youss is the author of IL-2 compare, guy who known to have good connections with Maddox team.

[furbs]

A small snippet from the google translation (right at the end) of the MoHax Sukhoi report:

"impressed by the sound of the engine Messer and fire - a mighty roar in the cabin and "bang-bang" really hits the ears."


Now that is good news :)

[AWL_Spinner]

ILYA: We love crap planes too.

OLEG: Agreed. In my opinion the crappiest plane from the current set of flyable aircraft is a Stuka with a heavy bomb load.


This made me laugh. I'm so happy everyone loves crap planes, because they're my favourite too. The crappier the better - don't forget the Battle of France and beyond (going backwards)!

Thanks for a great update thread this week, looking forward to this Friday already.

Cheers, Spinner

[JG4_Helofly]

I have to say I've flown an awful lot of coops in the last 8-9 years without ever coming across the 'no cockpit' setting enabled. Externals yes, mainly because downed players want to see the action, and icons anything from 'on' to 'off', with all the differences that can be written to a .rcu file in between.

So, unless you consider anything that isn't "full real" to be arcade, I'd say arcade settings aren't as universal as you suggest.

IMO, much of the reluctance to fly "full real" has been due to the limitations of the IL-2 workings. HUD logs where you have no visible indication of flap positions or rad opening - or headings info where you are unable to view the compass - all lead to a difficulty with regard to "full real". Mini-map on is presumably not "full real" but how to avoid this if the compass is not visible? Hopefully the new difficulty settings will be somehow easier to use in the new, highly-detailed cockpits.

I wasn´t clear enough. I meant dogfight servers.
And by arcade I mean icons on, externals on, cockpit off. There are only a few full real DF servers which only allow speed bar.

Of course full real coop missions will still be there. And I am looking forward to it.

I hate it when people can take the element of surprise from you because they can hit F2...

[SlipBall]

And of course,if these guys have been beta testing for months,they are going to rip us apart online! ;)


No, Il2 flight model was very close to RL, CoD won't be very different from that.:grin:

[Chivas]

No, Il2 flight model was very close to RL, CoD won't be very different from that.:grin:

It sounds like normal flying will be very close to the original IL-2 but stall fighting will be extremely difficult and it sounds like putting bullets on target will also be difficult.

The stats showing your hitting percentage and percentage of damage on enemy aircraft will also be helpfull. Having flown mostly German aircraft with explosive shells it was easy to tell when you were hitting in IL-2, but non explosive shells didn't give much feedback that you were putting bullets on target.

[Blackdog_kt]

I think flying will be very similar to IL2 with some added challenges here and there.
What's going to be the difficult aspect of it all is juggling with all the extra stuff in the midst of combat.

Whereas in IL2 i can slam the throttle forward, throw the stick to the side and pull back the moment i hear "break" on teamspeak while getting eyes on the bandit and waiting for the HUD messages to tell me if something is wrong, in CoD i'll have to look at 3-4 gauges inside the cockpit at the same time i'm doing all the above.

I guess after a while we'll settle into the habit of preconfiguring every single system on our aircraft for any given incident that might arise in certain phases of flight, instead of waiting for something to happen and then react to it.

In this sense i guess that the beta testers will in fact have some slight advantage over the rest of us, because they will have already formulated their mental checklists and picked up on certain good habits that they'll probably proceed to teach us about in a painful way :-P

[Richie]

[QUOTE=Chivas;221964]It sounds like normal flying will be very close to the original IL-2 but stall fighting will be extremely difficult and it sounds like putting bullets on target will also be difficult.

I liked the old IL-2 Flight Model.

[RAF74_Winger]

It sounds like normal flying will be very close to the original IL-2 but stall fighting will be extremely difficult and it sounds like putting bullets on target will also be difficult.

I liked the old IL-2 Flight Model.

So did I, but the slow flight regime was its greatest shortcoming. I will be looking forward to the new model.

W.

[Eklund89]

Im so exited from all the info that i shake in my chair! I hope there is alot of people buying this game so they get funded to continue with patches and real nice updates! If i had more money i would definatly donate money if that is possible.

[Defender]

There are A LOT of WWII sim aviation enthusiasts and IL-2 still has a massive following, I'd be very surprised if this sim didn't do well financially. Flight sims in general seem to be making a small come back so hopefully commercial success for this sim follows.

[Richie]

There are A LOT of WWII sim aviation enthusiasts and IL-2 still has a massive following, I'd be very surprised if this sim didn't do well financially. Flight sims in general seem to be making a small come back so hopefully commercial success for this sim follows.

I think it will be something like 2001 all over again.

[Redwan]

There are A LOT of WWII sim aviation enthusiasts and IL-2 still has a massive following, I'd be very surprised if this sim didn't do well financially. Flight sims in general seem to be making a small come back so hopefully commercial success for this sim follows.

Flight sims are making a small come back ? :confused: Did you know that Microsoft is ending the FSX serie ? It means that the rentability sucks .... You should reed the news ...

And in such a context, it won't be easy for BoB to take it's place on the market as the graphics will be very poor for a modern simulator (no wheather effects, cartoony clouds, problems with the aspect of trees when seen from far, unrealistic textures ...)

[klem]

On the Cockpit Management and the Landing questions you might find this interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzsJBjbCyvM&feature=player_detailpage#t=136s

Thr RL startup was not so complex as some people might imagine and it adds just a little more immersion if CoD has it.

On the landing, if you watch the last minute or so you will see that the Spit does skip, wheels even, on the first touch and lands unevenly on the second, left wheel first, but settles immediately.

In IL-2 that second bounce would have the gear off or the a/c on its back as the wobble increased until disaster struck. I am hoping CoD will be more like the real thing.

[Baron]

Flight sims are making a small come back ? :confused: Did you know that Microsoft is ending the FSX serie ? It means that the rentability sucks .... You should reed the news ...

And in such a context, it won't be easy for BoB to take it's place on the market as the graphics will be very poor for a modern simulator (no wheather effects, cartoony clouds, problems with the aspect of trees when seen from far, unrealistic textures ...)


Might be because FSX is a dead end (for MS)...maby?

And the rest, what does "problems with the aspect of trees when seen from far" mean for ex?

Feel free to elaborate on the other stuff to, like "poor graphics for a modern simulator". Im particularly interested in knowing what u compare to. (im gonna enjoy this one)

[CharveL]

Like I said, there's a simple solution to the whole resolution dot-size issue - which, due to more LOD's isn't going to be as much of one in CoD.

Just publish each players resolution settings on the scoring screen for everyone to see. Maybe even let the host discriminate for resolutions below 1280x1024.

Either way This let's the point advantage whores self police amongst each other.

[Royraiden]

On the Cockpit Management and the Landing questions you might find this interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzsJBjbCyvM&feature=player_detailpage#t=136s

Thr RL startup was not so complex as some people might imagine and it adds just a little more immersion if CoD has it.

On the landing, if you watch the last minute or so you will see that the Spit does skip, wheels even, on the first touch and lands unevenly on the second, left wheel first, but settles immediately.

In IL-2 that second bounce would have the gear off or the a/c on its back as the wobble increased until disaster struck. I am hoping CoD will be more like the real thing.

Definitely want to start up like that.Even if some switches and levers are there for cosmetics purposes, I will use them.

