Oleg Maddox's Room #1

[brando]

>>>"Basically it is a compromise for the online community who would not enjoy spending ten to twenty minutes going through realistic starts up procedures......"<<<

This is not correct. Ten or twenty minutes is way more than it took for a pilot to fire up his engine before a scramble for one simple reason - a pre-flight start-up and run-up had already been carried out by the ground crew. This was a customary procedure for all fighter planes that were placed on stand-by for immediate action, certainly in the RAF. In other words, the planes were already warmed up and required much less of a procedure than for a cold-start. Sometimes the pilot was involved in this morning preparation, but more likely it was carried out entirely by the fitter and the rigger. Often the pilot wasn't involved at all in the start-up.

A very good description is made by Geoffrey Wellum, a Spitfire pilot of 92 Squadron, in his book "First Light".

"........ the ringing phone still makes me jump. 'Squadron scramble base angels twelve.'
As one we all make a dive for the door..... I race for my Spitfire....I look and see my aeroplane now only a short distance away. The ground crew are starting up, the engine fires. There's my parachute hanging from the wingtip where I left it. I make a grab and begin to put it on. My rigger has already removed the starter plug and pulled the trolley clear. He climbs onto the starboard wing and waits by the cockpit. With my chute on I hobble round the trailing edge of the wing and up onto the walkway. With an agility that never ceases to amaze me, my fitter is out of the cockpit in a flash and putting his hand under my arm, almost lifting me into the cockpit ......."

Even a cold start is less complex than you suggest, due to the fact that the engine had already been run up and checked earlier. Here's a checklist, again taken from "First Light" from a flight that didn't involve a scramble

".... I fit my oxygen mask, R/T lead plugged in, also oxygen tube, that's OK. Release the Sutton harness lock and check the fuel gauges, full of course. Oxygen on and the needle flicks up to the full mark. Shouldn't need oxygen today but you never know. Elevator trim one degree nose heavy, full rudder bias, pitch full fine and controls free. A quick double check round. Everything looks good. Radiator shutter open, all right then, fuel on, ready for starting. Throttle open a little. Coolant temperature? Shows dead cold, OK so we will have to prime here. Give her six pumps on the Ki-Gas; I lean out of the cockpit.
'All clear?'
A thumbs up from the two stalwarts. 'Clear, sir.'
'Contact.'
'Contact, sir'
Mag switches on, press the starter button and booster coils at the same time and the starter engages with a metallic clang. The airscrew turns slowly, the engine fires, hesitates for just a second, kicks back and then starts with great puffs of smoke which momentarily engulf the cockpit. I adjust the throttle and the Merlin settles down and runs evenly as it warms up. The needle of the temperature gauge comes off the cold stop.....

So you see that there is not much more pilot involvement in the starting procedure than in IL-2. The work of getting aircraft alive after an overnight rest is very much the ground crew's job and can't be put at the pilot's door, as much as you might want to fantasise about it.
Most of the procedures, like setting up elevator trim, applying full rudder bias, manipulating the throttle and mixture, opening the radiator shutter, are all available to the conscientious IL2 pilot before he takes off.

I also deplore the instant spawn, engine on, hurtling dash across the runway that defines much of the dogfighting arena scene - but I suggest that the careful pilot who wants to fly off fully under control and also return, having completed his mission, is already offered most of the pre-launch option.

Twenty minutes, or even ten, isn't in it.

B

[Skarphol]

Think of how cool it would be to see and cooperate with the AI groundcrew during that procedure! For online play I guess it might be higly unpopular because it is timeconsuming, but offline? Great immersion!

Skarphol

[Thunderbolt56]

I'm all about running in a dead sprint to my idling aircraft, sliding into the prepped cockpit, taxiing to the runway and pinning the throttle to go meet Jerry.

More like 2 minutes I'd wager.

[brando]

Think of how cool it would be to see and cooperate with the AI groundcrew during that procedure! For online play I guess it might be higly unpopular because it is timeconsuming, but offline? Great immersion!

Skarphol

I agree, but with many reservations. Online or offline there is going to be an enormous amount of processing power required to show two interacting ground crew for every aircraft involved in a squadron scramble plus such items as My rigger has already removed the starter plug and pulled the trolley clear. He climbs onto the starboard wing and waits by the cockpit. With my chute on I hobble round the trailing edge of the wing and up onto the walkway. With an agility that never ceases to amaze me, my fitter is out of the cockpit in a flash and putting his hand under my arm, almost lifting me into the cockpit ..... and so on.
There will most likely be up to 11 other aircraft, pilots & crew carrying out similar manoeuvres in fairly close proximity, simultaneously. What price frame-rates if using external view, or even trackIR views come to that?

The more we introduce life-like figures the more careful we have to be in terms of sustaining the reality of the period modelled. I was impressed by the recent film-clip of a pilot briefing using life-like figures - except that none of them resembled a 1940s airman. Their haircuts were too long and none of them talked correctly for the time. While such details can be cleaned up perhaps, it's still asking a lot to reproduce a satisfactory picture of ground life at the instant before a scramble. I guarantee you will notice the bits that don't work far more than those which do.

I'm far more disposed to TB's sprint and go suggestion than getting bogged down in the complexities of mannequin animation.

B

[SlipBall]

Maybe the ground activity will be on a switch...I would think that such activity would be better off, for use by off-liner's...unless of course that Oleg can pull it off for both

[tagTaken2]

I'm sure someone has already suggested it, but could be a pay for patch, or something we could mod for offline only. Let us hope, anyway.

[SlipBall]

After giving this a little thought, I would quess that any ground crew activity would be placed in by the mission designer. So, off-line, on-line, it will all be up to the designer of the map/mission. He could limit the amount of such activity, so as to lessen demand on procesor's

[Skoshi Tiger]

I was just watching some world war two footage of Australian Beaufighters operating out of Port Moresby. One thing that I noticed was when a bomb whent off in the water the spray driffed down wind. (Pritty bleeding obvious but it was the first time I'ld noticed it!!!)

In Bob we are getting dynamic weather and wind, so my question is in Bob will the spray effect from splashes in the water be effected by Wind?

Will ordinace that is released be effected by wind?

It may not sound like much, but if your following another bomber in, all that information can be used to help correct your own bombing.

[Igo kyu]

in Bob will the spray effect from splashes in the water be effected by Wind?

Will ordinace that is released be effected by wind?
IMVHO, these are very different things.

Bombs are heavy, and are large enough that their surface area is relatively small, so the wind will not affect them much. In real life wind affected bombing, no doubt, but the effect will have been less than 1%, really not worth bothering about if it's going to take a lot of processor time, which it conceivably might do.

Spray is lots of little water droplets, and their small size means they have a very large surface area. As such, they are much affected by wind. Also, they can perhaps be treated as a lump, like smoke is, so it might be relatively easy to model spray being blown by the wind.

[proton45]

IMVHO, these are very different things.

Bombs are heavy, and are large enough that their surface area is relatively small, so the wind will not affect them much. In real life wind affected bombing, no doubt, but the effect will have been less than 1%, really not worth bothering about if it's going to take a lot of processor time, which it conceivably might do.

Spray is lots of little water droplets, and their small size means they have a very large surface area. As such, they are much affected by wind. Also, they can perhaps be treated as a lump, like smoke is, so it might be relatively easy to model spray being blown by the wind.


You could be right...but wasn't wind direction (drift) one of the settings on the "Norden bombsight"? I think that the "Jet Stream" was a big issue when they tried to drop bombs over Japan...

[Lazarus]

Oleg,
I thought you might find it interesting what we do with your simulator even after all these years!

Come and see the fun we have because of you! :o
Let me know you stopped by!

www.uslglobal.com

[Bobb4]

This is not correct. Ten or twenty minutes is way more than it took for a pilot to fire up his engine before a scramble for one simple reason - a pre-flight start-up and run-up had already been carried out by the ground crew. This was a customary procedure for all fighter planes that were placed on stand-by for immediate action, certainly in the RAF. In other words, the planes were already warmed up and required much less of a procedure than for a cold-start. Sometimes the pilot was involved in this morning preparation, but more likely it was carried out entirely by the fitter and the rigger. Often the pilot wasn't involved at all in the start-up.



B

I was refering to the bombers such as the H111.
Realistic start up procedures from start to finish will only be fun for a while, used once or twice then disabled.
Your version that the ground crew will do it all for you kind-of defeats your argument to have it enabled in the first place...

[brando]

I was refering to the bombers such as the H111.
Realistic start up procedures from start to finish will only be fun for a while, used once or twice then disabled.
Your version that the ground crew will do it all for you kind-of defeats your argument to have it enabled in the first place...

I don't think I was arguing anything of the sort. I was just quoting a real pilot's experiences and suggesting that ten or twenty minutes is not needed to launch a fighter that has been prepared by its ground crew as was customary for both the RAF and the Luftwaffe.
I don't actually think the bomber crews spent that amount of time preparing either. Once again, the donkey work had been done by ground crew, so I think 5 minutes would be plenty, followed by taxiing onto the field and awaiting the starting flare.
It's more interesting to know whether bomber crews will want to spend the time forming up over France (often 10 or 20 minutes or longer) so that they can adopt the customary formations and cross the Channel at 15,000 feet. Therein lies the interesting question as far as bombers are concerned. Off-line reality-seekers may do this, possibly using a time-acceleration key to stave off the boredom ..... but I wonder what the IL2 dogfight arena types will make of it? Will they just jump in their Spits and 109s, tear diagonally across the field at full-bore and go looking for a T'n'B at 0 feet over the middle of the Channel, bitching because they haven't got an La7 or a FW A8 or a P51?

Personally I hope that there will be a short period of preparation before any plane is ready to take off, either off-line or on. As the quotes from Geoffrey Wellum suggest, it's not very long and is done very quickly. Taxiing from the dispersed position to the runway should be made mandatory in my opinion, and there should always be a chocks removal operation before that commences. Not the "rev to full power, release 'chocks', sprint away" fudge for carrier take-offs, IL2 style, but the removal of the wedges used to hold the plane still on engine start up that was used for all aircraft. Then the taxi-out, and then a smooth take-off that doesn't involve pushing the throttle through the gate followed by manually pumping up the undercarriage (Spitfires). These are certainly the steps I would like to enable in any co-op that I host, and I wouldn't fly in a D/F arena that didn't impose these kind of checks.

B

[JG52Uther]

What would really help in D/F servers is if individual scores were turned OFF,maybe a server setting.In my squad we would love to spend time forming up in bombers,and flying in formation to target,and get engaged over the target,but in il2 you are more likely to get engaged by some clown just after take off by someone who doesn't care if they get shot down.
SoW needs to be more realistic in this aspect,and I think its one of the reasons that a lot of the more serious flyers rarely use D/F servers.

[Igo kyu]

You could be right...but wasn't wind direction (drift) one of the settings on the "Norden bombsight"? I think that the "Jet Stream" was a big issue when they tried to drop bombs over Japan...
That sounds probable. I don't know about the Norden bomb sight, but the aircraft flies in the air, so the windspeed affects the speed or track of the aircraft over the ground, you'd need to allow for that. The only time wind would affect the flight of a bomb other than in that way would be if there was significant wind shear, so the wind at altitude was in a different direction or strength than nearer the ground. It's the latter that I think is probably negligible most of the time.

I don't remember (my memory is terrible) about the jetstream being a problem over Japan. Incendiaries, which were used against Japan, would be much more affected by wind than big iron cased explosive bombs.

[Skarphol]

Hi!

I think the jetstream caused most problemes for navigating long distances over water. The existance of jetstreams was not known to the crews until quite late in the war. The pilots had never had problems with jetstreams until the B-29's started to fly very high for long periodes of time. I don't think jetstreams affected bomb aiming in any serious way once the bombers had reached their targets.

Skarphol

[proton45]

Hi!

I think the jetstream caused most problemes for navigating long distances over water. The existance of jetstreams was not known to the crews until quite late in the war. The pilots had never had problems with jetstreams until the B-29's started to fly very high for long periodes of time. I don't think jetstreams affected bomb aiming in any serious way once the bombers had reached their targets.

Skarphol


Although I can't find any specific charts on the effect of "drift" on ordinance once dropped from the aeroplane...I don't think that they would have included an analog computer (to compute the wind "drift") in the Norden bombsite if it wasn't an important calculation. (even a miscalculation of 10 mph could mean a 170 foot bombing error at 20,000) I suppose that "wind drift" is the kind of detail that some people could find important in a "air combat sim" (and some others would like "clickable cockpits"_lol).

[Igo kyu]

Although I can't find any specific charts on the effect of "drift" on ordinance once dropped from the aeroplane...I don't think that they would have included an analog computer (to compute the wind "drift") in the Norden bombsite if it wasn't an important calculation. (even a miscalculation of 10 mph could mean a 170 foot bombing error at 20,000) I suppose that "wind drift" is the kind of detail that some people could find important in a "air combat sim" (and some others would like "clickable cockpits"_lol).
Notice that the line of the drifting bombs is straight. This is because it is relative to a straight nose on view of the aircraft. If there is a cross wind, the aeroplane has to fly with it's nose toward the wind a bit, so the line it is flying along is actually the line over the bombs, but it's nose is pointed into the wind a bit, so it looks as if its not going in quite the same direction. The drift is the difference between the line the aircraft is flying along, and the direction it's nose is pointing in.

[robtek]

one thing that could be used to stop the
"jump in their Spits and 109s, tear diagonally across the field at full-bore and go looking for a T'n'B at 0 feet over the middle of the Channel, bitching because they haven't got an La7 or a FW A8 or a P51?" - players would be if the engine would react as it was then, with a seize or at least with much reduced power.

[brando]

one thing that could be used to stop the
"jump in their Spits and 109s, tear diagonally across the field at full-bore and go looking for a T'n'B at 0 feet over the middle of the Channel, bitching because they haven't got an La7 or a FW A8 or a P51?" - players would be if the engine would react as it was then, with a seize or at least with much reduced power.

I couldn't agree more! While I accept that there needs to be an element of relaxed realism for the gamey d/f arenas if only to make sales, let's hope the other end of the scale is a more true rendition of the mechanical side of flight.

B

[Baco]

Obviously people have not read what Qleg has said on the matter.
Basically it is a compromise for the online community who would not enjoy spending ten to twenty minutes going through realistic starts up procedures.
.

Sorry mate, everybody that posted afte rme is an On line Onlly il2 pilot, as well as me. Some of us just want a little extra condiment, for our on line coops.
I seat infront of my compter to pretend I am a WWII Pilot, not to learn how to win in a new game with planes in a DF arena...

You talk about not wanting to wait till my flight is ready to take off.. Well its the same argument for taxiing and taking off instead of caranking WEP at 110% and just take off on the grass on the heading you apear in the game...
Then aggain, why even wait to take off?...

That argument is not consistent. If you can wait to taxi and take off, you can also wait 5 minutes to turn on your engine.. You cna go Black Sharks way wicth has a compleatlly cold star but has a switch taht will enable the IA to turn the helicopter on for you. In an on line session that ,means a little time to coordinate the mission via TS or the like...
By the way the shark doesn´t take more than a couple of minutes to be ready to fly.. and its a bit more complex than a WWII machine...

I am not talking about waiting 20 minutes ti´ll the plane is ready, I mean flicking a few more swithces that actually do something usefull, not like magnetos on il2. And if that is how its going to be, Well GRATE! thas all we are asking for...

About transfering fuel. Man that should be mandatory. It is damage modeling too, and even better, damage control modeling....witch to me is as important as balistics on cannons and machingunes or rates of turn... The ability to conserve and save fuel was the diifference between a hot bunk or a cold trench if luky, out in the enemies side of the lines... and what made self sealing tanks such and important feacture in late WWII fighters adn bombers. Also dictated doctrine, on witch tanks to use first in order to gain an advantage with your plane....

And A friend asked me to ask, so here is an easy to answer question: Is data going to be managed like in Il2 via a .TXT log? The reason I ask is becouse lots of campaigns n line use that that a to create a dynamic world and ot would be grate if SOW series used a simmilar way to extract information about what hapened in a givne mission. Specialy to be able to control tournament missions and stuff like on lien wars...

Thank you in advance.

[robtek]

In addition to my previous post i would like to see a realistic simulated workload for the pilot because the german planes generally were not as demanding as the allied planes at this time, also the seat position in german planes allowed higher g-loads before blackening out then in the allied planes. That i would like to see simulated too.