[zapatista]

Ok Zappa. Thanks for the considered reply. i'll look into it a bit more.

But surely the most distant depiction of any aircraft at maximum range will be a single pixel? This is what i understood, and a post earlier today from Oleg ( I think - could've been Luthier?) said as much.

For newer high-res monitors that single pixel will appear smaller on screen and thus be harder to spot. My point was that real-life pilots had to contend with similar issues - and that the max distance depiction of a near-invisible single pixel would be closer to that reality than the larger, more easily visible pixel on say an 800x600 screen?

----

ok, home now, and had another look. Yes - I can see what you're getting at.

Part of the problem too was a bit of sloppy use of language in my original post - as you identified concerning 'rendered more precisely'.

Seems I have made a few assumptions which may not have been correct. Seems the key issue as to whether it is more realistic or not is when the lod-switching is triggered - and I can see that in the move to higher res that could skew the original balance.

Basically, I'm not a competitive online flyer, so it isn't something that has been an issue for me

Kendo,

afaik the most distant "aircraft dots" in the il2 series sim do not use a single pixel to represent the distant object, they us a square clump of 4 pixels (2 black and 2 grey ). as you probably know close up aircraft/ship type objects in il2 are represented currently with 3 LoD models, which transition to a progressively smaller LoD model the further you get away from the object. iirc somewhere between 1000 and 1500 meters (depending on object size) this smallest LoD model will transition to a number of pixels drawing the rough shape of the very distant aircraft, and at the furthest distances this will then transition to a single 4 pixel "dot" untill at about 5 km the dot disappears completely.

in any discussion like this you need to differentiate between distant aircraft seen against an open blue sky background (reasonably easy to see), and those drawn against a terrain scenery background (almost impossible to see in most circumstances in il2, and very unrealistic in its "aircraft spotting" distances, particularly since in most instances in il2 we fly with near perfect visibility). and to illustrate with 2 simple screenshots how this problem becomes even much worse in il2 when you add a variation in screen resolution, see the illustrations below

the initial screenshot is with a 30' lcd in its native resolution, note no faint aircraft dot in the middle of the screenshot (we are searching for a low altitude pghter aircraft somewhere below us), but the snow covered scenery looks fairly good video quality and is "pretty"

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=4616&stc=1&d=1297257927

next shot is of the exact same situation but now we have halved the screen resolution, meaning the pixels now used to display the 4 pixel dot is 2x larger. as you should be able to note now, you CAN see the faint black dot of the enemy fighter below you ! and that is exactly why many experienced flyers *who are into online stat counting) will "game the game" by halving their resolutions. you should also be able to note the scenery quality has gone downhill, and is now noticeably not as pretty or "good".

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=4615&stc=1&d=1297257927

the point of all this is to ask yourself "what could a historical ww2 fighter pilot see from his cockpit in that exact same situation" ? and that is basically what il2/BoB should presumably aim to "simulate".

there are other issues and problems relating to this "pixel display" problem representing distant aircraft in il2 . another good example is in this flight of four i-16's heading in your direction (illustrated here with a zoomed clip with these 4 aircraft against open sky). i-16's are at roughly 1000 m distance, 3 km alt, game paused and screenshot taken in external view at 1280x1024

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=4617&stc=1&d=1297259136

as you can see only one of them looks vaguely like a "plane" (yet it is a formation of 4 planes flying together), the others are just an erratic irregular group of pixels, AND those drawings constantly change shape depending on the view angle ! instead of seeing a solid "aircraft looking pixel group" coming your way, you catch intermittent glimpses of a jumbled shape of loose pixels coming your way (and this is against open blue sky). Now if you put this in front of the complex shaped and colored "ground terrain" textured background, the human eye simply cannot track this irregular moving cluster of loose single pixels, due to the lack of well defined shape to visually "lock on". You can intermittently reacquire the target when it changes to something more visible as it comes closer and transitions to a larger LOD's, but in a combat situation where both aircraft are doing 300 km/hr and are rapidly closing (or he is trying to sneak up on you) this is not "simulating" what a real pilot would/could see, and therefore doesnt allow realistic combat engagements because you situational awareness bubble has shrunk to 30% of what it should be.

the same problem is illustrated by trying to hunt for ground targets in open fields or on roads. during the normandy invasion allied tank busters would scan the scenery for german targets from 1500 m alt, and could see individual tanks/trucks stand out clearly in open fields and on roads. ever tried to do the same in il2 ? you cant, you need to be at about 350 meters or even lower to do the same (which then makes you more vulnerable to ground fire, and because you also have to fly slower it makes you more vulnerable to enemy planes).

note: people who "game the game" in il2 will often use an artificial zoom by briefly narrowing their FoV setting to 30 degree's and then scan the ground/sky for targets, but this is not he solution and is the equivalent of using binoculars. in short, when your monitor is correctly calibrated and you have the right FoV setup for your monitor size, you SHOULD be able to see from your cockpit what a real human could see in the same situation from his cockpit, in il2 this was NOT the case this was a major issue, probably the single biggest downfall of the whole series.

note 2: oleg was well aware of this problem and in patch 3.02 (iirc) he significantly increased the pixel clump size that represents these distant aircraft. this did correct the problem (but probably made them a bit to visible now), but the whiners got the upper hand at the time and oleg removed his fix in the next patch, and for years didnt want to discuss it again (but i know he has taken it under consideration for BoB/Sow)

[kendo65]

Yeah - pretty conclusive. Nothing much more to say except that I was wrong. :(

...though still have suspicions that you may have photoshopped the second image ;):)

[swiss]

Zappa:

There must be something wrong.

low-res: plane is 6-8pixels
high: plane is 2pixels

Do you still have the ntrk? If so, please host at somewhere I would like to conduct some tests too, but to do that we need the same picture.

[Defender]

Flight sims are making a small come back ? :confused: Did you know that Microsoft is ending the FSX serie ? It means that the rentability sucks .... You should reed the news ...

And in such a context, it won't be easy for BoB to take it's place on the market as the graphics will be very poor for a modern simulator (no wheather effects, cartoony clouds, problems with the aspect of trees when seen from far, unrealistic textures ...)

I read the news FSX closing it's doors that's ancient. I'm also aware that MS has a new series coming out "MS Flight" (Not that I care much about it personally). Microsoft stopped supporting FSX a long time ago, the only reason it's going today is because of third party developers who are still going VERY strong. I'm not sure it's very accurate to compare a civilian flight sim with questionable flight dynamics and zero plane/enemy/ground AI to a WWII combat flight simulation.

Lets name drop a few other developers releasing sims today; the DCS series is going strong, Rise of Flight is in the mix and Jet Thunder with A2A on board as a developer makes for a pretty strong case, oh and X-PLANE 10, Seven G and Fighter Ops (if it eventually comes to fruition.) Cliffs of Dover is a fort night away; that in all sense of the word..a comeback.

You're opinion based on the screenshots of Cliffs of Dover is short sighted, you obviously want a visual simulation more than a high fidelity combat sim otherwise you wouldn't be ragging on the cover art of a complex entity. (And you would know that in all the years of high fidelity combat sims, nothing has ever come out with state of the art photo real graphics). I've been simming for a LONG time and graphically this is what I expect from a new modern sim. Ooh and the weather system is there, just use at your own risk and has been mentioned it is being worked on. Obviously you haven't a clue at the complexity involved behind the scenes whilst developing a game.

Your entitled to your opinion of course, but asking me if i read the news when you quote information that's 7 months doesn't disprove my point. Besides, the best sims these days are being put forth by small studio type developers, (Oleg Games, ED, 777 studios, A2A, Bohemia).

My point stands, I've not had so many flight sims on my computer at one time since the late 90's...that my friend is signs of a comeback (not saying how FAR it will come back, but it's breathing new life into a previously desolate world).

[zapatista]

Flight sims are making a small come back ? :confused: Did you know that Microsoft is ending the FSX serie ? It means that the rentability sucks .... You should reed the news ...

you are the one that should read the news ;) ms already announced in the last 6 months it is continuing its fs series but under a different format

And in such a context, it won't be easy for BoB to take it's place on the market as the graphics will be very poor for a modern simulator (no wheather effects, cartoony clouds, problems with the aspect of trees when seen from far, unrealistic textures ...)

in such context you are a rude little boy who should have his mouth washed out with soap and then have his Internet access revoked for 30 days.

oleg doesnt owe you (or me) ANYTHING. he is however a flightsim enthusiast who has made a great previous sim and deserves our support and constructive input to help him make the best future sim he possibly can. he is however working with a small team under difficult circumstances and with limited resources, and "just because you want it" doesnt magically make 30 million dollars fall out of the sky for him to use during development so he can compete with big bux console type gaming houses (who make products that last 3 months after which the ADD kids need something new to play with).

oleg is our only and last best hope for a great new realistic ww2 SIMULATOR, and for that he deserves all our constructive support and deserve to have people communicate to him in a civilized way.

[zapatista]

Zappa:

There must be something wrong.

low-res: plane is 6-8pixels
high: plane is 2pixels

Do you still have the ntrk? If so, please host at somewhere I would like to conduct some tests too, but to do that we need the same picture.

this might make the concept easier to understand

below a screenshot of a B-17 (wingspan 30 m +) seen at roughly 5 km against blue sky with some clouds. for this aircraft the il2 engine keeps trying to draw the rough shape of the aircraft untill about 5.7 km when it suddenly and abruptly transitions to its generic display of "the il2 dot" being made up of 4 pixels ( 2 black and 2 grey)

the left image displays the "4 pixel dot", the right image is with the aircraft just a little closer (by 200 m), when the il2 engine now tries to draw the shape of the aircraft (and we get pop-up of the smallest LoD model being displayed). the sim does it roughly correctly by now showing 15 horizontal pixels for the wingspan (all credit to "lurch", an astronomer il2-flyer who made the calculations)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=4618&stc=1&d=1297264461

for the discussion in this thread the issue is about the "4 pixel dot" and how visible it is, and how realistic this visibility is compared to real life "spotting distances". if the aircraft was a me-109 with a winspan just under 10 m wide, this "lod to dot" transition point would have happened at about 1/3 the distance, being roughly at 1500 meters (which is indeed when it happens for that aircraft in il2).

and that is exactly what my earlier screenshots were intended to illustrate. if you have an me-109 below you somewhere at 1700 m distance, and hence he is displayed by the "4 pixel dot" then SCREEN RESOLUTION MATTERS a great deal (because on a monitor changing the resolution changes the pixel size).

on the 30' dell the earlier screenshots were taken on (snow scenery), the monitor has a pixel size of 0.250 mm, so the 4 pixels form a little square of 0.5 by 0.5 mm (2 pixels being grey, and 2 black as you can see in the zoomed in gunsight), but if you halve the screen resolution of that same monitor you suddenly have 0.50 mm pixels and the "il2 dot" has doubled to 1 mm by 1 mm. hence on the screenshots i posted earlier this is the critical change from "now you see it" to "now you dont"

this is something many online flyers have been using for years to "game the game", you reduce your screen resolution and bogey's are much easier to spot.

there is however an even bigger problem then that. these little 4 pixel dots still dont accurately represent what most real ww2 fighter pilots could/would see from their cockpits ! if il2/BoB is claiming to be a simulator then it is critical in my opinion this most important issue has a high priority (and oleg in the last few years has answered positively he is aware of this problem and is trying to correct it for BoB/il2).

ps: if anybody wants to play around with their monitor resolutions in il2, try and use exactly 1/2 your native resolution as a comparison point (this will double the pixels used in the 4 pixel il2 dots). using other comparison ratio's will require sub pixel blending of the "dot", creating a fuzzy and less describable outline. nice square blocks of full pixels are much easier to see as il2 dots

[swiss]

this might make the concept easier to understand


I do understand what you said.
Unfortunately I can't reproduce your resolution, I got a 22"/1680 here.
However I tested 1280 vs 1680. On both resolution the plane in the distance had the size of two pixels.

Maybe I screwed something up while taking the screenshots(dont think so tho')...
Anyway; here are the shots and the ntrk, 7.55mb zip
http://rapidshare.com/files/447028204/ss-and-ntrk.zip

[zapatista]

can you just post the shots here in the thread ?

easier to see and discuss :)

[swiss]

can you just post the shots here in the thread ?

easier to see and discuss :)

I just dropped the resolution down to 800*600.
This pixel doubling does not happen on my screen.

Would you mind posting your config, the resolution part?

[brando]

..... big bux console type gaming houses (who make products that last 3 months after which the ADD kids need something new to play with).

A good friend of mine is a big fan of PS3 games (and also WW2 aircraft) so I bought him WoP when it came out. 3 months later he phoned me up to say how cool it was, and that he'd played "all the levels"(?) and when was the sequel coming out? It's worth noting that he is forty years old, not exactly a kid, so it is definitely the console experience that is biased towards "get it, play it, bin it" credo. The guy is not stupid - it's just that his lifestyle is not geared to a pricey PC and all the kit that is needed to fly one.

... oleg is our only and last best hope for a great new realistic ww2 SIMULATOR, and for that he deserves all our constructive support and deserve to have people communicate to him in a civilized way.

+1

[zapatista]

I do understand what you said.
Unfortunately I can't reproduce your resolution, I got a 22"/1680 here.
However I tested 1280 vs 1680. On both resolution the plane in the distance had the size of two pixels.

Maybe I screwed something up while taking the screenshots(dont think so tho')...
Anyway; here are the shots and the ntrk, 7.55mb zip
http://rapidshare.com/files/447028204/ss-and-ntrk.zip

the key point for using comparison screenshots is that:
1) the distant aircraft you are looking at must indeed be a dot (so past the lod model drawing distance, for single engine fighters this can be up to 2000 m or so)
2) have your monitor FoV correctly set for the monitor size so ingame objects are displayed in 1:1 ratio compared to real life, dont use a zoomed in/out FoV setting
3) use in cockpit viewing of the distant object, external views can distort and magnify
4) use 1/2 your native resolution to compare the 2 screenshots

[swiss]

can you just post the shots here in the thread ?

easier to see and discuss :)

Your wish is my order.
(Thanks for making me do that :/)

http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/6742/16801.jpg (http://img810.imageshack.us/i/16801.jpg/)
http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/8513/8001.jpg (http://img546.imageshack.us/i/8001.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[zapatista]

you need to compare it at 1/2 your native resolution :)
and i am presuming you are changing the resolution in the game not just altering your monitor ;)

[swiss]

edit:

Why don't you use your 25xx resolution on the screen of a movie theater, your pixel will have the size of a pack cigs(CHEATING!).
There is no way to determine who you display the game it within the software.