[Snuff_Pidgeon]

In addition to my previous post i would like to see a realistic simulated workload for the pilot because the german planes generally were not as demanding as the allied planes at this time, also the seat position in german planes allowed higher g-loads before blackening out then in the allied planes. That i would like to see simulated too.+1

[Bobb4]

The irony of all these questions about extra detail in start-up is that Oleg has already said no!
It was in a Sticky thread called Oleg Answers. That thread is now gone and everyone is asking questions that Oleg has already answered.
This is what Oleg had to say on the subject of complex start-up

2. Maybe a bit more complex, but maybe anyway by one button. It is still diputable in our team. But sure we wiill not copy rweal procedures for each aircraft. Fist becasue it is tioo much time eater in development. Second, becasue if to do, then to do it really correct, but not like others WWII sims developer declare that they have it realistic. Enough to compare with real manual the item "preparing for fligth(take off, or so)"...
The main thing is that most active people will play online our sim and opnly periodically - single play. In online gameplay the procedure for real starting engine will limit very much gameplay, so we MUST go there fro compromises with reality. The only real starting procedure will reduce interest for the gameplay very much... as well as some other real features (like real ACTUAL time of refueling and reloading) - then you will get German or Russian plane ready more quiker than British or US.... This will damage the online gameplay be sure...

[SlipBall]

The irony of all these questions about extra detail in start-up is that Oleg has already said no!
It was in a Sticky thread called Oleg Answers. That thread is now gone and everyone is asking questions that Oleg has already answered.
This is what Oleg had to say on the subject of complex start-up

2. Maybe a bit more complex, but maybe anyway by one button. It is still diputable in our team. But sure we wiill not copy rweal procedures for each aircraft. Fist becasue it is tioo much time eater in development. Second, becasue if to do, then to do it really correct, but not like others WWII sims developer declare that they have it realistic. Enough to compare with real manual the item "preparing for fligth(take off, or so)"...
The main thing is that most active people will play online our sim and opnly periodically - single play. In online gameplay the procedure for real starting engine will limit very much gameplay, so we MUST go there fro compromises with reality. The only real starting procedure will reduce interest for the gameplay very much... as well as some other real features (like real ACTUAL time of refueling and reloading) - then you will get German or Russian plane ready more quiker than British or US.... This will damage the online gameplay be sure...



Yes I remember the disapointment that I felt when reading that...I don't see why they could'nt just put it on a difficulty switch...then everyone would be happy:)

[C6_Krasno]

Yes I remember the disapointment that I felt when reading that...I don't see why they could'nt just put it on a difficulty switch...then everyone would be happy:)You have the answer in the post you quoted : "Fist becasue it is tioo much time eater in development. "

Is it so difficult to understand ?

[Lazarus]

I don't know....I may be wrong.... But it seems a little late in the game to say, "I would like to see." As if they are still in the design faze?

I would think that what is going to be "seen" is done. The buttons to be pushed, and the levers to be pulled, the check lists to be checked, fuel mixtures to be mixed, which wing to mix them in, and whether or not you want it on the rocks with a straw, are probably mute topics. :P

I would hope they're past that point by now......I could be wrong...but I hope not:grin:

[C6_Krasno]

Lazarus;58154']I would hope they're past that point by now......I could be wrong...but I hope not:grin:
IIRC, Oleg said that all switches were animated, but that they hadn't written the code so that we can use all of them in game, and that he let it to "masochists".

[Antoninus]

The irony of all these questions about extra detail in start-up is that Oleg has already said no!
It was in a Sticky thread called Oleg Answers. That thread is now gone and everyone is asking questions that Oleg has already answered.


I don't think people waste their time when they ask for certain features again and again even if Oleg has already answered the questions before. At least they show him that there are people who care for realism and maybe he will consider some of our wishes in future SOW sims or add ons.

Oleg also said that it will be possible for 3rd party add on makers to make more complex aircraft with more realistic procedures, just as they do for MSFS. At least I am satisfied with this and don't expect that I can get a complete sim with several douzend highly detailed flyables for the price of one or two highly detailed MSFS add ons, especially since his team seems to be very small.

[SlipBall]

You have the answer in the post you quoted : "Fist becasue it is tioo much time eater in development. "

Is it so difficult to understand ?


In fact it is...take the time, invest the energy, to produce a sim that is a desent simulator.;)

[C6_Krasno]

I guess you knows Oleg's job better than himself then.

[Bobb4]

Whoever removed the Oleg Answers thread can they edit it and return it as a sticky again.
People keep asking questions already asked a 1000 times which makes Oleg's job harder.
I transplanted some of what he said to our SA site but a lot is missing.

To answer the gunner question Oleg has indicated that a moral system and real world physics will play a roll.

Their will be ground activity but do not expect a FPS.
Rearming and refueling will be in, but this will not be 100% acurately modeled to assist online play.

[proton45]

Whoever removed the Oleg Answers thread can they edit it and return it as a sticky again.
People keep asking questions already asked a 1000 times which makes Oleg's job harder.
I transplanted some of what he said to our SA site but a lot is missing.

To answer the gunner question Oleg has indicated that a moral system and real world physics will play a roll.

Their will be ground activity but do not expect a FPS.
Rearming and refueling will be in, but this will not be 100% acurately modeled to assist online play.


People don't want to read Olegs old posts...they don't believe anything Oleg has said in the past. They only believe what they want to believe. (lol)

[Baco]

The irony of all these questions about extra detail in start-up is that Oleg has already said no!

We were hoping he might have changed his mind....


The main thing is that most active people will play online our sim and opnly periodically - single play. In online gameplay the procedure for real starting engine will limit very much gameplay, so we MUST go there fro compromises with reality.

Oh I see.. then why not make it so you can jump out of the cockpit with a PPSh-41 in your hand and take over the enemy base.. That would add intensity for sure...

By the way, its ok if it´s not real switch by switch procedures. That would be imposible to replicate for every plane that I hope will come out for the SOW sereies. And I understand that it takes away development time. Still, we want a simulation. For a Game we allready have Birds of Pray Il-2 Sturmovick...

And aggain, I have never single played Il-2 Sturmovick. Check the squadrons, see how many dogfight squads are out there and how many serious coops simulation squads...

Anyway Thank you for your replays. It was very enlightning, and I am sorry to be so critic.
I was hoping for a little more compelxity.

[SlipBall]

I'm not convinced that most SOW player's will play on-line. I think the majority who bought IL2, have many hour's of flight time off-line. :-P

[KG26_Alpha]

Ok

Oleg says no.

So............ just make a panel with loads of switches .....stick labels over/under them with what you want it to do....flick switch ....make appropriate noise with mouth/lips to "simulate" the switches effect, go through procedure till "You" are happy all switches are done in correct order and all appropriate noises have been made, salute the ground crew where applicable, give big smile as you head off down the runway.

This should meet the "clickpit" mob half way and "simstartup" guys.

Ok lets move on now please :)

http://rossmeeks.ca/sim_pit/panel1_switches_small.JPG

[Fossil-Goz]

Ok

Oleg says no.

So............ just make a panel with loads of switches .....stick labels over/under them with what you want it to do....flick switch ....make appropriate noise with mouth/lips to "simulate" the switches effect, go through procedure till "You" are happy all switches are done in correct order and all appropriate noises have been made, salute the ground crew where applicable, give big smile as you head off down the runway.

This should meet the "clickpit" mob half way and "simstartup" guys.

Ok lets move on now please :)

http://rossmeeks.ca/sim_pit/panel1_switches_small.JPG



Ding Ding Ding - we have a winner

Remember to flick your humour switch to ON!

:)

[Baco]

:D Good one guys!

but I allready have the switches...

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/8108/cpckpit1fh0.th.jpg (http://img99.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cpckpit1fh0.jpg)

I need a nice sim to use them with ;).
cheers!

[Baco]

But OK changing teh subject: Regarding the Log.
Will SOW have a simmilar system of logging what happens in missions?
Can some one elaborate on that please?

[Eckhart]

:oops:
I forgot one thing :

It's completely plug-and-play with any OS :Windows 2000, Me, XP, Vista, MacOSX : no driver is needed.

We will soon release a video to show the travel of the stick : it's really a different kind of controlling . :D

good fly !

:confused:
Sorry Trollbug but I ordered your joystick together with the throttle and this was 3 months ago. Nothing since except a mail indicating that they were finishing the paintjob and that I should receive everything in 10 days max. This was a month ago. Perhaps your group makes high-end joysticks but communication is not very strong. Tarmac's contact e-mail never answers and you didn't answer the private message I sent you asking for help....

I hope that the quality of the product is better than that because this is a LOT OF MONEY I invested here...:cry:

Eckhart

[Abbeville-Boy]

:confused: I was thinking to get one for xmas, I better wait on that

[C6_Trollbug]

:confused:
Sorry Trollbug but I ordered your joystick together with the throttle and this was 3 months ago. Nothing since except a mail indicating that they were finishing the paintjob and that I should receive everything in 10 days max. This was a month ago. Perhaps your group makes high-end joysticks but communication is not very strong. Tarmac's contact e-mail never answers and you didn't answer the private message I sent you asking for help....

I hope that the quality of the product is better than that because this is a LOT OF MONEY I invested here...:cry:

Eckhart

Eckhart ,
Your KG13 and throttle were ready 2 monthes ago , but we are still waiting a steel part of the Universal Base , manufactured by a third-party firm (it's a part we can't do ourself). We learnt 15 days ago that they forgot our order ! :-[[
My last visit here was 3 weeks ago , that's why I didn't answered your MP , sorry ...

[Eckhart]

Thx for your fast answer Trollbug.
A Rolls-Royce isn't build in a day and this should be the Rolls-Royce of the Joysticks:). As long as the quality is what it promises to be I am happy with the time needed to produce it. I know that you guys are busy but a little e-mail informing about the manufacturing progress and its possible delays would have reassured me;)
Once I will have received everything, I plan to continue my thread about "the stuff dreams are made off" in order to let everybody know how this can change your flight experience:cool:
If this works out, I hope that perhaps one day I will be able to save enough money to buy the great rudder you guys just put on the market (and replace my old Simped which did an excellent job so far).

I am looking forward to your advice on how to set up this configuration...

Thx again,

Cheers,

Eckhart

[proton45]

Wow...Thanks for the up-date Oleg!

1) Will the details of the "AAA" system be extended to the whole "map-world"? For example: If a power station or power-lines (cables) are damaged will buildings loose power (lights in the dark/night) and effect defense systems (like phones)???

2) I would love to see some London "urban/city" screen caps...

[SlipBall]

Very nice detail...I wonder what they would look like after being strafed, individual bullet impact sites in the timbers?...

[Jaws2002]

I see really high attention to detail in the way the AAA systems are modeled.
We will be able to man some of those guns and looks like all the needed systems are modeled. My question is:

Are we going to be able to use the whole ranging/aiming system while we man the guns, for those guns that had it, or the gunsight will be simply fixed with the barell?

I'd love to be able to adjust the gunsight depending on the speed and altitude of the target. Many AAA systems had this devices. Not close to the acuracy/speed of modern complex systems that work almost instantly, but sure helped.
I see the ranging system right in those new updates screens.

http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/vvv-03_03.jpg
Many AAA systems had this devices.

[Jaws2002]

Here are some of the German Heavy AAA aiming/ range finding systems in use during WW2:

http://home.no.net/angrc9/bilde3/fykse3.jpg

the EM 4 m R (H) 34 or 36, the Entfernungsmesser 4 m
Raumbild (Hochenmesser) 34 or 36, a standard 4 m-class rangefinder of heavy antiaircraft batteries.
It (as well as a newer, slightly different Em 4m R 40) could be used as a free standing on a tripod base,
as seen here - in co-operation with the Kdo.Hi.Ger. 35, or coupled directly with the Kdo.Ger. 36 or Kdo.Ger. 40.
The Em 4 m R (H) 34 or 36 were manned by 4 men (3 aimers and a commander) and could measure ranges
from 620 m (670 m in case of the model 34) to 50 000 m, as well as target's altitude.

http://home.no.net/angrc9/bilde3/fykse2.jpg

Kdo.Hi.Ger. 35 or Kommando Hilfsgeraet 35, an antiaircraft artillery command
device used as the secondary unit of a heavy antiaircraft battery (cal. 8,8 cm upwards), the primary unit
being either the Kdo.Ger. 36 or the Kdo.Ger. 40, both of them, as opposed to this one, were more complex,
coupled with a 4 m-class rangefinder and offered electric wire transmission of calculated elevation, traverse
and fuse setting to the guns. Range was given to the Kdo.Hi.Ger. 35 verbally from a free standing 4 m rangefinder,
while target's traverse and elevation were observed with two optical sights visible on both sides of the device.
Calculated values were given to the guns verbally via a phone line. The Kdo.Hi.Ger. 35 together with an
accompanying rangefinder were manned by 14 men, 9 of them operating the command device alone.

I'd love to be able to put all those poor men at work.:-P

[slm]

I wonder if this new AAA system will include how info about enemy planes is shown to players? In IL2 we have the map which shows icons for planes, mission objectives etc. Will this part of the game also change so that let's say if a radar is destroyed in some part of the map, then information about planes flying in some area will be less accurate?

[nearmiss]

Now we just need some peoples to shoot the guns, operate the lights, drive the trucks and not look like stick men.

[dflion]

The attention to detail is fantastic. Thanks for this update Oleg. Radar was certainly a critical part of the British defence system during the BOB - are you also working on the much larger British Radar towers located along the coastline?

Keep up the good work - we are all patiently waiting for the release of BOB.

DFLion

[Feuerfalke]

The attention to detail is fantastic. Thanks for this update Oleg. Radar was certainly a critical part of the British defence system during the BOB - are you also working on the much larger British Radar towers located along the coastline?

Keep up the good work - we are all patiently waiting for the release of BOB.

DFLion

You mean like this:

http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=046ti.jpg
(SOW:BOB from 2005)

Or these?
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/PCG171-2.jpg
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/cap022.jpg
(IIRC from 1946 DVD)

Or this?
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/c127d6cd.jpg
(Another early shot)

Nah, I'd expect they'll simply drop it.

[zapatista]

Oleg,

thx for providing another update ! having the various radar/searchlight/AA-guns components all linked together to be in working effective order is a great idea, knocking out one element of the chain then makes the whole unit dysfunctional until the broken unit is replaced X amount of time later (i hope the X time delay will vary depending on the type of parts/components damaged)

can you plz answer this question:

i hope your idea is taken one logical step further in the dynamic campaign !

in the dynamic campaign we should be able to disrupt/block the supply chain to airfields and frontline troops as well, so that new munitions and replacement parts (new search lights, generators, fuel, aircraft parts etc..) are not being replaced instantly by "magic" like it is now in il2.

in the BoB dynamic campaign any new supplies and fuel etc (including new search lights if they have been completely destroyed) needs to be first re-supplied to that location by road or rail (or air), before they can become functional again. obviously minor structural damage (electricity lines, ammunition for an AA gun etc) only need a simple X time delay for minor repair, but if a whole searchlight is bombed, it should mean a new searchlight needs to be transported to that location, if all bridges and railway tracks to that sector are destroyed, then it should mean no new searchlight will re-appear at that location till these roads/bridges/railway-lines are repaired (taking Z time for ex).

iirc in mig alley you could disrupt the enemy supply lines by destroying bridges, railway lines, truck convoys etc, and it took the enemy X amount of time to repair/rebuilt them. if you kept them disrupted/damaged (by bombing a specific bridge one per day, or hitting truck convoys every night on the same road),then eventually the front line troops started to run out of munitions and it weakened their fighting strength, just as it did during the korean war in real life when the supply lines were deliberately targeted by the UN.

in your flightsim this should mean we can block the resupply of fuel and parts replacement aircraft being available) to a frontline airfield, and force the enemy to only start using other airfields. this is exactly relevant to BoB, where the germans by mistake (on orders of goering), stopped attacking repeatedly the english bases in the south of england, and switch to attacking cities instead, hence allowing the brittish some "breathing space" to recover and repair their southern most bases in england (which is what allowed them to win BoB eventually)

this is how a dynamic campaign should work, i hope it will be done like this in BoB

[III/JG11_Tiger]

Zapatista, most of what you want is available now if you use the scorched earth campaign engine

[Robert]

Radar, shmadar...... I'm waiting for the carrot mod. ;o)

Thanks for the update Oleg and crew. I still maintain we're in a great time to be a flight simmer.