[zapatista]

I cant go higher than 1680 or lower than 800.

if you cant 1/2 your resolution to compare how the il2 aircraft dot doubles in size,, you should be able to at least notice that with the lower resolution the larger pixels show a larger il2 aircraft "dot" on your screen now :]

that is the exact principle at work, and it really shouldnt be the case in 2011 with the next gen sim

btw, i just noticed that with the monitor size you are using this probably means it is a 6 bit colour monitor (TN technology based), rather then most other lcd's which are normally 8- bit color (and MVA/PVA or IPS technology). the people who complain the least about il2 distant aircraft visibility are oddly enough often people with inferior monitors (dont mean to diss your hardware there). because these 6 bit monitors have significantly more problems displaying shades of grey, they constantly flip between several states of grey in a more noticable transition (compared to the smooth gradient on an 8 bit monitor), with TN based monitors this is known to add a slight "glitter" effect to the grey/black pixels it is trying to display (and this makes these 2/4 pixels representing a distant il2 aircraft stand out more, particularly if it is a moving object against a differently colored background, like green tree foliage or snow etc)

didnt mean to go all technical in minor detail, but i can post some illustrations about this known effect on 6 bit monitors later if interested

for now, just notice how the pixel size has increased with the lower resolution, making the 2/4 pixel object physically larger and easier to see on screen (btw my earlier screenshots posted were taken in 4.08 iirc). i havnt noticed anybody commenting the dot's had changed to 2 pixels since then, but it is possible (dot visibility has not increased since then, if anything worsened, so i havnt looked at it any closer since). the argument is still exactly the same however, 1/2 your resolution and the "il2 dot" is 2x the size, giving you a clear advantage online in a competitive environment (if all else is equal)

[swiss]

if you cant 1/2 your resolution to compare how the il2 aircraft dot doubles in size,, you should be able to at least notice that with the lower resolution the larger pixels show a larger il2 aircraft "dot" on your screen now :]

that is the exact principle at work, and it really shouldnt be the case in 2011 with the next gen sim

the argument is still exactly the same however, 1/2 your resolution and the "il2 dot" is 2x the size, giving you a clear advantage online in a competitive environment (if all else is equal)

Again: What if someone uses a beamer? He will have a 100" screen, huge pixels.
Cheating, right?



giving you a clear advantage, if all else is equal

It will never be fair - ever.
Unless Oleg sells some standard systems too and locks out everything else.

I recently noticed you can exploit the fact some ppl play with crappy GPUs.
When they are close on your tail, fly low over the water surface and fire into the sea like there's no tomorrow.
In case he really has an old card, odds are he will get a sideshow when flying through the fountains.
http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/teufel/a010.gif

You see everything is different.
GPUs, screensizes and and resolutions, internet connection etcpp.





there is however an even bigger problem then that. these little 4 pixel dots still dont accurately represent what most real ww2 fighter pilots could/would see from their cockpits ! if il2/BoB is claiming to be a simulator then it is critical in my opinion this most important issue has a high priority (and oleg in the last few years has answered positively he is aware of this problem and is trying to correct it for BoB/il2).


Are you seriously saying the size of a pixel, in relation to displayed distance in game, vs reality is wrong?
You had to consult an astrophysicist to notice?

This is absolutely of the highest priority!
How could anyone possibly enjoy the GAME with such a flaw???

Maybe you should consider moving, a real simulator is not going to fit on your desk. ;)



6bit/8bit:
I have no idea what your talking about.
In the settings menu it says something about true color, 32bit. :confused:

[combatdudePL]

Zapatista thanks for posting You last informations (especially screenshots) its reveal the essence of the issue - my English is too weak to describe it so well.

[Blackdog_kt]

What he says is that some monitors don't have the capability of displaying all the colors at the same time, so they flip the pixels in question between color A and color B to give the illusion of color C. Hope it helps ;)

[Kikuchiyo]

Zapa if you're really that hung up on dots quit playing online. This is a moot issue that no one on earth can do anything about. Way to many variables, and continuing to beat the dead horse will do nothing to make the problem go away. Every game where there is competition there will be people that will do unscrupulous things in game to make their small lives feel more important.

I can only talk for myself, but the only reason for dumping all that cash into peripherals for a game is to get an (unfair as zappa thinks) edge over the others.
It's just like real war - better equipment wins(usually).

You feel you get an advantage by using a 60" screen @800*600 - go for it.

I realize this, but it seems lost on the gentleman that it's not so much resolution as screen size that is the issue. He is continuing to harp on something that can't be helped.

[KG26_Alpha]

Stuka LOD 2/3

With a resolution of 800x600 or lower these are like flying bricks with lower settings.

[swiss]

Zappa if you're really that hung up on dots quite playing online. This is a moot issue that no one on earth can do anything about. Way to many variables, and continuing to beat the dead horse will do nothing to make the problem go away. Every game where there is competition there will be people that will do unscrupulous things in game to make their small lives feel more important.

I can only talk for myself, but the only reason for dumping all that cash into peripherals for a game is to get an (unfair as zappa thinks) edge over the others.
It's just like real war - better equipment wins(usually).

You feel you get an advantage by using a 60" screen @800*600 - go for it.

[philip.ed]

Please could you start a seperate topic on this? I keep coming back to this topic expecting a different discussion. Don't get me wrong, it's very interesting, but there's such a wealth of information here, it'd be sad to see it get lost once a new update comes.
I have to say, I am marvelling at Zaps research into this! top notch stuff.

[flyingblind]

I find the discussions on the effect of screen resolutions on the ability to spot planes in game are all very interesting. Personally I would far rather have the highest resolution possible (native res) simply because of the enjoyment of having better, more realistice scenery and planes especially when it comes to making positive ID before firing.
Once LODs kick in I have always found it quite possible to spot a plane against a ground background because at higher resolutions and with a correctly adjusted screen there is noticable contrast between plane and background, even forests.
The problem seems to be a natural desire for people to have every edge they can get or at least not to be disadvantaged and so they want to be able to spot the enemy at the absolute earliest. Rather than worrying about how different monitors/setups compare with each other I am far more interested in how what I am seeing on screen compares with what I would see in real life.
I don't care if someone on lower resolution can see a dot at 8Km or more if in real life a pilot might not see the plane at 5 or 6km and then depending on light conditions. I would far rather see a beautifully rendered, sharp and antialiased plane at 500m and to make a positive ID when it counts.
The discussions are all about what is seen on one screen compared with another but much more rarely about what was actually seen in real life. Lets face it, a common tactic especially of bombers was to fly low to avoid detection from fighters so perhaps not being able to spot planes against the forest is more realistic especially if flying on a full switch server without icons.I have also read accounts of flights spotting lower planes and having to descend to identify them.
Mistaken identity and friendly fire incidents were a real risk. Wasn't there a documentary that suggested Douglas Bader was most likely downed by friendly fire and he invented the story of a 109 collision to protect his fellow RAF pilot?
There are still a few weeks before we will know how much better the landscape and rendering and visibility of objects are in CoD compared to IL-2 (I don't think any of the promised videos will really do justice at all) but two things in particular I hope will be an improvement. The flare and glint of sun on planes should be much more lifelike and help spot distant aircraft and the dynamically moving shadows in the cockpits will maybe make positioning yourself between the sun and your target much easier. It really will be a case of 'beware the hun in the sun'.

[No601_Swallow]

I can only talk for myself, but the only reason for dumping all that cash into peripherals for a game is to get an (unfair as zappa thinks) edge over the others.
It's just like real war - better equipment wins(usually).

You feel you get an advantage by using a 60" screen @800*600 - go for it.

Ah! The old Raybanjockey philosophy!

But I have to say, Swiss, the reason I dump cash I can't afford into peripherals for the game is to boost my sense of immersion and involvement in flight and WWII air combat. Honestly, nothing competitive - just to have a good time! (Which is why I'd never lower my screen resolution - talk about cutting off you nose to spite your face!, and probably why I'm generally canon-fodder or "bait" for my squadron mates!).

[Edit: And I agree with you, Flyingblind - from what I've taken from the updates, hopefully glints and reflections from targets will make bogie-spotting - particularly those currs beneath you - much easier.]

Anyway, as others have said, I feel like a seven-year-old waiting for Christmas! When I finally get a tattoo, it'll read: "Two Weeks - Be Sure".

Thnx Oleg, Lutheir and the gallant 22!

[SlipBall]

It sounds like normal flying will be very close to the original IL-2 but stall fighting will be extremely difficult


Definitely going to have to pay close attention to air speed/speed over ground, especially with any kind of high wind in the mix.:grin:

[DC338]

I can give you one from personal experience. I was in a Lake Amphibian (a very noisy plane) with some excellent David Clarks (headsets) on and we had an F-18 on a low-level training route cross in front of us at the same altitude at a distance of half a mile. I heard him at the same time I saw him and it was loud. That said, that's the only time in 4,000 hours of flying that I heard something outside the airplane while airborne, but then I never made any gun runs on Heinkels and passing within fifty feet of them.

So yes, it's possible to hear things outside a plane in flight - but only really loud things.

The only reason I say this is a guy from work flies Spitfires for the temora museum (http://www.aviationmuseum.com.au/aircraft/) and he says flying in formation with another spit or Mustang and he definitely can't hear them. I would be interested to listen to Oleg's P-39 recording though. Guns firing would be audible but pretty quite I would assume given the difference in sound.

I just hate conducting a perfect bounce and when coming up from behind and below to have the guy suddenly break. The only explanation is they heard me coming.

[ChrisDNT]

Just my experience : I've flown once in a P3 very near to a DC-3, never heard anything.
I've also flown sometimes in jet fighters in formation with other jet fighters, never heard anything outside.

[Baron]

Stuka LOD 2/3

With a resolution of 800x600 or lower these are like flying bricks with lower settings.



Except, thats not a Stuka. ;)

[swiss]

Ah! The old Raybanjockey philosophy!

But I have to say, Swiss, the reason I dump cash I can't afford into peripherals for the game is to boost my sense of immersion and involvement in flight and WWII air combat. Honestly, nothing competitive - just to have a good time! (Which is why I'd never lower my screen resolution - talk about cutting off you nose to spite your face!, and probably why I'm generally canon-fodder or "bait" for my squadron mates!).

[Edit: And I agree with you, Flyingblind - from what I've taken from the updates, hopefully glints and reflections from targets will make bogie-spotting - particularly those currs beneath you - much easier.]

Anyway, as others have said, I feel like a seven-year-old waiting for Christmas! When I finally get a tattoo, it'll read: "Two Weeks - Be Sure".

Thnx Oleg, Lutheir and the gallant 22!


Raybanjocky? That's quite funny.
It's like I said, i don't consider myself a "pilot".
I do this for fun(I prefer eyecandy over superman x-ray view), and honestly I can't get the slightest bit of immersion sitting in front of screen, no matter what size, refreshing at 60 to 100 times a second.
This is program trying to reproduce RL - but being what is it it never can, never will.

Before I spend $2k on a new monitor I'll rather get a bigger TV or so, things you can use in RL - with friends and such...
However, if someone decides to go the highend this route, I'm fine with it and wouldn't feel disadvantaged at all.
But even if you have a $20k system, you can be sure one day you'll meet the young Russian equipped with a 17" CRT and a shitty PC who's gonna whoop your a$$ really bad.
Unless you can surprise him(which is not the issue here, as everybody can spot the enemy at 3k) - it will always end in dogfight - the extra 1k visibility come in really handy here, right?
;)

[swiss]

I just hate conducting a perfect bounce and when coming up from behind and below to have the guy suddenly break. The only explanation is they heard me coming.

It's well known bug in IL2 - you have to use the crappiest sound settings available to exploit it.
Cool choice btw, shitty SFX vs spider sense.

Or - maybe he's an experienced pilot, spotted you and intentionally let you come closer. Breaks work much better if you surprise the aggressor.


I would far rather see a beautifully rendered, sharp and antialiased plane at 500m and to make a positive ID when it counts.

Amen.

[DC338]

All I want is for that bug to be fixed.

I've do not doubt that you would hear something when shooting though, feel would be more apparent (I agree that some sound is needed to give the same sense as feel isn't available unless FFB.) I'm sure you could hear or feel a hit (I've shot steel plates with a rifle) so that I have no problem with that.

[zapatista]

Again: What if someone uses a beamer? He will have a 100" screen, huge pixels. Cheating, right? It will never be fair - ever. Unless Oleg sells some standard systems too and locks out everything else.

ahh the old reductio ad absurdum way of pretending to say something meaningful. if you dont understand the topic under discussion, how about you just limit yourself to forum discussions you do understand instead ?

You see everything is different.
GPUs, screensizes and and resolutions, internet connection etcpp.

and ? where you trying to say something relevant there ? news flash: you'r not :) you just seem to be waffling and being disruptive while others are trying to exchange meaningful information

Are you seriously saying the size of a pixel, in relation to displayed distance in game, vs reality is wrong?
nope, you really dont get it do you ? i'll try and take it in smaller steps then, since previously even providing illustrations with explanations didnt seem sufficient for you

1) the topic we (you know, the "other forum users" here) were discussing is how realistically il2 can display the visibility of distant aircraft, compared to what a real ww2 aviator would/could see from his cockpit (point being, the game trying to "simulate" a ww2 pilot experience, for which accurate visibility of enemy aircraft and ground targets is crucial). several posters earlier in this thread were raising concerns that they hoped these errors and know major problems in the il2 series would now be corrected in BoB ( it has been raised multiple times before, including in this forum in the last few yrs). oleg in previous years has indicated he is aware of this issue, and is trying to address several elements of it in BoB/Sow (one of these improvements seems to be that distant LoD models now have "3D volume" to them, as can be seen in one of oleg's earlier video clips). this problem has been extensively discussed and debated for years in the main il2 forums, and is well recognized (even if you dont seem to be aware of it, yet you keep blabbering on trying to either dismiss it or interject with frivolous meaningless banter)