[Skarphol]

Are we going to be able to use the whole ranging/aiming system while we man the guns, for those guns that had it, or the gunsight will be simply fixed with the barell?


As a sidenote: I was in the Norwegian Coastal Artillery in 1988-1990 and we had the Bofors 40mm/L60 as pictured. Even then the sights was fixed with the barrel. We would (sometimes) get info over radio from radarstations as to where planes was supposed to emerge from, but mostly there would be no information at all.
I think the 40mm/L60 was phased out a very short time after I quit in 1990, but the slightly more advanced Bofors 40mm/L70 lingered one for another 10 years or so.

I remember once on an exersize we got message over radio "the area is now clear of enemy planes!" and as the last word was spoken 4 'enemy' Vought A-7 Corsairs flew so low over our cannon that we allmost had to duck. So much for Norwegian air defence radars...

Skarphol

[Flying_Nutcase]

Hi Oleg,

Awesome screenshots!

As you will know, the Intel Core i7 is almost here. Apparently in the middle of next year they'll be introducing an 8-core beast. Will Storm of War be optimised for 8-core processors? It's clearly the future!

Happy coding,


Flying Nutcase

[Wolf_Rider]

LOL Oleg... wot's with the cranky bunny in your last screenshots release?


http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/vvv-03_02.jpg

[proton45]

A Question For Oleg.



1) This is sort of an odd, specific question regarding ground objects...but, will power lines, and telephone poles/lines be modeled?

And...

2) Will the urban infrastructure be modeled into campaign mode?? To be specific...will power/electricity and water lines/pipes be modeled into the campaign dynamics/damage modeling... EXAMPLE: if you take out a dam or the city's "water mains" the fire dept can not put out burning fires (from bombing), thus effecting moral and production.

Thanks Oleg...

[brando]

A Question For Oleg.



1) This is sort of an odd, specific question regarding ground objects...but, will power lines, and telephone poles/lines be modeled?

And...

2) Will the urban infrastructure be modeled into campaign mode?? To be specific...will power/electricity and water lines/pipes be modeled into the campaign dynamics/damage modeling... EXAMPLE: if you take out a dam or the city's "water mains" the fire dept can not put out burning fires (from bombing), thus effecting moral and production.

Thanks Oleg...

Modelling morale? You can't be serious? :D And tying that to productivity is fairly tenuous as well, as the strategies of both Goering, re London and elsewhere, and Harris, re Germany, proved. The only true way to deter productivity is to obliterate the factories, not the workers' morale.

B

[Antoninus]

2) Will the urban infrastructure be modeled into campaign mode?? To be specific...will power/electricity and water lines/pipes be modeled into the campaign dynamics/damage modeling... EXAMPLE: if you take out a dam or the city's "water mains" the fire dept can not put out burning fires (from bombing), thus effecting moral and production.

If you destroy the fresh water pipes sanitation will become worse, more workers get ill and productivity will decrease. Or better, if you drop any kind of poison in their lake and leave the dam intact all workers and firefighters will be out of action for a while and productivity will be decreased even more.

Seriously where do you want to draw a line? It's a flight sim , not the ultimate WWII strategy game. Why not implement the feature to write propaganda leaflets and drop them above enemy cities. If you are convincing enough peole may overthrow their government and change sides.

[dflion]

Thanks Feuerfalke for posting these pics - they were first posted in 2005 - just shows you how time has slipped away during the development of BOB-SOW - it will still be very worth the wait when finally released.
DFLion

[zapatista]

Zapatista, most of what you want is available now if you use the scorched earth campaign engine

no it doesnt, because in scorched earth
1) it does not occur in real time while the server is running
2) the scorched earth system is still "scripted missions" that are planned one at a time by human intervention, and it is then played one mission at a time as a coop server.

what we need in a true dynamic campaign engine (similar to the old mig alley, or the falcon 4 engine), where the "in game world" is proceeding over a number of weeks according to its own inbuilt scenario (and if left undisturbed or without human intervention will arrive at its pre-scripted conclusion). but small scale interventions by humans interacting with that virtual world should have a direct effect in real time, presuming their intervention is on a significant enough scale to be relevant (eg destroying the complete fuel storage area at an airfield, versus just destroying one part of it) . we should be able to directly affect what is happening in the game in real time, for ex
- destroying fuel storage at an airfield means for X amount of time no fuel is available from that field
- destroying a bridge means trains supplies cant reach their destination untill that bridge is repaired in X time
- replacement aircraft for a squadron at an airfield are flown in at semi regular intervals by AI, shooting down those replacement aircraft reduces new aircraft availability at that airfield
- whatever aircraft (new, or being repaired etc..) that are available at an airfield should actually be visible at that airfield (in hangers out of sight, or out in the open etc..), destroying aircraft on the ground should then mean those aircraft destroyed are not available anymore for X amount of time (till replacements arrive, or damaged ones are repaired after X amount of time). ie people who spawn at that airfield can only choose an aircraft if it is actually available there.

those are fairly simple elements of a dynamic campaign that make the world you fly in "come alive", actions have consequences and directly affect what happens in the game. adding some factors like that while the game is being designed is important, adding them later will be much harder. it doesnt need to take much computing power either, it can be done in a fairly basic way if needed.

mig alley and falcon 4 are each about 10 years old now, yet those types of dynamic campaigns still set the benchmark. it should in 2009 be possible to have a basic version like that integrated in BoB. oleg is obviously thinking in that general direction, because his last post refers to some of those integration factors, hence my question.

ps: the question was directed at Oleg, if you want to discuss it start a separate thread

[Flyby]

I did search, but I haven't found anything relevant, so I'll ask Oleg about AI pilots this way: If in building a mission I assign Stukas to bomb a convoy, and the lead AI Stuka sinks a targeted transport ship, will the other Stukas of the flight break off and target other ships in the convoy? I noticed in IL2 if I assign a flight of Kamikaze planes to attack a ship, and the first plane sinks that ship the other planes tend to mill around instead of attacking other ships in the area. Anyone?
thanks!
Flyby out

[csThor]

zapatista

Unfortunately one reason why campaign engines as Falcon4 and MiGAlley/BoB are still considered state of the art is that they broke their creators's backs. Falcon4 bancrupted Microprose (and didn't work properly for a long time) and the same can be said about Rowan. Such engines - done correctly, which is the key phrase here - cost a lot of time and manpower to develop. And these "commodities" are the rarest in nowadays game development industry. Unfortunately ...

[III/JG11_Tiger]

Zapatista, I get what you mean, but my squad flew ongoing campaigns against AG51 for a couple of years and we enjoyed many of the features you require, unfortunately there was a need for quite a bit of planning input, but we had tanks running out of fuel etc and supply was important to keep airfields active and many more features, maybe Oleg could speak to the developers of SE, as knowing one of the team that created SE, I am fairly sure that a lot of what you require could be added if SE was built into SOW, it will be interesting to see what maddox games comes up with.

[dflion]

Hope the following answer helps your query 99thFlyby.

When making campaigns in IL2 1946, at the beginning you often see 'Select the highest rank before commencing the campaign'. This then puts you in command of the whole flight/squadron. Using the 'Pilot voice commands' (TAB) you now have total control of your flight/squadron.
To stop your Stukas repeatedly attacking the convoy you select the 'Tactical voice command' then select 'rejoin' - your Stukas will break-off their attacks and rejoin you.
You can then issue new commands to attack new targets - once you have 'padlocked/highlighted' them either in the air or on the ground.

To take this a bit further, I would imagine Oleg is working on new dynamic set of pilot voice commands for SOW/BOB which will give us all much more control than with IL2. For example -if your leader is shot down your wingman may take-over command (you may be flying as a wingman). You may see a new 'voice command' - 'Takeover command' which will immediately give you 'leader status' with all the necessary command privileges to command your flight/squadron.
Ground control will be much more comprehensive in SOW/BOB, for example 'climb to 3,000m', target distance 5kl, vector 120 degrees etc. I would be interested in having some futher discussion with this aspect of the game.

Zapatista - I fully agree with your comments - SOW/BOB must have a true dynamic campaign engine.

DFLion

[Flyby]

dflion,
thanks for the input, but per youtr example I'd want the Stukas to keep attacking ships. What i would not want, per mission building, is for a flight to stop attacking even after the designated target for that flight was destroyed. In other words I'd like for a flight to seek other targets. Per my Kamikaze flight example, once the designated target was destroyed (by the lead plane, or any plane), the other planes in the flight would not attack other targets. I want the AI to attak other targets even if the flight lead is dead. I should have added that in my example, the flight lead of the Kamikaze flight was an AI pilot. I'd want an AI Stuka to attack other ships even if the AI leader of that flight was shot down. I'm asking if the AI will seek other targets in SOW if the assgined target is destroyed.
thanks!
Flyby out

[dflion]

dflion,
thanks for the input, but per youtr example I'd want the Stukas to keep attacking ships. What i would not want, per mission building, is for a flight to stop attacking even after the designated target for that flight was destroyed. In other words I'd like for a flight to seek other targets. Per my Kamikaze flight example, once the designated target was destroyed (by the lead plane, or any plane), the other planes in the flight would not attack other targets. I want the AI to attak other targets even if the flight lead is dead. I should have added that in my example, the flight lead of the Kamikaze flight was an AI pilot. I'd want an AI Stuka to attack other ships even if the AI leader of that flight was shot down. I'm asking if the AI will seek other targets in SOW if the assgined target is destroyed.
thanks!
Flyby out

I am hoping that Oleg has ' considerably stepped up the artificial intelligence of AI aircraft' in SOW/BOB, especially in the ground attack mode. After they have attacked and destroyed a specific target, they then seek out other live targets in the immediate vicinity, if ammo and bombs are still available (this does happen to a certain extent in IL2 now - though it is not reliable) - at the moment in IL2, if you are not the leader, you are powerless to re-direct the AI aircraft to attack other targets and they all end up 'milling-around' the original target until they are all shot down, or limp back to base damaged, or wounded? The way out of this dilemma is that if you lose your AI leader the AI 'second in command' (or yourself, if you are second in command) takes over and redirects the AI flight to other targets, or if you are the Squadron Leader you take over all the AI flights by issuing specific commands to attack other targets.
You must always remember that in the current IL2 flight simulator you are in control of your own ultimate destiny - as you are promoted you are are then controlling the destiny of your flight or Squadron pilots (In the offline mode, all the other AI pilots, in the online mode, other live pilots).
DFLion

[Bobb4]

Maybe the bunny in the screenshot was meant for an Easter update that never happened or they are so far ahead of schedule they were meant for Easter 2009? I am betting on the former :) http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/vvv-03_02.jpg

[zapatista]

zapatista

Unfortunately one reason why campaign engines as Falcon4 and MiGAlley/BoB are still considered state of the art is that they broke their creators's backs. Falcon4 bancrupted Microprose (and didn't work properly for a long time) and the same can be said about Rowan. Such engines - done correctly, which is the key phrase here - cost a lot of time and manpower to develop. And these "commodities" are the rarest in nowadays game development industry. Unfortunately ...

not quite true,

falcon-4 was very much aimed at a niche market that was already small to start out with, and they had significant competition at the time. falcon4 was the most hard core of the group, and was a niche within a niche, and that is mainly why microprose didnt recover its money. it was also released in an extremely buggy state.
- many flightsim enthusiasts who bought it when originally released because they like aircrafts and flightsims, tried it a few times but soon it was gathering dust on their shelves, being to complex and the learning curve being to steep for many. the f-16 it used, an advanced modern plane, also interested only a smaller part of the flightsim community.
- the campaign engine was but one of several factors that made that it an expensive game to design and create. the complex real time avionics, advanced radar guided weapon systems, etc.. took a lot of resources. it was also one of the first mainstream flightsims that tried to provide good online multiplayer functions. the campaign engine they implemented was also very complex, involving the whole korean peninsula over a long time period, and most resources went to modeling ground troops action.

simply put, "the dynamic campaign engine" is definitely not what killed off falcon-4, but i would like to point out to you that it is the main factor that has ensured its longevity and kept it going until today !

il2/BoB is in quite a different situation, it is THE flightsim of the day with a large customer base (yes flightsims are still a small part of the gaming market we all know that). but we need a major step up from what we have now in il2 to keep the current customer base interested for the next 8 years (which is how long oleg expects his current BoB game engine will last).

in BoB the dynamic campaign engine can also be implemented in a more simple way compared to other sims/games, because:
- it only involves aircraft, there is no ground troops involvement in that historical period
- there is also extremely detailed day-by-day information on exactly what happened during the june to september period, only being 4 months.
- online BoB dynamic campaign servers dont need to run for years at a time, they can cycle and repeat the same 4 month period, but because human actions will varry, it will never be exactly the same :)
- game design and game engine physics have evolved a great deal in the last 10 years, making it easier, better and quicker to design. pc's technology has also evolved a great deal, and computing power being available has significantly increased.

Oleg doesnt need to allocate large resources to implement it initially, it can at first be done in a simple way as long as he provides the basic structure of it from the start, but that still adds a huge immersion factor for the longer term player and il2 enthusiasts.
- the dynamic campaign can have a pre programmed main skeleton to it, where it follows some of the main events of the BoB period, not every single action needs to be modeled, but it needs to be a dynamic server that can progress 24/7 through the 4 month BoB period when left unattended, where people can join at any time and have a choice of a number of flights to be tasked (either flying in supplies to various bases, bomber missions, escort missions, etc...). it basically needs to cater for 30 to 50 people being on a server at any given time, combining AI with humans (as is done in a coop server).
- historically only on some specific days might you have had about 200 aircraft of either side in the air in the same sector and engaging in large numbers, most of the time it was significantly smaller groups, and on many days no large engagements at all. what modern cpu couldnt keep up with limited variables and small computations like that in a pre-scripted fashion? (err we are not talking about having to model each bullet from every aircraft, it is a matter of keeping track of the general numbers for ex 34 hurricanes and 12 spitfires engage 60 german bombers with 40 escorts in sector XYZ, resulting in 8 British lost and 12 germans lost).
- whatever number of aircraft lost from a particular airfield, then less aircraft become available there, until new replacements are flown in at roughly the correct historical times it took. if no humans interfere significantly with historical losses, the server arrives at its logical conclusion 4 months later.

if oleg adds the skeleton of a 24/7 dynamic server in BoB, and structures it in such a way that it can be expanded on later, there will be many dedicated il2 fans who can then progressively add flesh to the bones, and increase the detail. just have a look at the number of people involved at AAA, all working on different parts that interest them, many hands making light work ! but if the skeleton of the dynamic campaign is not added in the creation phase with BoB, then it will NEVER be possible to have it later, and it wont be a feature for the next 10 years either (expansions of BoB will involve new planes and new theaters, but the game engine itself will stay exactly the same)

[zapatista]

Zapatista, I get what you mean, but my squad flew ongoing campaigns against AG51 for a couple of years and we enjoyed many of the features you require, unfortunately there was a need for quite a bit of planning input, but we had tanks running out of fuel etc and supply was important to keep airfields active and many more features, maybe Oleg could speak to the developers of SE, as knowing one of the team that created SE, I am fairly sure that a lot of what you require could be added if SE was built into SOW, it will be interesting to see what maddox games comes up with.

then you need to provide information like that to Oleg if you want to have any hope BoB will be better then il2 in that regard, because right now that is not going to be the case. maybe some of the previous work done on SE can be of some help to oleg, presuming that resource is provided to him for free. maybe the person that designed it can do some part time consulting for Oleg and get SE type functions/features implemented in a true dynamic way.

oleg had a post at the ubi forum a couple of years ago asking people to vote if they wanted a dynamic campaign or scripted missions, but it wasnt clearly explained what a true dynamic campaign is and the fake-real crowd was chirping loudly they wanted 100% "realism" in missions, not being smart enough to understand the full benefits of a dynamic campaign engine server that can run 24/7 over 4 monts with "tasked missions" (like falcon 4 does). meaning a server can run on its own over 4 months, letting you join at any time, and once logged on you get a list of the types of missions that are being tasked and you can select one you like, or simply select any airfield to start from (choosing an airfield with no missions tasked means you could do "free flying" from that location)

after the votes were in oleg stated he would plan on a scripted campaign, not a dynamic campaign, so that means a limited progressively evolving list of pre fabricated missions that run in a rigid fashion, and there is no 24/7 server at all. it also means the missions will always be exactly the same.

personally i would favor oleg trying to buy the "campaign engine rights" from mig alley or falcon-4 (in the same way he sold the il2 AI engine rights to the console developer of BoP), and expanding on it. if he is not going to do that he needs to include the skeleton of a true dynamic campaign engine right now into BoB, and allow the fan base to expand on it.

if any of you have any hopes in that direction, this is the time to start letting oleg know what you want and why, and help him with free resources to implement it. complaining later will be to late, and you wont get it for the next 8 to 10 years either.