2) the problem can be broken down into various elements, some of which are

a) how visible the most distant il2 "dots" are.
- when the smallest LoD model transitions to just being displayed as a "dot" (which can be anywhere from around 1500 m for a fighter or 5 km for a large bomber), this dot stands out fairly clearly against the open sky, but it blends in way to much with the ground terrain (being just a simple 4 pixel flat little square that slides over a textured background).
b) how well/poorly the various LoD models stand out against the background (in many situations they blend in to much, and in some situations planes can become invisible even if only a few 100 meters away and directly in front of you)
c) how well/poorly ground targets like tanks, trucks, etc stand out against the background (as mentioned before, you should be able to spot individual tanks/trucks moving on an open road or in a field from 1200 to 1500 meters altitude, yet in il2 this is impossible, you need to be at around 300 meters (a BIG issue !)
d) as a fighter pilot the main experience a SIMULATOR should be able to display, is that we as virtual pilots can track objects around us correctly and represent the situational awareness a ww2 pilot would have of objects or targets around him. in il2 you effectively are flying in a mini bubble of 30* of this visibility, AND you have blinkers on because your screen size is limetd. currently as users we are stuck between having a "pretty" sim with nice detailed planes and scenery, but the designers did not deliberately use methods to compensate for the limitations we have imposed on us by sitting behind an imperfect display medium (our monitor in our living rooms) rather then look "out the window" at a live battlefield. yet many of those limitations can be addressed and improved.

You had to consult an astrophysicist to notice?

ahh more meaningless banter from the ignorant

as you might not have noticed, the screenshot i posted of the gun sight showing the distant b17 had some calculations on it, they confirm that right up to the point of the most distant LoD model of the b17 transitioning suddenly to just a 4 pixel dot, that this last LoD model up to that point was indeed the correct size (because at the start of this debate we need to confirm the object itself is correctly drawn by the game engine). that specific post however was to confirm that these distant dots in il2 (4.08) are indeed displayed as 4 pixel blocks, and that you can simply double its size and significantly increase its visibility by halving your ingame screen resolution. now hold onto your socks, because here it comes the punchline ! the only reason that all this matters is because we need to compare visibility in the il2 game to what it would be in a similar real life situation ! eg, if i am looking at an me-109 1500 meters away in real life under good visibility conditions and can clearly see him, i expect a SIMULATOR to allow me to do the same, and if i keep my eyes glued on the little sucker to therefore be able to track him as a maneuver to engage him. and, wait for it, here it comes,........... in il2 currently you cant with the current way the dots work (unless seen against open sky, and even then it is much less clearly visible)

hence, in order to have any hope of tracking the me-109 many people with high resolution are resorting to halving their resolutions, and artificially increase the dot visibility (but at the same time make the whole sim virtual world ugly to fly around in, and wasting the precious $'s they spent on their nice hardware). the fact some people use the same method to "cheat" online is completely besides the point. the whole focus of these "discussions" is to end up with as realistic of a visual world as we can to fly in, no more, no less. iirc in the 3.02 patch oleg briefly introduced a fix to address this dot visibility issue, and he made these dots larger and more visible (using more pixels and making them all black iirc). it might not have been "pretty" (for those liking eye candy over realism), but it served the purpose to more closely represent distant aircraft visibility and improved your SA significantly. a large section of the crowd however seem to think "hard to see = i am playing a really neat game", and have no clue about what visibility should really be like, or what recreating a real ww2 fighter pilot's experience means. sadly the whiners won the day in the following months, and in the next patch oleg reversed his changes, hence you have ever since then been back to the myopic 30% il2 "SA bubble" we have now.


6bit/8bit:
I have no idea what your talking about.
In the settings menu it says something about true color, 32bit. :confused:

you need to look into this yourself a bit if you want to learn more about pc's.
Truecolor: 24 bits (16,777,216 colors, "truecolor")
Truecolor can mimic far more of the colors found in the real world, producing over 16.7 million distinct colors. This approaches the level at which megapixel monitors can display distinct colors for most true to life video and photographic images.... 24-bit truecolor uses 8 bits to represent red, 8 bits to represent blue and 8 bits to represent green. 28 = 256 levels of each of these three colors can therefore be combined to give a total of 16,777,216 mixed colors (256 × 256 × 256).
most medium and high level lcd's fall in that category, they are ususally refered to as 32 bit because of software enhancement on top of the 24 bit. the 24 bit allows them to display a very clean gradient in color, including grey's

Almost all cheap LCD displays (such as typical twisted nematic types) use dithered 18-bit color (64 × 64 × 64 = 262,144 combinations) to achieve faster transition times, but they must use either dithering or Frame Rate Control to fake 24-bit-per-pixel truecolor, or throw away 6 bits of color information away entirely.
and because they have a stepwise display of color and greys, when a shade of grey it needs to display falls between 2 values it can display, it keeps "flipping' back from one grey tone display to another, a process referred to as "dithering", it is what makes those same monitors very poor in displaying shades of grey and black (for ex when displaying a movie in HD you can see this "glittering" in large black/grey area's and it makes them a poor technology for watching video). of course the salesman just told you "lookie here, aint it nice, and it is FAST (and cheap), why bother with them fancier ones ?". and fast is about all they are good for, except that for 10 yrs or so most lcd monitors have been below 8 msec refresh rates, making them perfectly fine for most gaming to (but you will pay 50% more for them)

except that in il2 when you are trying to track a little black/grey square of 4 pixels against a green/brown or white background, this "glittering pixel" (which cant make up its mind of exactly what shade of grey to display) stands out MUCH more then on a high quality monitor, pure coincidence, but it is why a select small group of people in these discussions keeps thinking the visibility problem is less severe (note: in the crt days we were all in the same boat, and most video cards and nearly all crt displays were 32 bit). so your video car might be able to display 8 bit per primary color, but if your monitor is 6 bit limited that is all it will display.

and one last thing,[b] do you even know how to setup your il2 FoV so that it is correct for your monitor size ?[/b[ (and the distance your eyes are from the screen). because many of the less informed people who keep saying they can see things most of us cant (pun intended), are in fact "gaming the game" by using lower FoV settings they they should and use it as a zoom magnifier to scan the ground or sky for things they actually would be able to see from a real plane cockpit

so either start informing yourself a little about how extensive this problem is, by searching the ubi forums for example (or simhq or combatsim), then setup your system FoV correctly, compare your TN 6 bit monitor it to a normal 8 bit monitor, and then find out what real visibility was like historically for ww2 fighter pilots and ground pounders. and then maybe look at what RL visibility is like from an aircraft cockpit to, just so you have an idea of what you CAN see in RL. failing all that, how about you go play somewhere else and stop interjecting in topics you know very little about :) its not a forum pissing contest, we are trying to exchange useful information and improve the SIMULATOR in its next incarnation.

[kalimba]

ahh the old reductio ad absurdum way of pretending to say something meaningful. if you dont understand the topic under discussion, how about you just limit yourself to forum discussions you do understand instead ?



and ? where you trying to say something relevant there ? news flash: you'r not :) you just seem to be waffling and being disruptive while others are trying to exchange meaningful information


nope, you really dont get it do you ? i'll try and take it in smaller steps then, since previously even providing illustrations with explanations didnt seem sufficient for you

1) the topic we (you know, the "other forum users" here, it doesnt always have to be about you ,and what you do or dont know) were discussing is how realistically il2 can display the visibility of distant aircraft, compared to what a real ww2 aviator would/could see from his cockpit (point being, the game trying to "simulate" a ww2 pilot experience, for which accurate visibility of enemy aircraft and ground targets is crucial)

several posters earlier in this thread were raising concerns that they hoped these errors and know major problems in the il2 series would now be corrected in BoB ( it has been raised multiple times before, including in this forum in the last few yrs). oleg in previous years has indicated he is aware of this issue, and is trying to address several elements of it in BoB/Sow (one of these improvements seems to be that distant LoD models now have "3D volume" to them, as can be seen in one of oleg's earlier video clips). this problem has been extensively discussed and debated for years in the main il2 forums, and is well recognized (even if you dont seem to be aware of it, yet you keep blabbering on trying to either dismiss it or interject with frivolous meaningless banter)


2) the problem can be broken down into various elements, some of which are

a) how visible the most distant il2 "dots" are.
- when the smallest LoD model transitions to just being displayed as a "dot" (which can be anywhere from around 1500 m for a fighter or 5 km for a large bomber), this dot stands out fairly clearly against the open sky, but it blends in way to much with the ground terrain (being just a simple 4 pixel flat little square that slides over a textured background).

b) how well/poorly the various LoD models stand out against the background (in many situations they blend in to much, and in some situations planes can become invisible even if only a few 100 meters away and directly in front of you)

c) how well/poorly ground targets like tanks, trucks, etc stand out against the background (as mentioned before, you should be able to spot individual tanks/trucks moving on an open road or in a field from 1200 to 1500 meters altitude, yet in il2 this is impossible, you need to be at around 300 meters (a BIG issue !)

d) as a fighter pilot the main experience a SIMULATOR should be able to display, is that we as virtual pilots can track objects around us correctly and represent the situational awareness a ww2 pilot would have of objects or targets around him. in il2 you effectively are flying in a mini bubble of 30* of this visibility, AND you have blinkers on because your screen size is limetd. currently as users we are stuck between having a "pretty" sim with nice detailed planes and scenery, but the designers did not deliberately use methods to compensate for the limitations we have imposed on us by sitting behind an imperfect display medium (our monitor in our living rooms) rather then look "out the window" at a live battlefield. yet many of those limitations can be addressed and improved.



ahh more meaningless banter from the ignorant

as you might not have noticed, the screenshot i posted of the gun sight showing the distant b17 had some calculations on it, they confirm that right up to the point of the most distant LoD model of the b17 transitioning suddenly to just a 4 pixel dot, that this last LoD model up to that point was indeed the correct size (because at the start of this debate we need to confirm the object itself is correctly drawn by the game engine).

that specific post however was to confirm that these distant dots in il2 (4.08) are indeed displayed as 4 pixel blocks, and that you can simply double its size and significantly increase its visibility by halving your ingame screen resolution.

now hold onto your socks, because here it comes the punchline ! the only reason that all this matters is because we need to compare visibility in the il2 game to what it would be in a similar real life situation ! eg, if i am looking at an me-109 1500 meters away in real life under good visibility conditions and can clearly see him, i expect a SIMULATOR to allow me to do the same, and if i keep my eyes glued on the little sucker to therefore be able to track him as a maneuver to engage him. and, wait for it, here it comes,........... in il2 currently you cant with the current way the dots work (unless seen against open sky, and even then it is much less clearly visible)

hence, in order to have any hope of tracking the me-109 many people with high resolution are resorting to halving their resolutions, and artificially increase the dot visibility (but at the same time make the whole sim virtual world ugly to fly around in, and wasting the precious $'s they spent on their nice hardware). the fact some people use the same method to "cheat" online is completely besides the point. the whole focus of these "discussions" is to end up with as realistic of a visual world as we can to fly in, no more, no less.

iirc in the 3.02 patch oleg briefly introduced a fix to address this dot visibility issue, and he made these dots larger and more visible (using more pixels and making them all black iirc). it might not have been "pretty" (for those liking eye candy over realism), but it served the purpose to more closely represent distant aircraft visibility and improved your SA significantly. a large section of the crowd however seem to think "hard to see = i am playing a really neat game", and have no clue about what visibility should really be like, or what recreating a real ww2 fighter pilot's experience means. sadly the whiners won the day in the following months, and in the next patch oleg reversed his changes, hence you have ever since then been back to the myopic 30% il2 "SA bubble" we have now.



you need to look into this yourself a bit if you want to learn more about pc's.

most medium and high level lcd's fall in that category, they are ususally refered to as 32 bit because of software enhancement on top of the 24 bit. the 24 bit allows them to display a very clean gradient in color, including grey's


and because they have a stepwise display of color and greys, when a shade of grey it needs to display falls between 2 values it can display, it keeps "flipping' back from one grey tone display to another, a process referred to as "dithering", it is what makes those same monitors very poor in displaying shades of gret and black (for ex when displaying a movie in HD you can see this "glittering" in large black/grey area's and it makes them a poor technology for watching video)

of course the salesman just told you "lookie here, aint it nice, and it is FAST (and cheap), why bother with them fancier ones ?". and fast is about all they are good for, except that for 10 yrs or so most lcd monitors have been below 8 msec refresh rates, making them perfectly fine for most gaming to (but you will pay 50% more for them)

except that in il2 when you are trying to track a little black/grey square of 4 pixels against a gree/brown or white background, this "glittering pixel" (which cant make up its mind of exactly what shade of grey to display) stands out MUCH more then on a high quality monitor, pure coincidence, but it is why a select small group of people in these discussions keeps thinking the visibility problem is less severe (note: in the crt days we were all in the same boat, and most video cards and nearly all crt displays were 32 bit)

so your video car might be able to display 8 bit per primary color, but if your monitor is 6 bit limited that is all it will display

and one last thing, do you even know how to setup your il2 FoV so that it is correct for your monitor size ? (and the distance your eyes are from the screen). because many of the less informed people who keep saying they can see things most of us cant (pun intended), are in fact "gaming the game" by using lower FoV settings they they should and use it as a zoom magnifier to scan the ground or sky for things they actually would be able to see from a real plane cockpit

so either start informing yourself a little about how extensive this problem is, by searching the ubi forums for example (or simhq or combatsim), then setup your system FoV correctly, compare your TN 6 bit monitor it to a normal 8 bit monitor, and then find out what real visibility was like historically for ww2 fighter pilots and ground pounders. and then maybe look at what RL visibility is like from an aircraft cockpit to, just so you have an idea of what you CAN see in RL. failing all that, how about you go play somewhere else and stop interjecting in topics you know very little about :) its not a forum pissing contest, we are trying to exchange useful information and improve the SIMULATOR in its next incarnation.

Wow..All I can say, is that you guys have a looooooooooooooot of spare time to spend discussing about...what ever you talk about ! ;)
We need another update fast ! :grin:

Salute !

[BigC208]

@DC338. It's not a bug. It's something Oleg put in the game based on his research. I agree it can be anoying but everyone has it so it's still a level playing field. It would be nice if he could have that effect when a plane get's within 50 yards. That gives the stalker enough time to seal the deal.

I once got bounced by my boss from 45 degrees above and behind, flying a Pilatus p-3 right as I turned baseleg. I was flying a Cessna 310 light twin. I only heard him as he passed by at about 50 yards. Never saw or heard him coming. He had the sense of humor to tell me to better check for traffic in the pattern!