[csThor]

@ zapatista

I am afraid you're looking at the issue through a pink-tinted set of glasses. While I have never been a big follower of Falcon 4 (I'm much more into props) I did lurk in various forums and the stories I've heard painted a much different picture. Microprose struggled to get F4 out at all, simply because the campaign engine caused them major headaches and swallowed time and money like a black hole. It is certainly no coincidence that Microprose went out of business not long after the release ... Longevity in the community doesn't necessarily mean the same for the company - as Microprose shows "perfectly". And quite frankly - I'd like to have Oleg and Co around for a long time. ;)

Secondly I disagree on a few of your points, simply because they run contrary to some key points of what I'd call a good campaign. I never really liked the clinical and technocratic way of the campaigns in Falcon 4 and Rowan's BoB - no pilot personality, no sense of squadmates, no promotion and medal system (and therefore no system of hierarchized responsibilities) ... This is not what I envision for a good campaign.

And as for Scorched Earth ... IMO its creators made the grave mistake of trying to incorporate everything and nothing at the same time. They mix stuff from the strategic realm (factories etc) into a purely tactical environment - titanic "No Go!" in my book - while leaving out the supply installations which would fit into this environment perfectly (supply routes on Army/Corps/Division level & supply dumps). Basically SE was a good idea which was overloaded and mixed with stuff Il-2 can't really display realistically. But that's just my own opinion ... being an old and grumpy nitpicker. :mrgreen:

[cmirko]

And as for Scorched Earth ... IMO its creators made the grave mistake of trying to incorporate everything and nothing at the same time. They mix stuff from the strategic realm (factories etc) into a purely tactical environment - titanic "No Go!" in my book - while leaving out the supply installations which would fit into this environment perfectly (supply routes on Army/Corps/Division level & supply dumps). Basically SE was a good idea which was overloaded and mixed with stuff Il-2 can't really display realistically. But that's just my own opinion ... being an old and grumpy nitpicker. :mrgreen:


it seems like you haven't seen newer versions of SE. Supply dumps and supply in general is integrated in SE for more than 6 months....

S!

[Baco]

Cs Thor, Falcons 4.0 is a perfect depiction of how a pilot gets orders and how it executes them. and it does have ranks and medeals, even a pilots compleat log. Falcons 4.0 campaign is still the best dynamic campaign in any simulation bar none. It´s that simple. And What brough Microporse, and the rest out of buisnes was bad managment, not complicated software. If not you would be cheking your balance on the phone with your bank now a days don´t you think?.

Still all the arguments for a static campaign are compelatlly mute, since a dynamic campaign a la Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe (Lucas Arts, 1980´s) would fit perfectlly in Il-2, for instance. And you can still have perfect historically correct missions made out of the Mission Editor.

Oleg is always worried about other companies stealing his ideas, but in my humble opinion, he is missing some of the "new standards" for flight simulators: clickable cockpit and dynamic campaigns, that will be key in the future if not now.

Then aggain maybe he has a way of incorporating such a campaign to SOW series in teh future.

[csThor]

@ baco

So real liefe pilots can switch between squadrons, choose missions they want to fly and enter the cockpit inflight? ;)

I think you misunderstood my words. I didn't argue against dynamic campaigns - I argued against placing Falcon 4 on a pedestal as a shiny example when - in my opinion - the campaign presentation was very basic and uninspiring at best. It did not create immersion for me, it lacked everything which draws me "into" a campaign. Red Baron II never had an underlying engine as F4 did, but it had a nearly perfect presentation which created enormous amounts of immersion. In comparison Falcon 4 was sterile and soulless.

[grecobd]

I think the best dynamic campaing of all time was the MicroProse 1942 pacific air war, which had a summary for each campaign and a great Immersion with briefings as the EAW, and you had really afraid for his life if the pilot was dead or MIA you no longer could fly with him, had to start from the beginning without medals, kills or promotions. It was with that you really nervous when you get at a numerically disadvantage , and if you was at damage plane, you had to fly to your front side before bail or your pilot would be considered as missing in combat also what the force to resume with a new one with the profile from zero. it had no buttom of refly.

excuse my english, and talk about a game of the years 90s, but its one of the few games that i keep up today with its original box on my shelf saved with the il2 sturmovik

[AdMan]

Sounds like you are working on a masterpiece Oleg, so far BoB SoW seems like everything I could wish for, a couple questions:

1. Will the new FM allow for simulating mach tuck? I don't believe I have ever experienced tuck in IL-2 with planes that have the tendency to do so.

2. In IL-2 all coastlines are sandy beaches, will there be any rocky shorelines on SoW maps? I would love to see those nice waves crashing into cliffs and rocks from above

3. is the possibility of having US aircraft at some point completely out of the question???

[KG26_Alpha]

Oleg + 1C team

Have you re-thought for BoB SoW the unrealistic way IL2 1946 has ended up with the Hollywood style exploding aircraft, wings getting cut off and aircraft cut in half.

I remember IL2 when you shot a plane small bits fell off it and it lost control then went in, If I remember it was around the v4.?? that the "Hollywood Effect" appeared.

I hope this has been removed for BoB SoW.

[AdMan]

Have you re-thought for BoB SoW the unrealistic way IL2 1946 has ended up with the Hollywood style exploding aircraft, wings getting cut off and aircraft cut in half.


this was a concern after watching some of the BoP gameplay footage, a particular scene where a plane disappears in an explosion - a way too small explosion might I add, the explosion was actually smaller than the plane itself. Also the explosion was static, meaning it didn't keep traveling with the speed and trajectory in which the plain was traveling, just "poof" and it was gone

otherwise a great looking game tho :-)

[Antoninus]

Oleg + 1C team

Have you re-thought for BoB SoW the unrealistic way IL2 1946 has ended up with the Hollywood style exploding aircraft, wings getting cut off and aircraft cut in half.

I remember IL2 when you shot a plane small bits fell off it and it lost control then went in, If I remember it was around the v4.?? that the "Hollywood Effect" appeared.

I hope this has been removed for BoB SoW.

Planes could already break apart or explode in Il-2 and FB 1.0 and it could happen in RL as well. Besides your gunnery skills the frequency mainly depends on the caliber of your weapons. Use machineguns and you won't see structural failures or explosions as often as when using 30 mm cannons with exploding shells, which are arguable overmodeled. I've not noticed any change during the games evolution.

[KG26_Alpha]

Planes could already break apart or explode in Il-2 and FB 1.0 and it could happen in RL as well. Besides your gunnery skills the frequency mainly depends on the caliber of your weapons. Use machineguns and you won't see structural failures or explosions as often as when using 30 mm cannons with exploding shells, which are arguable overmodeled. I've not noticed any change during the games evolution.


You are kidding right ??

There were never exploding planes in the original Sturmovik you mention v1.0 like there are in IL2 1946.

IL2's used to fall apart from FW190 20mm back then but not this silly damage modelling we have in IL2 1946 with aircraft exploding into millions of pieces.

[Antoninus]

Il-2 demo 2, ca. early 2002

Crimea map, Fw-190 A5 default armament

Plane exploding, plown into a million pieces:

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/1599/grab0001lb2.th.jpg (http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=grab0001lb2.jpg)


aircraft cut in half:

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/5492/grab0002qr4.th.jpg (http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=grab0002qr4.jpg)


wings getting cut off:

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/3391/grab0004wo4.th.jpg (http://img155.imageshack.us/my.php?image=grab0004wo4.jpg)

[KG26_Alpha]

Yes the IL2 exploded back then after a heavy pounding from a FW.

And I remember the chewing up of ac rudders and elevators with the propeller too if you ran out of ammo.

But there's a difference in IL2 1946 with exploding aircraft from the early sim, they explode too easily and unrealistically.

[AdMan]

well here's some slo-mo footage from the BoP demo that shows the "too small" explosions I talked about before - I know the demo isn't final but what is shown here leaves much to be desired


http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/adrock925/il2explode.gif?t=1228180153

lets hope a different approach is being taken for BoB

[AdMan]

any aircraft could explode but I would have to agree the instant incineration effect isn't very realistic and kinda "hollywood" or what I would simply consider as videogame-like

as far as tail sections and wings being shot off that happened a lot, especially tail sections

[Antoninus]

Well BoP is a videogame for the console market, thus I am not surprised to find videogame-like behaviour. Oleg has said that he is not directly involved, BoP is no preview for BOB.

Multiple SOW development screenshots have shown that the internal structure will me modelled in great detail. I think we can surely expect a very detailed and realistic damage model, not something like X hits and boom.

http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/?action=view&current=cap002-1.jpg
http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/?action=view&current=ScreenShots_002.jpg
http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/?action=view&current=ScreenShots_001.jpg
http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/?action=view&current=Hurry_dam3.jpg

[Baco]

@ baco

So real liefe pilots can switch between squadrons, choose missions they want to fly and enter the cockpit inflight? ;)

I think you misunderstood my words. I didn't argue against dynamic campaigns - I argued against placing Falcon 4 on a pedestal as a shiny example when - in my opinion - the campaign presentation was very basic and uninspiring at best. It did not create immersion for me, it lacked everything which draws me "into" a campaign. Red Baron II never had an underlying engine as F4 did, but it had a nearly perfect presentation which created enormous amounts of immersion. In comparison Falcon 4 was sterile and soulless.

Hi aggain, yes you are right about a lot of thing sin ypur post: teh Falcon 4. camapign presentation and reports is radder uninspiring and yes there is no better example for presentation of a campaign as Red BAron II, that game was all about inmersion, no fancy graphics, no eycandy, pure soul jeje.

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

About wind drift: guys even modern jets with triple redundant computers and guided weapons consider wind drift a very important factor.

Not considering wind drift for AG ordinance is like not considering balistics efects on cannons and machine guns. Up to the invention of smart guided weapons every AG mission acounted Wind as a factor to decide the IP and course to traget, and attack parameters.

I can understand that Oleg might not want to add another cpu demanding task to the engine, but to say it´s a minor issuer not worth considering is ridiculus.

Not onlly the efect on the ordinance, but the efect on the plane should be considered.
With medium to strong winds the nose of the aircraft is not ussualy pointing to the vector, or line of movement in witch the aircraft is taveling. So theres not onlly ordinance drift to compensate but the planes own drift influences if you hit the target or not.
Then aggain that is an entrielly new world of realistic navigation taking into acount wind to plot a course...

[Igo kyu]

I can understand that Oleg might not want to add another cpu demanding task to the engine, but to say it´s a minor issuer not worth considering is ridiculus.

Not onlly the efect on the ordinance, but the efect on the plane should be considered.
With medium to strong winds the nose of the aircraft is not ussualy pointing to the vector, or line of movement in witch the aircraft is taveling. So theres not onlly ordinance drift to compensate but the planes own drift influences if you hit the target or not.
Then aggain that is an entrielly new world of realistic navigation taking into acount wind to plot a course...
Of course the effect on the plane has to be taken into account, it's a very big factor. My point was, that once the effect on the plane is taken into account, that naturally takes into account most of the effects on the ordinance, and the remaining effects on the ordinance are very minor.

[Abbeville-Boy]

oleg, you still plan for sow forum, when you announced, it seemed so close to being up and running in a week:confused:

[Bobb4]

oleg, you still plan for sow forum, when you announced, it seemed so close to being up and running in a week:confused:

Yeah this forum is getting a bit stale.
For a 2009 release nothing is happening fast.
Not trying to point fingers but Rise of Flight have screenshots, ingame footage and a hell of a lot more and they say they are good to go early 2009.
Last update we had here was system specs May 2009 and Q4 release.
If that were true ingame footage should be available by now, or at least closed beta announced.
What do we have?
A lot of nothing.
Guess it is time to reset the clock to May 2010 specs release and 2010 Q4 release...

[Darbo]

well ive been waiting for bob forever :)
and holding back my upgrade for it
my pentum 3 600 is crying to die
so im saving for some ddr10 memory for when its released :)


oh and hi oleg n guys
when the games ready for beta if i make you a crisp butty can i be a beta tester :)

[Bobb4]

Yeah this forum is getting a bit stale.
For a 2009 release nothing is happening fast.
Not trying to point fingers but Rise of Flight have screenshots, ingame footage and a hell of a lot more and they say they are good to go early 2009.
Last update we had here was system specs May 2009 and Q4 release.
If that were true ingame footage should be available by now, or at least closed beta announced.
What do we have?
A lot of nothing.
Guess it is time to reset the clock to May 2010 specs release and 2010 Q4 release...

I hate it when no official dude corrects you... Because then sadly you know in your heart of hearts you are right :(

[Oktoberfest]

I hate it when no official dude corrects you... Because then sadly you know in your heart of hearts you are right :(

I hope it will still be a 2009 release. But man, the infos about this game are so slow to come out.... Well, we will see what comes out in 2 weeks.

[BadAim]

I hate it when no official dude corrects you... Because then sadly you know in your heart of hearts you are right :(

When I have anything better to do, I don't cruise the forums either. No response, no updates, all of the speculations on non events are non answers. I'll give you that I'd like more info too, but I'd rather have these guy's working than feeding my insatiable need for updates.

Nothing personal, just my $.02

[Antoninus]

Guess it is time to reset the clock to May 2010 specs release and 2010 Q4 release...

Same procedure as every year. Maybe Oleg will suprise us with the announced dedicated SOW homepage on Christmas.

[Zorin]

Nearly a month since the last update, but tomorrow is Monday, so we may be lucky :)

[Lazarus]

Oleg,

Anything new to report on the hopeful December opening of the SoW website and forums?

Thanks in advance.

[Icewolf]

this may have been previously asked for but I would like to see a post mission briefing screen available after any type mission , online or offline , of my stats for that particular mission.

Thanks for IL2 and anxiously waiting for Storm of War

[proton45]

this may have been previously asked for but I would like to see a post mission briefing screen available after any type mission , online or offline , of my stats for that particular mission.

Thanks for IL2 and anxiously waiting for Storm of War


Maybe something like what "Il2 MLR" offers. I like how it can show a map route of where you flew & who got shot where...

[alert]

core CPUs?
Thank you sir.

[KG26_Alpha]

Ahh pre patch release fever days !!!!!!!!!!!!

Takes me back a bit..................

Oh and gotta love the "Oleg its your fault my PC is old and crappy" gang.

Just go and buy a new one why wait for 1c to tell you too ?

Ask santa nicely its not too late :)

[klem]

Well, a little Christmas update package would be nice. The update a month ago was only the searchlight/power unit thing - unless I missed something.

A statement on current progress, perhaps confirmation of Q3 2009, would be nice. It's that far away that it's still open to question.

In the meantime, we can at least start running some Hurricane Mk1/109E missions to get used to those lower speeds, engine cutouts and all the other stuff that is going to make BoB so much fun ;) . Truly I am looking forward to flying over 'home territory' at last and fighting those Battles of France and Britain but I'll be keeping IL-2 going for those high speed late war fixes :)

[AdMan]

I'm getting older, I think arthritis is beginning to set in, I hope this game is released while I am still physically capable of playing it

[tagTaken2]

I hear what you're saying, but at the same time there's other stuff coming out too- Black Shark out now (if you can stomach the copy protection), and Rise of Flight should be out in a couple of months. If you're dying for 1940 action, try BoB:WoV, there's a lot to love about it.
I put off upgrading for 2 years, then realised I was missing out on a lot of other stuff on my POS.

[KOFlyMaker]

Please, no one expects to hold more. We want a date certain. When will the launch of the BOB?

[proton45]

Merry Christmas... :) :) :)

[Novotny]

Hi guys. Don't post often but visit every day, learn more than I could give etc etc.

Just had to give this two cents before I exploded - you can't keep things in, any doctor will tell you that:

'OH FFS CHRIST THIS IS THE WORST CUSTOMER RELATIONS EVER, CEPT DUKE NUKEM FOREVER, WHICH I WILL NOT BRING UP. FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.

I HAVE FAITH, I WAIT. I AM FULE?


*ah gasp* thanks, won't post for another 6 months or so.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Hi guys. Don't post often but visit every day, learn more than I could give etc etc.