[swiss]

Thanks for compliments in the upper part - do you really expect me to read the rest of it?
However you deserve an "A" for effort.

Btw, you just managed to deflower my ignore list.
Congrats!

zapatista
This message is hidden because zapatista is on your ignore list.

Much better now.

http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/liebe/a018.gif

[Royraiden]

Cant you guys discuss this whole dot visibility issue here http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18473?

[Old_Canuck]

Thanks for compliments in the upper part - do you really expect me to read the rest of it?
However you deserve an "A" for effort.

Btw, you just managed to deflower my ignore list.
Congrats!



Much better now.

http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/liebe/a018.gif

Gotta love "ignore." With a bit of diligence and remembering to logon each time this forum can be a decent read.

[Insuber]

I've started to report all the posts here with flames, insults or OT. If you like to quarrel please do it in private, not in a public thread meant to be INFORMATIVE and RELEVANT.

Thank you.
6S.Insuber

[swiss]

Gotta love "ignore." With a bit of diligence and remembering to logon each time this forum can be a decent read.

You should try firefox, the password manager is a blessing(given you bookmark the sites correctly).
:cool:

thread meant to be INFORMATIVE and RELEVANT.

Actually this thread is dead already. In less than 24hrs we'll get a new update from Oleg.

[Royraiden]

You should try firefox, the password manager is a blessing(given you bookmark the sites correctly).
:cool:



Actually this thread is dead already. In less than 24hrs we'll get a new update from Oleg.

You guys killed it a few days ago with the silly and off topic dot visibility discussion.

[Insuber]

You should try firefox, the password manager is a blessing(given you bookmark the sites correctly).
:cool:



Actually this thread is dead already. In less than 24hrs we'll get a new update from Oleg.

You should read the first post of this thread, sometimes.

[swiss]

sorry.

(But: I've never seen OM or luthier come back when there were only 2 or 3 days left to the next Friday update. So, I'm not sure if we caused some real damage. ;) )

Edit:
Insuber; If he's absent he won't post in this thread anyway.

[zapatista]

I've started to report all the posts here with flames, insults or OT. If you like to quarrel please do it in private, not in a public thread meant to be INFORMATIVE and RELEVANT.

Thank you.
6S.Insuber

and i am reporting the meaningless reporter who wastes everybody's time reporting :)

my somewhat verbose response was entirely on topic, and informative i might point out and directly relates to one of the discussions that is threaded throughout this 70 page thread (3 or 4 posters independently raised concerns about visibility problems in il2)

many of those genuine and well known concerns were then met by the uninformed self gratifying banter from swiss who tried to minimize and dismiss the problem without even understanding it or having something meaningful to say, which in the end started to prevent further normal discussion on the topic.

the major gaps in his knowledge have been addressed by my last posts, and these didnt contain any excessively rude language. the fact he is now pretending to be a sensitive soul and turns out to have a glass jaw is rather funny, given his aggressive and persistently hostile attitude to many other genuine posters here over many months (not alluding to myself here).

[Tree_UK]

So is it all true what woman say, size does matter?

[kalimba]

So is it all true what woman say, size does matter?

Yep...On this forum , though, its brain size + ego size

And then you have : ....pixel size....monitor size...pilot's head size...marking size.....the screw-under-the-left-rudder size....size's size...:rolleyes:

Salute !

[meplay]

Yep...On this forum , though, its brain size + ego size

And then you have : ....pixel size....monitor size...pilot's head size...marking size.....the screw-under-the-left-rudder size....size's size...:rolleyes:

Salute !

hahaha comedy, made me laugh :P

[swiss]

As we won't get any update(probably) due to them attending a booth or something...

On February 11, in a computer club "eSports Arena (V. Getman, 13, metro Shulyavska) company" 1C: Multimedia "with the support of the shop" Area 51 "will hold a presentation of new games this season. The main highlight - four hits, which will show the creators of Electronic Arts, CD Projekt and 1C: Maddox: Crysis 2, The Witcher 2, IL-2: Battle of Britain and Bulletstorm. The main highlight - four hits, which will show the creators of Electronic Arts, CD Projekt and 1C: Maddox: Crysis 2, The Witcher 2, IL-2: Battle of Britain and Bulletstorm.

we should keep an eye on sukhoi.ru as some members from their site will actually be there.
I hope they are permitted to take pics.

[swiss]

nonsense

Zappa my friend!

I just changed my mind about he ignore list - putting you there is just childish.

I realized I could ignore you just like this.
Maybe you haven't noticed, it was not about the understanding of the issues you brought up - I just think are not of the slightest importance. Just some hairsplitting.
But then again, that's just me.

I'll also try not to keep myself out of your nitpicking threads.

You enjoy yourself, cheers.

[Hecke]

when Oleg is absent, there's still Luthier. Didn't he post updates earlier a couple of times. I don't see the problem. Like Oleg said, the vids we were told to be drowned by, are edited by Luthier anyway (translating, etc).

[Richie]

By the sounds of what's going on over in simhq you'd think this game was another CFS3 dead beat


Top 20 Reasons This Game Will Suck...That's my favorite


http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/forums/91/1/IL_2_Sturmovik_Cliffs_Of_Dover.html

[klem]

Cant you guys discuss this whole dot visibility issue here http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18473?

It's been done to death. Dots, id range, icons, etc etc etc.

The only thing we can hope is that Oleg has made a better job of matching what we see on screen with what the Mk1 eyeball sees in real life.

In six weeks time we'll pay our money and find out. Its all too late now to be going on about it.

[Abbeville-Boy]

By the sounds of what's going on over in simhq you'd think this game was another CFS3 dead beat


Top 20 Reasons This Game Will Suck...That's my favorite


http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/forums/91/1/IL_2_Sturmovik_Cliffs_Of_Dover.html


those guys belong in the
zoo
always nick pitting something
cod will impress us all on release
in the future will overwhelm us

[Necrobaron]

7. Due to controversy and complaints from veterans' families and holocaust survivors, the German side has been renamed "OpFor" and all references to German politics of the time period have been removed.

8. Due to licensing issues, the "Supermarine Spitfire" has been renamed "Supernavy Shootsflame".

:lol::lol::lol:

[Chivas]

I think spotting aircraft at a realistic distance is a very important aspect of any combat flight sim. If you can select a resolution to play the sim in the GUI then it should be quite easy for the game engine to display an appropriate amount of pixels for that resolution. This way the playing field is relatively level for everyones systems and settings. Unfortunately airmen physically challenged will be assigned a desk job.

[Blackdog_kt]

From reading the posts here i get the impression that it's not just the resolution, it's the dot pitch and that is a correlation of resolution used vs the monitor's size.

So, if they wanted to fix this issue they'd have to not only take the resolution into account (easily read from conf.ini) but also have some way of knowing the size of your monitor.

To be honest, i don't really know if they can do that last part easily or at all. Some monitors' model numbers might show up within windows and some not, or maybe it's a case of whether you bothered to install the relevant software and so on, so i don't know if it's possible for the sim to "sense" what kind of monitor size we are running.

[nearmiss]

The malcontents and cranks have finally gotten this thread into Trollville.

Guess it's time to lock and unsticky it.