Just had to give this two cents before I exploded - you can't keep things in, any doctor will tell you that:

'OH FFS CHRIST THIS IS THE WORST CUSTOMER RELATIONS EVER, CEPT DUKE NUKEM FOREVER, WHICH I WILL NOT BRING UP. FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.

I HAVE FAITH, I WAIT. I AM FULE?


*ah gasp* thanks, won't post for another 6 months or so.

There! There! I hope you feel better! (reminds me driving with of my brother! His doctor said the same thing!) )

cheers!

[Bloblast]

Thanks for the update Oleg.

The weathering looks great on the Blenheim!
Fine job.

Hope this is gonna be a happy BOB year for all of us.

[Robert]

Thanks for the update Oleg. Happy New Year.... and if you're heading out for holiday then Merry Christmas.

i'm looking at the update now. looks nice, but will pour over them more. Thanks again.

[Ian_Guerrero]

Thanks for the new images Oleg.

Although I thought we were going to surprise you with something more than a few images. I would have liked a little more video done what there is to date. Although the video was small.

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2009

Ian Guerrero ;)

PILOTO DE COMBATE (Combat Pilot)
http://pilotodecombate.blogspot.com/

[dflion]

Thanks for the update pics - they all look excellent. I noticed a touch of 'wanting to get BOB finished soon' in your comment - we are all 'hanging in there' patiently.

When I was (much) younger, I saw a Walrus fly over our seaside town, then land on the Bay, retract its wheels while taxying in on the water, then taxi up on the beach with a great roar from its radial engine. We all ran down to beach to have a good look at it - the pilot told us that the engine had developed an oil problem. We later saw him take-off in a great spray of water and disappear up the coast.

DFLion

[Skoshi Tiger]

Happy New Year!!!!

Great pictures!

Was that last picture of the Blenheim a Night Fighter?

Also with those 88's lined up along the French Coast, it may make us think twice about chasing that smoking 109 all the way back to it's base!

Even though the walarus is a work in process it's good to know we may be getting picked up if we end up in the channel!

Happy and prosperous 2009 to one and all!

[AdMan]

update!?

where?

did I miss it?

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Thank you for the update Oleg. Have a very happy new year 2009 !

[zakkandrachoff]

Yesterday 05/01/2009 I thing i ready in the fórums http://forums.ubi.com/ in the section of STORM OF WAR the Series:
STORM OF WAR: BATTLE OF BRITAIN
STORM OF WAR: THE EAST FRONT (leningrado to stalingrado?)
STORM OF WAR: THE WEST FRONT (?)
STORM OF WAR: THE MIDDLE (mediterraneo?, italy?)
STORM OF WAR: THE WEST BOMBER CAMPAING (berlin?)
STORM OF WAR: SEA AND AIR OPERATIONS (?)
STORM OF WAR: THE FLYING TIGERS (manchuria?)
STORM OF WAR: KOREA
STORM OF WAR: PACIFIC OPERATION (o somthing like that)

O something like that. And today (06/01/2009) that announced is history:-x
“”Internet Explorer no puede mostrar la página web
“”
Somebody know somthing????:confused:

[Foo'bar]

Next time make a screenshot ;)

[Flyby]

Hi,
I was just over at Tech Report reading about AMD's new Phenom-II processors, and saw a mention of particle testing. I've read that SoW will support multiple cores, so I thought I'd ask if there will be a similar implementation of particle processing in SoW. Here is a direct quote from the article: "This test runs a particle simulation inside of the Source engine. Most games today use particle systems to create effects like smoke, steam, and fire, but the realism and interactivity of those effects are limited by the available computing horsepower. Valve's particle system distributes the load across multiple CPU cores." For those interested, here's a link to the article; it's a test of the new AMD Phenom-II: http://techreport.com/articles.x/16147/5
I'm curious as to how such implementations of smoke and explosions may impact gaming smoothness (micro-stutters) in SoW. No harm trying to glean such info. Right?
Flyby out
PS: although not mentioned in the article, I believe clouds will be a performance-settings issue in SoW. So perhaps clouds fall into this particle-generating topic too?

[SPUDLEY1977]

Man you do indeed get around - or did you break your tether?

How's bout focussing your investigative skills on encouraging the next release of BOB -SOW?

If successful, and how would we ever know...you are welcome to some of my not currently used PC bits.
:)

[Flyby]

Man you do indeed get around - or did you break your tether?

How's bout focussing your investigative skills on encouraging the next release of BOB -SOW?

If successful, and how would we ever know...you are welcome to some of my not currently used PC bits.
:)
Spudley, you following me? :D I'm not real. I'm a virtual program that runs constantly, browsing the world wide web. I look for anything from the arcane to the mundane, and all sorts in between. Still, I wonder if SoW_BoB will's particle generation will benefit from multiple cores? I guess I'll have to "investigate and see what I can stir...er...drum up. ;)
Flyby out

[T}{OR]

First of all, thank you for this latest update Sir.

I have but one question or should I say a suggestion.


Wil there be a possibility to, when someone is banned from the game for whatever reason (lets say attempted to cheat), to impliment a similar system that is used on America's Army and Call Of Duty (for example) - something like Punkbuster program. Which will then record that person who was banned and add his bann to the servers that have that same software. Practicly a shared database. So the person (cheater) can not join all other servers having the same protective software installed.


Now, I believe that SoW will be very hard to crack, if not impossible at all - but, just as a matter of precaution and a better security system for online gaming purposes.


Thanks for your time.

[Lazarus]

Greetings Oleg!

4.09 server release?
a.) yes
b.) no
c.) I was just joking

SoW BoB website and forums? when?

:grin:

[SPUDLEY1977]

Dear User,
This auto post is automatically generated by a secret call center offshored in the way out east/west where we can excise some short term cost savings at the long term expense of our customers who are now jobless due to moving this service center offshore where we are excising some short term cost savings...

Please do not reply to this post. Your number of daily postings is closely to being exceeding. Thanks to you veddry much and we highly valu your bisyness. Do not loiter as there is nothing to be gleaned here.

If it takles us three years + to write/rewrite a programme we will not spend another full year attempting to maximize it's efficiencies each time the level of technology changes as it does every 6 months. We must make some basic assumptions when we commence programme writing and stick to it for the most part, otherwise we would never release a (hopefully) reasonably polished finished product. Thanks to you for calling sirs.

Peaces

[SPUDLEY1977]

...a bot actually posing as me? I detect a thick hint of Pakistani accent and the odor of curry. Notice the Punjabi head sweeping whilst it posted the above post.

Again, it is amazing what these bots will try to pull off next!

PEACE

[Flyby]

...a bot actually posing as me? I detect a thick hint of Pakistani accent and the odor of curry. Notice the Punjabi head sweeping whilst it posted the above post.

Again, it is amazing what these bots will try to pull off next!

PEACE
LOL!!!! Spudley, you've got a few too many twisted ganglia in the noggin of yours! (admins, I recant my indiscretions, and ask for a pardon).
Flyby out

[zakkandrachoff]

gamespot.com
Storm of War: Battle of Britain
Ubisoft
maddoxgames
WWII Flight Sim
Release: Jun 1, 2009

:(

and the march 2009 ????:roll:

okey, I can whait!!! buth i want more screenshots!
Maddy, just press "Impr pant" button;) jajaja

[C6_Krasno]

Oleg already said that it could be out for fall 2009, but only if the development goes without any problem. He also said recently that he hoped to release the game before 2010. Therefore, I don't think we will see SoW in June 1, 2009 either...

[wjc103]

Oleg,

Quick Question, I was reading in Doug Bader's book [I]Fight for the Sky[/I where he talks about how during the battle of britain the Spitfire's ailerons were fabric covered. Based on your work in progress shots of the spit damage model I can't tell, are you modeling the fabric ailerons?

[Asheshouse]

Love the screenshots of the Walrus. Superb level of detail.
Since this is an amphibian aircraft will the game engine allow it to take off and land either on water or land? I expect this is earmarked to be AI only. It would be great if it was flyable. I'm imagining coop missions to pick up downed pilots, with top cover from Spits to fight off the Luftwaffe.

[kampfjager31]

Is it possible to have a camera view, in the bomb being dropped, so you can review your damage, if you level bomb at high alt.?

[Tree_UK]

Oleg any news on the SOW website?

[KG26_Alpha]

Here you can ask your questions addressed to Oleg and share your thoughts about the game. But, please, behave decently and don't deluge Oleg with senseless all the same questions, read the messages before posting. Oleg is very busy person, be ready for waiting for answers a bit.
Thank you in advance.

ahemm

[Chivas]

Oleg any news on the SOW website?

+1

[AMVI_YanLee]

Oleg any news on the SOW website?
+2

[Lazarus]

Oleg any news on the SOW website?
+3

[Asheshouse]

Personally I'm not bothered about there being a dedicated SOW website at the moment. I'm sure that game development is a much higher priority and I'm perfectly happy to keep getting the odd scrap of information here. Always looking forward to the next scrap though. Hope we can expect another morsel at the end of this month. :)

[Tree_UK]

Personally I'm not bothered about there being a dedicated SOW website at the moment. I'm sure that game development is a much higher priority and I'm perfectly happy to keep getting the odd scrap of information here. Always looking forward to the next scrap though. Hope we can expect another morsel at the end of this month. :)

I agree but a dedicated website would suggest that the product was in its final stages, the fact that there is no website still suggest to me that this will be a 2010 release at best.

[un_loon]

If we are talking about a 2010 release date then maybe I should go with an eco-groovy hp firebird?

Is any testing being done on i7 processor 64bit OS and are there/would there be significant performance improvements?

As far as graphics cards are going, how what are your impressions with the gtx295 based cards and the Radeon HD 4870 X2: R700 series?

For if you wanted me to beta test bob should I get a retail pre-built system similar to what consumers might use?

Also, how do people report their satisfaction with gtx295 and radeon 4870 with 1946? Does 1946 make use of 64bit os? (sorry noob question)

[Bobb4]

SOW
beta test is by invitation only (My guess is it has already started. The absences of regular posters to this forum would indicate they are otherwise engaged :grin:).
May 2009 Oleg has said he will release system specs for the game.
That date has not changed.

1946
And no, IL2 1946 does not support 64bit. It will work though, but it will not be faster or slower using 64bit processing or software.
Radeon's cannot do perfect mod, a known issue that is unlikily to be fixed at this late stage.
But other than that both cards are stunning and future proof, that is untill next week when the new uber XXXXX is released :grin:

[|ZUTI|]

Radeons are unable to run perfect mod? You joking or just referring to X2? Since i had it run perfect with no problems (on single GPU cards) i hope you are joking. Or are we thinking of different things, could be. But a very old card of mine (x850XT) was running perfect quite fine.

[Flyby]

Perhaps it's just a reference to Radeons not being able to display the water=3 setting? I think that's on old Radeon issue. Otherwise, Perfect should be the same for both GPU types.
It's got to be tough trying to build a new system with SoW in mind. One day Oleg will release recommended computer specs, nevermind the minimum. Everyone online has the minimum system now! :D
Flyby out

[Bobb4]

Radeons are unable to run perfect mod? You joking or just referring to X2? Since i had it run perfect with no problems (on single GPU cards) i hope you are joking. Or are we thinking of different things, could be. But a very old card of mine (x850XT) was running perfect quite fine.

My bad, it was the water issue I was referring too. It can run Perfect mode just not water = 3 or 4.
Sorry for the confusion.
But honestly if i was buying a card to play the game i would wait till game launch. Add to that the confusion around the i7 and then throw in Windows 7, directx 11 and everything is up for grabs :grin::grin:;)

[Jamake]

Hello Oleg, I would have a few interesting questions, hopefully they haven't been answered but I've read the thread from 100th page and it wasn't there so..

Will SoW support OpenCL (ATI GPGPU) and/or Nvidia PhysX for physics acceleration?

And if it does, I had a brilliant idea which would truly be a revolutionary thing, just what you are looking for!

Being a huge damage model fanatic, my favourite past-time is wrecking things in games that have very good damage model.

So I though that what if you take those soft materials seen in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxOBhnF4aRc Mirror's Edge with PhysX enabled and harness it to enhance damage model. What I had in mind was to make it completely dynamic using the principle seen in that clip.

In other words, there would be materials that have the same properties as in real life. And from those materials you would build planes, like from lego bricks, with some exceptions ofcourse, like the engine, weapons, or miscellanceous interior parts. Since the materials will behave like in real life, you won't need to do anything else. It will do the rest, dynamically. Flexing and bending of the airframe from surrounding forces, extremely realistic shattering and tearing of every imaginable part of the plane, they will all be dynamically generated because every material will have unique properties, and they will act accordingly. This will also accurately simulate late war for Germany, when their quality got worse and worse, and so did materials.

Also right now you can say that damage model is not quite there yet. Sure, there are different kinds of damage that can happen, and you can have holes in different parts of the plane, but under the surface they're all artificial. You have the same texture for damage, copied over the surface of the plane, but they're all same, and their effects are all scripted too. It's less work to implement it this way, but in the long run my way could save a whole heap of work, and since it's dynamic it also has immeasurable potential.

When expanding SoW, it would be enough to model a plane and add "materialistic properties" to key parts. Surface which is made of thin metal sheet, armor plating, a framework structure inside the plane which is made of wood or metal, rubber, wiring, cables, plastic, fluids, what else do you want to model in? And that's it. It will then be 100% compatible with whatever you want to do. You will be able to destroy each part differently every time, and every type of ammunition will act realistically on impact by only assigning correct properties to it. That would also allow you to perfect the planes later on, when you'll have more resources. And in the future, you can migrate the framework and make it prettier, nothing more you'll need to do since it'll all be there already.

So now you will have bullets shattering and ricochetting inside the structure, causing even more damage if that dynamically calculated splinter punctures your gas tank, making it leak so that the next bullet may ignite the fuel by causing a spark. Even unthinkable little thing could be done with extreme realism, but with little effort, such as flak jackets for crew. Then it will actually serve a purpose, as it will save lives by absorbing debris flying around the compartment when you get hit, now it would be useless because only direct hits are in, which would kill anything instantly, flak jacket or not. And AA, oh boy, that'll be even deadlier hearing all the shrapnel zipping past your plane. Everything imaginable could happen, exactly as in real life. Not only things that programmers have added. Like a sandbox, you are given the tools but outcome is in no way pre-determined, you only have rules that prevent from going outside the box.

And if you wanted to take this even further, you could also model aerodynamics. So now you have not only a plane that is shredded beautifully into ribbons, but ribbons that also spin nicely as they fall down.
Your aircraft could be literally like a flying sieve, but still hanging in there because your critical components are still somehow operational. Not like in IL-2 for example, where to me the damage model seems like it was like "plane divided into sections, when a section's hitpoints reach 0, whole plane violently explodes". Just imagine the possibilities! I've always dreamed to get killed in a flight sim like one German ace whose name I cannot remember. He landed his plane but was found dead, because a bullet had pierced his whole plane from back to front, went through the armor plate behind pilot's seat and hit his heart. It's one in a million but it could be possible, now imagine that with a 20mm cannon round :-P
And what's more, if aerodynamics were featured, people could design their own planes, and try to make them as sturdy as possible, while still being able to fly. Like a physics playground with a flight sim built around it.


To sum it up, it's like having planes, ammunition, things like that, made of clay. You can bang em, and they will deform. Stick it with a pencil and there will be a hole. Try lifting it and the plane will snap in half because you had too many holes in there, so the clay couldn't stay uniform. Put a cracker next to it and you'll only find tiny crumbles all over the place once crackler's done. It's a fantasy I've had a very, very long time, and it's very possible to make it reality with today's technology. Guess I still have a little boy inside of me ;)
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=5960 It wouldn't be too far from that vid posted there, allthough graphics just can't be as great. 0:12-0:15 is especially beautiful, even more impressive is 1:13-1:21, and pretty ok between 2:45-3:28, that's what I hunger for. And hell, it could be done, if damage model behaved "clay-like", as I described in this paragraph. All those particles and debree would be generated on the fly, according how materials will react to forces directed at it, and thus damage taken.. NOT "hey look, your engine took 40 damage from a random direction, let's add an animation where part of your cowling breaks off LOL and some smoke for bling" :| Which ofcourse would not accurately display what would actually happen, because it's a general purpose animation for engine damage.

Oh and I registered just to post this crap. I hope you will take your time and read the whole thing through. Not all of it might be completely clear, but you get the idea anyway, use your imagination.

Also if some moderator could remove that youtube embedded -thing, I would highly appreciate it. Also editing seems to be malfunctioning at the moment, I almost destroyed all of my post.

[SPUDLEY1977]

Jamake,
Most of us do not expect SOW release any time in the distant future. We might wish otherwise but it has been in the makings for so long and although the few images appear quite interesting they are primarily individually/partially modelled items. We have yet to see anything in motion and my guess the in motion dynamics as well as terrain and flight modelling are the hard parts.

Your wish list would seem to preclude a release for another 5-10 years. If we must wait that long many of us bothering to post will likely not be at our Sticks...:(.
You forgot to add to your wish list, aroma release to immerse the virtual pilot, full seat cockpit rumble and shake, options to utilize the J Tube mid flight, vomit artifacts in cockpit, I could add to the list but alas I must refrain..:).
I must scarmble my crew as Flyby is buzzing the field outside and is threatening to rake the civilians with his 50cals, and would you allow that to happen?

[proton45]

Hello Oleg, I would have a few interesting questions, hopefully they haven't been answered but I've read the thread from 100th page and it wasn't there so..

Will SoW support OpenCL (ATI GPGPU) and/or Nvidia PhysX for physics acceleration?

And if it does, I had a brilliant idea which would truly be a revolutionary thing, just what you are looking for!

Being a huge damage model fanatic, my favourite past-time is wrecking things in games that have very good dama
***EDIT***
this crap. I hope you will take your time and read the whole thing through. Not all of it might be completely clear, but you get the idea anyway, use your imagination.

Also if some moderator could remove that youtube embedded -thing, I would highly appreciate it. Also editing seems to be malfunctioning at the moment, I almost destroyed all of my post.


That soft materiel damage model stuff would be great for blowing away parachutes or Aunt Greta's laundry on the line (lol)... :)

[Flyby]

I must scarmble my crew as Flyby is buzzing the field outside and is threatening to rake the civilians with his 50cals, and would you allow that to happen?
Ah yes, like lambs to the slaughter! Come! Rise upwards and meet the agent of the Grim Reaper. Young maidens will weep at your departure as I send you on to Paradise where you will be sated by a 72 year-old virgin!
Flyby out

[SPUDLEY1977]

... like lambs to the slaughter......to Paradise where you will be sated by a 72 year-old virgin!

YOU ARE ONE SICK BASTIGE :)

Instead of one 72 YO unwelcome virgin, may I have instead a 3 24 YO's or 2 36 YO's...any combination except the first, and mandatory you swap the vir-gina-l for attractive and healthy (virginity is optional and even questional as to intrinsic value)?

[Flyby]

... like lambs to the slaughter......to Paradise where you will be sated by a 72 year-old virgin!

YOU ARE ONE SICK BASTIGE :)

Instead of one 72 YO unwelcome virgin, may I have instead a 3 24 YO's or 2 36 YO's...any combination except the first, and mandatory you swap the vir-gina-l for attractive and healthy (virginity is optional and even questional as to intrinsic value)?
Sorry, but due to a recent run, all that remains are older models. Amongst these 72 years is considered youthful. Once the dentures come out and you're being gummed into spasmodic bliss you'll think age is just a number. What's to complain about? Be of good cheer! It's Paradise. Enjoy. ;)
Flyby out

[Asheshouse]

Oleg --- Please, please post something, to stop this fantasy going any further.

[SPUDLEY1977]

...Fantasy to some>> (Insert FLYBLYS name here) and NIGHTMARE to others (Insert the rest of the world - mostly)..

Ashes, Do you think this will turn Olegs hand? If so let me know as I will do my part for the team.

When it comes to the 72 YO, 72 LB sacrificial ogre, let's just say this is FLYBYS job as he was the sole applicant to volunteer for this duty.

[AdMan]

Hello Oleg, I would have a few interesting questions, hopefully they haven't been answered but I've read the thread from 100th page and it wasn't there so..

Will SoW support OpenCL (ATI GPGPU) and/or Nvidia PhysX for physics acceleration?

And if it does, I had a brilliant idea which would truly be a revolutionary thing, just what you are looking for!

Being a huge damage model fanatic, my favourite past-time is wrecking things in games that have very good damage model.

So I though that what if you take those soft materials seen in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxOBhnF4aRc Mirror's Edge with PhysX enabled and harness it to enhance damage model. What I had in mind was to make it completely dynamic using the principle seen in that clip.

In other words, there would be materials that have the same properties as in real life. And from those materials you would build planes, like from lego bricks, with some exceptions ofcourse, like the engine, weapons, or miscellanceous interior parts. Since the materials will behave like in real life, you won't need to do anything else. It will do the rest, dynamically. Flexing and bending of the airframe from surrounding forces, extremely realistic shattering and tearing of every imaginable part of the plane, they will all be dynamically generated because every material will have unique properties, and they will act accordingly. This will also accurately simulate late war for Germany, when their quality got worse and worse, and so did materials.

Also right now you can say that damage model is not quite there yet. Sure, there are different kinds of damage that can happen, and you can have holes in different parts of the plane, but under the surface they're all artificial. You have the same texture for damage, copied over the surface of the plane, but they're all same, and their effects are all scripted too. It's less work to implement it this way, but in the long run my way could save a whole heap of work, and since it's dynamic it also has immeasurable potential.

When expanding SoW, it would be enough to model a plane and add "materialistic properties" to key parts. Surface which is made of thin metal sheet, armor plating, a framework structure inside the plane which is made of wood or metal, rubber, wiring, cables, plastic, fluids, what else do you want to model in? And that's it. It will then be 100% compatible with whatever you want to do. You will be able to destroy each part differently every time, and every type of ammunition will act realistically on impact by only assigning correct properties to it. That would also allow you to perfect the planes later on, when you'll have more resources. And in the future, you can migrate the framework and make it prettier, nothing more you'll need to do since it'll all be there already.

So now you will have bullets shattering and ricochetting inside the structure, causing even more damage if that dynamically calculated splinter punctures your gas tank, making it leak so that the next bullet may ignite the fuel by causing a spark. Even unthinkable little thing could be done with extreme realism, but with little effort, such as flak jackets for crew. Then it will actually serve a purpose, as it will save lives by absorbing debris flying around the compartment when you get hit, now it would be useless because only direct hits are in, which would kill anything instantly, flak jacket or not. And AA, oh boy, that'll be even deadlier hearing all the shrapnel zipping past your plane. Everything imaginable could happen, exactly as in real life. Not only things that programmers have added. Like a sandbox, you are given the tools but outcome is in no way pre-determined, you only have rules that prevent from going outside the box.

And if you wanted to take this even further, you could also model aerodynamics. So now you have not only a plane that is shredded beautifully into ribbons, but ribbons that also spin nicely as they fall down.
Your aircraft could be literally like a flying sieve, but still hanging in there because your critical components are still somehow operational. Not like in IL-2 for example, where to me the damage model seems like it was like "plane divided into sections, when a section's hitpoints reach 0, whole plane violently explodes". Just imagine the possibilities! I've always dreamed to get killed in a flight sim like one German ace whose name I cannot remember. He landed his plane but was found dead, because a bullet had pierced his whole plane from back to front, went through the armor plate behind pilot's seat and hit his heart. It's one in a million but it could be possible, now imagine that with a 20mm cannon round :-P
And what's more, if aerodynamics were featured, people could design their own planes, and try to make them as sturdy as possible, while still being able to fly. Like a physics playground with a flight sim built around it.


To sum it up, it's like having planes, ammunition, things like that, made of clay. You can bang em, and they will deform. Stick it with a pencil and there will be a hole. Try lifting it and the plane will snap in half because you had too many holes in there, so the clay couldn't stay uniform. Put a cracker next to it and you'll only find tiny crumbles all over the place once crackler's done. It's a fantasy I've had a very, very long time, and it's very possible to make it reality with today's technology. Guess I still have a little boy inside of me ;)
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=5960 It wouldn't be too far from that vid posted there, allthough graphics just can't be as great. 0:12-0:15 is especially beautiful, even more impressive is 1:13-1:21, and pretty ok between 2:45-3:28, that's what I hunger for. And hell, it could be done, if damage model behaved "clay-like", as I described in this paragraph. All those particles and debree would be generated on the fly, according how materials will react to forces directed at it, and thus damage taken.. NOT "hey look, your engine took 40 damage from a random direction, let's add an animation where part of your cowling breaks off LOL and some smoke for bling" :| Which ofcourse would not accurately display what would actually happen, because it's a general purpose animation for engine damage.

Oh and I registered just to post this crap. I hope you will take your time and read the whole thing through. Not all of it might be completely clear, but you get the idea anyway, use your imagination.

Also if some moderator could remove that youtube embedded -thing, I would highly appreciate it. Also editing seems to be malfunctioning at the moment, I almost destroyed all of my post.

TL;DR

and I would suggest Oleg do the same

[Jamake]

TL;DR

and I would suggest Oleg do the same

Well if Oleg was ADHD generation such as yourself, he couldn't have made IL-2 to begin with ;)

[Flyby]

...Fantasy to some>> (Insert FLYBLYS name here) and NIGHTMARE to others (Insert the rest of the world - mostly)..

Ashes, Do you think this will turn Olegs hand? If so let me know as I will do my part for the team.

When it comes to the 72 YO, 72 LB sacrificial ogre, let's just say this is FLYBYS job as he was the sole applicant to volunteer for this duty.
Ashes, count me in too. One for the team.
Flyby out

[Flyby]

Hi Oleg
I have enclosed a link to AnandTech's article on DX 11.0. It seems to be a hopeful application. I am wondering, along those lines if SoW-BoB will support OpenGL 3.0 and DX 10.1? With DX10.1 certain aspects of DX 11 make it backwards compatible with 10.1. This means that Windows Vista will support some of those aspects (but never will WinXP). I'm not too familiar with what OpenGL brings to the party.
Anyway, I thought you might want to take a minute and give us a little feedback on what you think of the new DX API and how it might (one day) apply to your work.
Flyby out
oh, here's the link: http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3507&p=1

[proton45]

Hi Oleg
I have enclosed a link to AnandTech's article on DX 11.0. It seems to be a hopeful application. I am wondering, along those lines if SoW-BoB will support OpenGL 3.0 and DX 10.1? With DX10.1 certain aspects of DX 11 make it backwards compatible with 10.1. This means that Windows Vista will support some of those aspects (but never will WinXP). I'm not too familiar with what OpenGL brings to the party.
Anyway, I thought you might want to take a minute and give us a little feedback on what you think of the new DX API and how it might (one day) apply to your work.
Flyby out
oh, here's the link: http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3507&p=1


If I remember right SOW is an OpenGL game... I believe Oleg said something on that issue long ago (too bad for everyone who has been drooling over all the beautiful DX10 demo videos). I'm not trying to sound condescending but this [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL_3.0#OpenGL_3.0 ] is always one place to start your research... :)

[Flyby]

dear Proton,
Are you saying that SOW will not run in DX mode ala IL2? WIll it support OGL 3.0? I'll do a search and see what I can find, but my question to Oleg still stands as I think it's an appropriate on.
Flyby out

[qyjackal]

Hi Oleg:
I just want to ask a question about my joystick.
I know the hardware problems may not be fit in this forum but I think it maybe a software problem, so ....

Look at this thread please:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=6144

if you can give me some useful suggestions ,thanks a lot!

:-)

[zakkandrachoff]

why the Day and Night-fighter Defiant F. Mk I is A.I.(not flyable)??? and the Gladiator is flyable, if the Gladiator was not in combat in the battle of britain and the Defiant shot down many Bf110 and bombers.
Defiant Flyable pls!
Olegg, please , check it!!!:-x

[proton45]

dear Proton,
Are you saying that SOW will not run in DX mode ala IL2? WIll it support OGL 3.0? I'll do a search and see what I can find, but my question to Oleg still stands as I think it's an appropriate on.
Flyby out

Ya, I think Oleg said that SOW will be optimized for OpenGL...sorry

[Igo kyu]

why the Day and Night-fighter Defiant F. Mk I is A.I.(not flyable)??? and the Gladiator is flyable, if the Gladiator was not in combat in the battle of britain and the Defiant shot down many Bf110 and bombers.
Defiant Flyable pls!
Olegg, please , check it!!!:-x
Probably because the Defiant was not a pilot's fighting aircraft. The pilot was a taxi driver in the Defiant, it was the rear-gunner who did all the shooting in that plane. I don't believe they even tried fitting forward firing guns to it, so there's not even a one-off historical prototype to base a plane on, unlike the i15p. If you wanted to fly the Defiant, you'd either sit there and let the gunner do the shooting, or like the IL*2 itself, let the AI fly while you take over the guns. The Defiant wasn't like the WW1 Bristol Fighter.

[Flyby]

I wonder if Oleg and Nvidia are working on the SLi aspect of this sim. Since individual game performance with dual GPUs is still tied to driver support I would hope this is being tended to. BTW don't want to forget ATi's Crossfire either. Same story. Lucid's Hydra probably won't get here soon enough for dual GPU owners.

[un_loon]

Newegg is taking pre-orders of SOW:BOB.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832138010

That's something I haven't seen posted.

[proton45]

Newegg is taking pre-orders of SOW:BOB.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832138010

That's something I haven't seen posted.

ya, its been up their for over a year...

[Chivas]

I wonder if Oleg and Nvidia are working on the SLi aspect of this sim. Since individual game performance with dual GPUs is still tied to driver support I would hope this is being tended to. BTW don't want to forget ATi's Crossfire either. Same story. Lucid's Hydra probably won't get here soon enough for dual GPU owners.

Oleg will definitely need to look at all ways to improve fps. I have a decent system and I'm surprised at how much the Slovakia, and Canons Chan Map tax my system. I doubt these maps have as much as a quarter of the detail of the SOW map. I haven't seen much advancement in computer capabilities over the last few years so SOW code will have to be really good to run on average computers. Although we will have the option to turn down details.

[Flyby]

Oleg will definitely need to look at all ways to improve fps. I have a decent system and I'm surprised at how much the Slovakia, and Canons Chan Map tax my system. I doubt these maps have as much as a quarter of the detail of the SOW map. I haven't seen much advancement in computer capabilities over the last few years so SOW code will have to be really good to run on average computers. Although we will have the option to turn down details.
then maybe some PhysX support might prove handy. But I think the code has been "done" for some time now. Maybe just adding odds and ends to it now. At least SoW will support multiple cores (fingers crossed).
Flyby out

[flyingbullseye]

If I remember correctly Oleg made mention that SOW will support multi core (dual), guessing quad support will exist as well. My big concern is the cpu eating ground vechile detail (not terrain) that for the most part will be lost on us causing lower fps.

Flyingbullseye

[proton45]

then maybe some PhysX support might prove handy. But I think the code has been "done" for some time now. Maybe just adding odds and ends to it now. At least SoW will support multiple cores (fingers crossed).
Flyby out

I don't know a lot about the physics cards, but don't they calculate collisions (gravity effects & inertia) and things bouncing around? I'm not sure what kind of calculations a physics card would be useful for in a flight sim? It seems to me that the bottle necks in processing power are in visual calculations and damage calculations... :)

[Flyby]

I don't know a lot about the physics cards, but don't they calculate collisions (gravity effects & inertia) and things bouncing around? I'm not sure what kind of calculations a physics card would be useful for in a flight sim? It seems to me that the bottle necks in processing power are in visual calculations and damage calculations... :)
Well, the damage calculations, and other special effects like drifting smoke, bomb blasts and the sort might all benefit from PhysX implementation. NVidia now makes PhysX a software implementation on it's GPUs. This link sort of explains it, and does so much better than I.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2340015,00.asp
As I recall, AMD/ATi have their own version, so once again here we go with the Crossfire vs SLi thing. No common standard except maybe OpenCL. I bet sim developers are way behind the curve on this stuff.

Oh, Flyingbullseye, I agree with you. Too many cpu-cycle-sucking ground objects may have a negative effect on smooth gameplay. I know some guys are building their core i7 systems in preparation of the release of SoW, among other sims. I'd hate to read of how SoW just brings the latest and the greatest to it's knees. But I guess they won't have to turn down quite so many settings as less-than-topnotch gaming rigs might. Good thing Oleg is making it scalable. ;) I'd much rather spend my cpu cycles on complex weather, and clouds and stuff. A good sim is hard on a good cpu. Ain't it?
Well. can't worry about every thing.
Flyby out

[flyingbullseye]

The thing about physX so far is that it kills frame rates unless you have either a high end gpu or running sli. For the time being I like ATI's direction and planning on using Havok, which is cpu bound but in the future either one may prove to be superior or someone else can come out with something better. We'll see.

Glad you agree with me flyby. i7 or not, for me at least, the vehicle detail is getting turned down to say medium though I'd be willing to bet a good 775 quad should run this mostly fine. I do have hope and faith in Oleg that he won't produce a flight sim crysis, but get the code in order for better game play.

Since I am on the topic of the sim scaleablity (sp?) I do want to ask Oleg something for the next update whenever that is. Sorry if they are asked before.

1. How many options in the option menu are we going to get in order to make it not only playable but have at least some kind of improved graphics? ex: aircraft detail, cloud detail, terrain, vehicle, wind, so on and so on.

2. How many levels are there going to be for each specific option? ie...low, middle, high, ultra (PC killing)

3. Can the next round of pics show level of detail when choosing low, medium and high option?

Flyingbullseye

[proton45]

The thing about physX so far is that it kills frame rates unless you have either a high end gpu or running sli. For the time being I like ATI's direction and planning on using Havok, which is cpu bound but in the future either one may prove to be superior or someone else can come out with something better. We'll see.

Glad you agree with me flyby. i7 or not, for me at least, the vehicle detail is getting turned down to say medium though I'd be willing to bet a good 775 quad should run this mostly fine. I do have hope and faith in Oleg that he won't produce a flight sim crysis, but get the code in order for better game play.

Since I am on the topic of the sim scaleablity (sp?) I do want to ask Oleg something for the next update whenever that is. Sorry if they are asked before.

1. How many options in the option menu are we going to get in order to make it not only playable but have at least some kind of improved graphics? ex: aircraft detail, cloud detail, terrain, vehicle, wind, so on and so on.

2. How many levels are there going to be for each specific option? ie...low, middle, high, ultra (PC killing)

3. Can the next round of pics show level of detail when choosing low, medium and high option?

Flyingbullseye


+1...ya, was about to mirror your comments. SOW is likely to be so GPU dependent that most people will not be able to spare the "HP" to run the physics program....

[flyingbullseye]

+1...ya, was about to mirror your comments. SOW is likely to be so GPU dependent that most people will not be able to spare the "HP" to run the physics program....

I'm not so sure SOW would be so gpu dependent. Traditionally flight sims are cpu bound but this could change things. Mum seems to be the word on this. Though reading all the details that Oleg plans on putting in this sim I go between figuring we may need a govt super computer just to get playable frame rates to figuring certain aspects like the radar grid could be implimented on a simple basic way. But alas, frickin mum!:-P

Flyingbullseye

[|ZUTI|]

Did someone else already asked for this but it would be great to be able to "duck" while performing head-on attack :)

[Bobb4]

The time between updates is getting longer. a promised (that can be debated) website fails to arrive two months after slated.
Now while working on a Sim may be time consuming, delegating someone to post an odd update cannot be that hard surely? Even the silence from Project Gaba is worrying.
That last time we had any real movement on this forum was over the confusion about Birds of Prey.
Now in an economic depress, wobbly or shacky feedback is one of the first signs of trouble.
Now it has been reported that SOW has slipped because of incompatablities with directX 11 and the OpenGL 3? Is this true?

[Feuerfalke]

The time between updates is getting longer. a promised (that can be debated) website fails to arrive two months after slated.
Now while working on a Sim may be time consuming, delegating someone to post an odd update cannot be that hard surely? Even the silence from Project Gaba is worrying.
That last time we had any real movement on this forum was over the confusion about Birds of Prey.
Now in an economic depress, wobbly or shacky feedback is one of the first signs of trouble.
Now it has been reported that SOW has slipped because of incompatablities with directX 11 and the OpenGL 3? Is this true?

Gossip.

DX and OGL are always incompatible, as they are different rendering techniques, one provided by Microsoft, the other at least based upon open-source. There have been rumours about Vista and issues with OGL, though, but apparently they turned out to be gossip, too.

To the website thing:
It is not the question if Oleg has the time or balls to command somebody from his staff to produce a website. The question is: Does the distributor (UBISOFT) allow Oleg to announce the titel to the public before UBISOFT does itself. Oleg's team is not responsible, most likely not even allowed to present a website of their product, as it is in terms of legal contracts, not his project alone. Ubisoft gives the money, so they say what is done and what not. People tend to forget, how business works - maybe it's the forum color...

Same is for Project Galba. The news is posted there for such a long time, but nobody seems to read what is posted there: "As the project has not yet been officially announced, we cannot provide regular updates."

So, if you guys don't get that new car you are wanting so much or preordered, you go to the factory and demand a statement from the production-line-supervisor? I honestly doubt that.

That Oleg gives you news via this forum is a bonus for his community, not a natural thing or something to demand. Go to the UBI-forums, ask their hotlines or write emails to their support-crew, if you want to change the publicity-campaign for the game!

[Bobb4]

[QUOTE=Feuerfalke;66435]Gossip.

DX and OGL are always incompatible, as they are different rendering techniques, one provided by Microsoft, the other at least based upon open-source. There have been rumours about Vista and issues with OGL, though, but apparently they turned out to be gossip, too.
QUOTE]

You are back, I missed you :)
Was just showing the little ones how to stir-up controversy on the thread and get a response :grin:
And yes i know Oleg will respond when he is ready, ps he announced the dedicated website not ubizoo so i am guessing it is either a 1c or Maddox games site?
I thing ubizoo are just publishers

[Feuerfalke]

Was just showing the little ones how to stir-up controversy

That's what most people use this forum for. No need to show anybody. ;)

And usually those who cause a stir-up are the ones that shoulder-pat when Oleg posts some news, because they think it was entirely because of their post. Well, you know the story - it repeats all two olegian weeks.

"Just the publisher" is something Oleg will probably write down on his t-shirt, once BoB is released.

That the website will not released with the UBIFORUMs is not surprising, but it does not mean, that the website has nothing to do with UBISOFT. It just means that SoW:BoB will not replace the IL2-Forum on UBI and it will also not walk the path that PacificFighters went, when it was released: To just add a subforum and a linked site-clone to the main IL2-Site.

SoW is a different brand, a different engine and a different game and it's pretty obvious especially the publisher wants to show that. On the other hand, UBI is only the publisher for the western markets, so it may as well be a sort of joint venture or a 1C site.

That doesn't change the fact, though, that it is not up to Oleg alone. ;)

[Bobb4]

I know, pats back

[Tree_UK]

Why are you still convinced that Ubisoft are the publishers? Ubisoft flatly deny that they are.

[Flyby]

SOW is likely to be so GPU dependent that most people will not be able to spare the "HP" to run the physics program....
Actually, I'd bet granny's drawers SoW will be more cpu-dependent rather so than the GPU. PhysX actually works by taking some of that computational work off the cpu and sending it to the GPU. In an SLi format, once card could actually take on that extra bit of workload. Articles on PhysX claim that's oow it works, and does so because the GPU supposedly has more computational power
http://www.blachford.info/computer/articles/PhysX1.html

A nice OCP forum discussion here: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1336975

I'm hopeful that a powerful GPU with over 512mb of memory will be sufficient for SoW; something like a 4870-1gb card, or even a GTX 260-12 should nearly dominate SoW. But the cpu...well that's another matter, especially with all those ground objects milling about. I'm only hopeful we can turn them down or off.
Flyby out

[|ZUTI|]

If the code will be what it should be any 4core cpu will have to be sufficient. If not, well, back to raw power race.

[proton45]

Actually, I'd bet granny's drawers SoW will be more cpu-dependent rather so than the GPU. PhysX actually works by taking some of that computational work off the cpu and sending it to the GPU. In an SLi format, once card could actually take on that extra bit of workload. Articles on PhysX claim that's oow it works, and does so because the GPU supposedly has more computational power
http://www.blachford.info/computer/articles/PhysX1.html

A nice OCP forum discussion here: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1336975

I'm hopeful that a powerful GPU with over 512mb of memory will be sufficient for SoW; something like a 4870-1gb card, or even a GTX 260-12 should nearly dominate SoW. But the cpu...well that's another matter, especially with all those ground objects milling about. I'm only hopeful we can turn them down or off.
Flyby out

We will see...I just hope that everybody's GPU is powerful enough to take the performance hit. Some of the "tests" in that article showed a substantial FPS (drop) hit when the physics was processed on the GPU. It looked like the only cards that could handle it where the "above 8000" series Nnvidia cards (don't know the ATI equivalent_lol).

[usagold2004]

Oleg, I did a search for this topic on this thread, and found nothing. Sorry if I double post the same topic.

One aspect of WWII combat that I hope SoW will model better than IL2 is the effect of attacking out of the sun. I have been doing a lot of reading as I am sure your team has and it is a recurring theme that pilots hated to have the sun at their back unless they were attacking with it behind them. Will this be a larger factor in game play in SoW? in IL-2, i feel little threat from enemies coming at me undetected from the sun.

[SPUDLEY1977]

What is the point of Physx. If the GPU is directed to procress more data, what is the point? After all we already have multi core CPUs, many of which are available to process more carnage. THe cost of an additonal core on the CPU is a mere fraction of that of an additional GPU core.

It seems rather daft to use PHYSCOTIX to market vidcards, and further absolutly dumbfounding to imply that we might need a second GPU to process PHYCHE-x computaions. Use a CPU core.

I smells more of the SLI marketing BS. SLI never made sence and still does not, so now instead of needing a second vidcard for SLI now we need one for FUSSUX?

SLI fizzled, never delivered, never was remotely cost effective. Although they spent loads of $$ on hype and marketing which would have been better invested for the consumers in ditching the thoughtless stock cooling for more simple, cheaper, quieter, and tons more effective cooling like Artic Cooling Accelero coolers.

Please research before you buy the hype. I hear rumblings they will be marketing a third videocard dedicated to keeping your coffee and dognuts warm whilst flying and fragging. Oh say it ain't so.

FLYBYE - you soon will need a third job to build the future!

[flyingbullseye]

You're right and a little off Spud. The problem with physiX is just what you mentioned, that you need a second gpu or watch your fps drop like a rock. Hence the other alternative, havoc which is cpu bound and doesn't have the fps hit as long as you have at least a dual core.

However SLI now with the i7 chips is starting to stretch its legs as the drivers have been coded for multi core cpus, prior to i7 you'd have a decent argument but it still shows an improvement, however small or great it was, when the game is coded to take advantage of it. Xfire has yet to do that but could also show similar results if or when implimented for multi core chips. The biggest problem with the graphics cards is the drivers, both companies need to really really focus on releasing an excellent driver before they go on to creating a new card but there's no money in the drivers soooo you get the picture.

Flyingbullseye

[Flyby]

I imagine PhysX and ATi's equivalent could be worthwhile computational aides one day. But don't get the idea that I ever bought into SLi or Crossfire. I'm a fan of neither. Give me one solid-performing GPU and I'm happy.
It's one thing to try to keep up with some interesting concepts (like Hydra). But the reality is really all about what software codes gaming programmers are willing to use. So far only one or two games support PhysX. The best thing about it is that PhysX is now a software implementation for Nvidia, through it's drivers.
Imagine the day when Oleg releases recommended requirements. Better get your orders in for a Cray right about now. ;)
Flyby out

[SPUDLEY1977]

Before everone starts kissing each others bum over Fishysicks, as long as you process min 60 FPS, your LCD will never show the effects of higher FPS.

Above that point it is just a meaningless number on your LCD screen.

[Abbeville-Boy]

i hope to have more than hit "I" to start motor in storm of war

[robtek]

I also hope for a "full real" CEM with different workloads for different planes!
NO BALANCING THERE !

[SlipBall]

I agree!...come on Oleg, just a couple more month's of work for the crew. Give it to us with a switch, if you do I'll buy a dozen copies and give them to my favorite people:grin:...you will be rich beyond belief:-P

[stockplane]

Hallo to all,
i'm new for this interesting forum.
I have a question : I have two installations of Sturmovik 1946, the first
modded with UI v1.1 the second with ultra@pach, i wish, if is possible
add into UI tree missing planes: Cantz 1007, Hs-123 and PZL-24.
That is possible and if what is the correct method?
Sorry for my bad english and thanks in advanced for any further
informations about.
Regards.

[JoeA]

Hallo to all,
i'm new for this interesting forum.
I have a question : I have two installations of Sturmovik 1946, the first
modded with UI v1.1 the second with ultra@pach, i wish, if is possible
add into UI tree missing planes: Cantz 1007, Hs-123 and PZL-24.
That is possible and if what is the correct method?
Sorry for my bad english and thanks in advanced for any further
informations about.
Regards.

Not the question for this forum, better google AAA Il-2 mods and go to that forum (where you got the UI in the first place).

[Bobb4]

Cough, rise of flight are already showing video's of clouds, planes flying etc.
Now correct me if i am wrong, they were going to use the IL2 engine and they then developed their own engine instead?
So, lets see, they have ingame screenshots, they have ingame movies and we are still looking at development still... I am starting to understand why they went with their own engine rather than wait for SOW...
SOW will have to be almost photo realistic to beat what they have done. Looking at their current clouds demo video I have to say well done.
Now for the love of Oleg, please give us something to brag about!
Patiently waiting...

[JVM]

Hmmm, for what I understand, NeoqB people are not done yet: the AI is still able to see across clouds....

This is a very difficult problem to solve, because the software needs to be able to compute if an A/C coming into the AI detection bubble (or something to that effect: it is not possible to calculate a detection probability for every A/C in the environment; I suppose you have to set a limit arbitrarily at a certain distance, say 10 km) can be seen or not...
For this to work with a cloud, the cloud should logically exists as a bona-fide 3D object (and possibly an associated "detection box") , not a sprite or pseudo 3D object.
To simulate a human pilot reaction, one may possibly compute a detection "event" taking in account, alongside the straight line between the pilot eye and the A/C to detect:

- Pilot quality (rookie - ace) -> a first coefficient between 0 and 1
- Pilot fatique -> again a coefficient between 0 and 1
- cockpit geometry (taking in account structural members) -> 0 or 1
- A/C geometry (parts like wing or cowling, dead angles) -> 0 or 1
- atmospheric transparency (there is a difference between CAVOK in Arctica and summer haze in Tuscany) -> another coefficient between 0 and 1, also depending of distance between the two A/C and atmosphere model (inversion layer level is crucial here); if you or your opponent are in the cloud, it becomes 0.
- difference in height (depending of respective atmosphere layers, and also camouflage quality) -> another coefficient between 0 and 1 (maybe a discret set of values here)
- cloud part presence along the line of sight
- respective flying direction (a fleeing fighter as seen from the observation point is more difficult to spot than a parallelly flying bomber)

All this will give you after computation a value either of 0 or someting between 0 and 1 at a time t0 (entrance of the A/C in the detection bubble); logically this computation will be done X times/s should be combined to the time interval between computations (as long as the A/C is in the detection bubble):

The addition of the "time interval X the computed detection coefficient" over the time since the A/C has penetrated the detection bubble or since the coefficient have changed from a 0 value for a "certain" time ("I believe I have seen someting, but I cannot see it anymore...") represents the probability of detection; when this number goes over a certain value, and never goes back to 0 for longer than two or three intervals "detection is acquired"...

I believe this would emulate quite well the way a real pilot would act...and I suspect it may be difficult to fully implement in a sim due to calculation power constraints (but with multicore CPU, who knows?)...So this can be simplified by just integrating the pilot/cockpit characteristics as a detection probability factor, the existence or not of a part of cloud in the line of sight direction, the dead angles and the real distance between the A/C (not 300 m like in IL2, even in the dead angles)

I just hope I did not lose anybody here...

Amically,

JVM

PS: the RoF clouds as seen from above or from aside are beautiful, very much real-life, but the cloud bases are still not very realistic (they should mostly be "fuzzily flat")...

[KG26_Alpha]

Gennadich/neoqb are still developing.

http://www.youtube.com/user/neoqb

SOW will have AI unable to see through clouds

[Bobb4]

Gennadich/neoqb are still developing.

http://www.youtube.com/user/neoqb

SOW will have AI unable to see through clouds

and the AI gunners as well I hope?

Technically ROF have stated that the clouds are objects in their latest blogs if I am correct. So AI should view them the same as say a hill etc...
I am in know way suggesting ROF is near completion, but it is a lot further along it would seem than SOW in some aspects.

[Conte Zero]

Hi all, my first post here.

Sorry in case I repeat an existent concept, I am not too god with new stuff...

Anyway: no need to say I am craving this game, and I really hope there will be an expansion pack or similar stuff to give us jets on this new engine

I love the "1946" experimental planes in Sturmovik, so I hope we will see them back again in BOB with new stunning physics and graphics

I guess the editor will be amazing, and (my personal dream) a movies tool (edit, cut, publish as AVI) would literally kill me

That's it, I apologize and will intensively use the "search" button from now on

ciao!
ConteZero
Italy

[Chivas]

and the AI gunners as well I hope?

Technically ROF have stated that the clouds are objects in their latest blogs if I am correct. So AI should view them the same as say a hill etc...
I am in know way suggesting ROF is near completion, but it is a lot further along it would seem than SOW in some aspects.

The ROF developers have stated that the AI will be able to see thru the clouds but they hope to address that situation in the future.

The ROF development is ahead of the SOW development by probably more than a few months. ROF may be released before the summer, but we all know how those things go. I'm looking forward to flying ROF for a few months before SOW comes out. It will help pass the time. OFF3 is OK but it doesn't like my MSFF2 joystick and turns it into a wet noodle.

[Skoshi Tiger]

I’m not sure if anyone has raised this point, but, given were going to get a dynamic weather system in BoB, this will lead to the possibility that winds will change during the course of a mission.

How will the information about wind directions and speeds be related to us so we can takeoff land on the correct runways (taking cross wind components etc) at our destination. Will we be able to call up the tower or will we have to over fly the airfield and keep and eye out for the wind sock?

Hopefully there will be a more accurate representation of traffic control. Hmmm! Being red green colour blind I hope they don’t use flares to wave us off!

Will this info be given to us in our pre-flight briefings so we can use it to plan our routes?

[Bobb4]

I’m not sure if anyone has raised this point, but, given were going to get a dynamic weather system in BoB, this will lead to the possibility that winds will change during the course of a mission.

How will the information about wind directions and speeds be related to us so we can takeoff land on the correct runways (taking cross wind components etc) at our destination. Will we be able to call up the tower or will we have to over fly the airfield and keep and eye out for the wind sock?

Hopefully there will be a more accurate representation of traffic control. Hmmm! Being red green colour blind I hope they don’t use flares to wave us off!

Will this info be given to us in our pre-flight briefings so we can use it to plan our routes?
Nice question, pity we have seen nothing that indicates SOW is anywhere near this point in production. Air traffic control will I am sure be modeled and I am sure windsocks will be fluttering on fields as well.

[Tree_UK]

Can we have an ETA on the SOW website please Oleg or will it be another case of hopefully some time this year?

[bf-110]

Oh my...
Ah talk to the flight sim god forum.


I would like to know if the Il-2 saga is over with the Il-2 1946 or if there will be more updates and add-ons.
There is still some things I miss,like North Africa theater,the invasion of France and Poland campaign,flyable french planes and italian bombers.

[C6_Krasno]

The IL2 saga is over with 1946. It was said a lot of times : the last official update we may get is the 4.09m version of the game (there is yet an official beta).

[Tree_UK]

SOW website anyone?

[Bobb4]

SOW website anyone?

You offering or asking? :)

[_RAAF_Stupot]

Hi all, my first post here.

......

I guess the editor will be amazing, and (my personal dream) a movies tool (edit, cut, publish as AVI) would literally kill me

That's it, I apologize and will intensively use the "search" button from now on

ciao!
ConteZero
Italy

I trust you mean: "figuratively kill me" - not "literally kill me"!

Otherwise what sort of rating would this game have?

:-P:-P:-P

[proton45]

SOW website anyone?


I'll bet that if you ask every day (or maybe twice a day) Oleg & crew will fulfill your request... ;0

[Tree_UK]

Thanks Proton Good advice,



SOW website Anyone

[Bobb4]

Thanks Proton Good advice,



SOW website Anyone


If Ubisoft are the (Western) publishers my guess is they will announce the site first :grin:
If they are not, then they won't. :grin:

Proton is 100% right, one of these days they will announce it...
But I do notice a lot of silence on this site these days. Three months to go before Oleg announces Specs for the game... May wasn't it with a September release?
Well we still can hold out for a 2010 release... Just in time for the soccer world cup

[Tree_UK]

Ubisoft are not the western publishers, and yes 2010 at the earliest.

[SlipBall]

If Ubisoft are the (Western) publishers my guess is they will announce the site first :grin:
If they are not, then they won't. :grin:

Proton is 100% right, one of these days they will announce it...
But I do notice a lot of silence on this site these days. Three months to go before Oleg announces Specs for the game... May wasn't it with a September release?
Well we still can hold out for a 2010 release... Just in time for the soccer world cup



Ubi already announced both the game release, and the web site...they could repeat this if they want, I won't mind:-P

[AMVI_YanLee]

so... still no official news about anything? :-(

[Nike-it]

New update is coming soon, probably next week.

[Tree_UK]

Thats not good news, any new updates should be coming on the dedicated SOW website.

[Chivas]

The website would be good news, but any updates will be welcome, thanks Nike-it.

[Tigertooo]

In my imagination, Oleg looks like a beautifull, fantastic and sexy woman,impossible to approach,impossible to get,but with expectations one can only dream of.One day i'll get her, so i am patient to get my ultimate satisfaction....lol....just joking, i give him all the time ,support and credit he and his team needs

[SlipBall]

In my imagination, Oleg looks like a beautifull, fantastic and sexy woman,impossible to approach,impossible to get,but with expectations one can only dream of.One day i'll get her, so i am patient to get my ultimate satisfaction....lol....just joking, i give him all the time ,support and credit he and his team needs


Ok...but be a gentleman:-P

[SPUDLEY1977]

Tigertooo,
You analogy can transpire, evolve, and dump you along several paths:

1. Once you get close enough to her you realize that the experience from afar degrades exponentially the closer you get...

2. You were happier with the dream of expectation and it was only most brutally and unforgivingly dashed when the sad reality approched

3. Oh excuse me miss I thought you were someone that I might have known before, sorry...goodbye...

4. Oh I am mistaken but my name is " Mr Potential Game Buyer" would you like to Demo with me for a bit?

5. That Demo was a disappointment, I must introduce you to my good friend Mr Dustbin, Mr Dustbin meet Ms Unfulfilled Promise...(you run away quickly)....tata....

6. Ahhh the Demo was quite nice, what I was looking for AND MORE....

7. Ok... made it to the "General Mercantile Store" let's see if there ie enough copper amongst the lint in my trouser pocket that will enable me to step away with this item in hand.

8.(i) If the answere to #6 is NO...stop here and come back later. (ii) If the answere is yes than read on with #9.

9. Gheeze this short trip home is much longer than usual, I really will skip the Ploughmans tonight as I have some pressing tasks at hand that demand my immediate and strict attention. I do hope my PC is ready for some exercise when I arrive.

10. Part II of this Saga available if the market demand is sufficient

Peace

[Lazarus]

Oh boy...here we go :-?

[Zorin]

New update is coming soon, probably next week.

Lets hope for Friday. :)

[Feathered_IV]

New update is coming soon, probably next week.

Maybe something in-game perhaps?
We've become quite familiar with the blue screen WiP objects for some years now. Something else would be a welcome change. ;)

[Tree_UK]

I'm not holding my breath.....

[Bobb4]

Maybe something in-game perhaps?
We've become quite familiar with the blue screen WiP objects for some years now. Something else would be a welcome change. ;)
Amen to that brother

[SlipBall]

+1

Rise of flight is soon to be released, but I can remember those torque demonstration's, must have been two years ago at least

[Feathered_IV]

Rise of Flight just posted another update on their developers blog today...

[|ZUTI|]

And is some video isn't it. Superb.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

will we get for the spitfire a sliding sun screen as there was in the original spits? And retractable and focusable landing lights (they could obviously change the distance of the point both beams met in the centre line)?

Identification lights in morse and steady mode? And gunsight light dimmer?

A modelization of changed feet position to take high g better in the spitfire? (in 109 they could change seat inclination perhaps?)

[Lazarus]

I think Nike-it's avatar is trying to drop a hint:grin:

[Tree_UK]

Lazarus;67904']I think Nike-it's avatar is trying to drop a hint:grin:

yeah but what year?

[Skarphol]

Lets hope for Friday. :)

Do you guys remember how fun fridays was in 2002 - 2003?
With news and updates allmost every second friday?
And free patches including a bunch of new planes every now and then?
No other game developer I know of has had such nice treatment of its customers.

Skarphol

[choctaw111]

Lazarus;67904']I think Nike-it's avatar is trying to drop a hint:grin:

I was thinking that same thing, actually.

[choctaw111]

Do you guys remember how fun fridays was in 2002 - 2003?
With news and updates allmost every second friday?
And free patches including a bunch of new planes every now and then?
No other game developer I know of has had such nice treatment of its customers.

Skarphol


Those were exciting times. I know that many of us here were thinking that things would be the same here once this forum opened up, but Oleg has learned from experience on this. Many harcore simmers and WW2 aviation gurus were really dishing out a lot of grief. Oleg is just going to wait until things are mostly finished to show us what he's got. I wish it weren't so, but it is. Let's face it, Oleg and team are working hard and don't need to hear that the rivets on the Spitfire aren't exact, not in the Alpha stage, and that's exactly what happened before.

[SlipBall]

Those were exciting times. I know that many of us here were thinking that things would be the same here once this forum opened up, but Oleg has learned from experience on this. Many harcore simmers and WW2 aviation gurus were really dishing out a lot of grief. Oleg is just going to wait until things are mostly finished to show us what he's got. I wish it weren't so, but it is. Let's face it, Oleg and team are working hard and don't need to hear that the rivets on the Spitfire aren't exact, not in the Alpha stage, and that's exactly what happened before.



I think what you say here has alot of truth to it...I think that the mod community also added to his disapointment. So many names that he was familar with over the years. He look's at them now, thinking that they are a better cook than him.

[Chivas]

I think what you say here has alot of truth to it...I think that the mod community also added to his disapointment. So many names that he was familar with over the years. He look's at them now, thinking that they are a better cook than him.



Better cook? Hardly. The modders are modding his work with absolutely no restraints on time, money, or peoples average computers of a few years ago. When SOW is released it will make the modders work on IL-2 look prehistoric. Soon after SOW is release the modders will be given even better tools to once again improve on his work.

Don't get me wrong I respect alot of the work done by the modders. BUT It does worry me that SOW will lose a few sales initially because of the work done by the modders. Our hobby can't afford any lose of sales. If we lose another developer we will have nothing to look forward to other than mods made on a prehistoric game engine.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Better cook? Hardly. The modders are modding his work with absolutely no restraints on time, money, or peoples average computers of a few years ago. When SOW is released it will make the modders work on IL-2 look prehistoric. Soon after SOW is release the modders will be given even better tools to once again improve on his work.

Don't get me wrong I respect alot of the work done by the modders. BUT It does worry me that SOW will lose a few sales initially because of the work done by the modders. Our hobby can't afford any lose of sales. If we lose another developer we will have nothing to look forward to other than mods made on a prehistoric game engine.

I can't see anyone who's so into their WWII combat flight sim's, that they would goto the trouble of downloading and installing the mods, not wanting to go out and buy SOW.

Of course there will be people who's computers won't handle SOW, (Just as my PC at the time could'nt handle IL2 when it first came out) but eventually they will get a rig that will be able to use it and they will be one of the on going sales later on that keep the income stream flowing. I recon that even people who are openly bagging Oleg and Co at the moment, will be going out and buying the sim in secret and then turning up on the forum under a different name. (Hmm! sound like a good poll to me?)

I know it hasn't worked in the past, but, hopefully Oleg will come across a balanced copy protection scheme that will make pirating the game too much trouble and purchacing the game the easy option (without being to much of a imposition on us honest folk). And if as oleg says, modding and map making tools are made available then it might be more benifical for the moders to work with the system than outside it?

Maybe with a long term plan where updates and expansion packs are released over the life of the sim there is something he can do so people need a valid copy of the sim to keep up to date? It will be interesting to see how things turn out

[ElAurens]

When SOW is released I will stop playing IL2/1946.

Mods or not, there is no way that the current engine will be able to compete with the new one.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is clueless, or a hopeless fanboy of aircraft types that won't be in the initial SOW:BoB release.

The current mods are just OK, and even with the beginnings of a QC program in the mod community that is taking place now, it will be too little, too late, once SOW hits the shelves.

Just my opinion, but I've been around the sim long enough to have a fairly clear picture of what will pan out towards the end of this year.

My only question is, Spitfire or Defiant?

:lol:

[proton45]

I had a theory that Oleg's "news black-out" was, in part, do to the modding scene... I believed that Oleg was trying to keep a few surprises under wraps in an effort to preserve the uniqueness of "SOW" upon its release. What do you think?

[6S.Manu]

When SOW is released I will stop playing IL2/1946.

Mods or not, there is no way that the current engine will be able to compete with the new one.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is clueless, or a hopeless fanboy of aircraft types that won't be in the initial SOW:BoB release.

The current mods are just OK, and even with the beginnings of a QC program in the mod community that is taking place now, it will be too little, too late, once SOW hits the shelves.

Just my opinion, but I've been around the sim long enough to have a fairly clear picture of what will pan out towards the end of this year.

My only question is, Spitfire or Defiant?

:lol:

Me too... but you'll find me in a E3. :)

[Tree_UK]

I had a theory that Oleg's "news black-out" was, in part, do to the modding scene... I believed that Oleg was trying to keep a few surprises under wraps in an effort to preserve the uniqueness of "SOW" upon its release. What do you think?

You could well be right, i really hope so.

[tagTaken2]

Me too... but you'll find me in a E3. :)

That would be a life-or-death question then... ;0

[6S.Manu]

That would be a life-or-death question then... ;0

I think I'm going to try the Hurricane too.. but nothing gives me more pleasure (speaking about VGs) than downing a Spitfire...

I'm waiting this too:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Battle-Britain-Christer-Bergstrom/dp/9197589683/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235732640&sr=1-19

[SlipBall]

Better cook? Hardly. The modders are modding his work with absolutely no restraints on time, money, or peoples average computers of a few years ago. When SOW is released it will make the modders work on IL-2 look prehistoric. Soon after SOW is release the modders will be given even better tools to once again improve on his work.

Don't get me wrong I respect alot of the work done by the modders. BUT It does worry me that SOW will lose a few sales initially because of the work done by the modders. Our hobby can't afford any lose of sales. If we lose another developer we will have nothing to look forward to other than mods made on a prehistoric game engine.


I was saying that the modder's think of themselves as being better cooks...we all know that they could not boil water very well :grin:

[ElAurens]

I don't want to change this to a "modding" thread,but some of the mods are quite good, and at Oleg levels of quality. Most are not however.

A shining star is the Slot map.

The low end would be many of the "Franken planes" and many of the other maps that have been added.

As for BoB, with the new damage modeling I may be tempted to fly a Hurricane as well. Of course I will fly anything in the planeset, but untill we get French Hawk 75s I'll prolly be in the employ of the RAF.

[SlipBall]

(quote)
I don't want to change this to a "modding" thread


It's Friday, lets keep it as a "thanks" for the update thread...any minute now:grin:

[tagTaken2]

His Russian front stuff is pretty thorough... fortunately, we're not likely to be short of BoB reading materials.

[proton45]

I had a thought about the new improved "damage Model"...while I think that we can all agree that this feature should add to the immersion of combat. I predict a whole new category of forum arguments where people bitch about the robustness of individual mechanical components under damage...and people looking for credible facts on the issue.

[Example] "The P-51's radiator might have been that delicate, but the oil system would never have broken like that when over heated"...

or

The pilot armor (strong) is too big on the FW190...

Obviously I know these planes will not be in the first "SOW"...but you get my meaning. The increased damage model will bread "half baked" ideas and paranoid theory's...

[Feathered_IV]

(quote)
I don't want to change this to a "modding" thread


It's Friday, lets keep it as a "thanks" for the update thread...any minute now:grin:

Gentle soul! I've just got to get some of the medication you are using.

:-P

[Chivas]

(quote)
I don't want to change this to a "modding" thread


It's Friday, lets keep it as a "thanks" for the update thread...any minute now:grin:

Yes, I'm hoping the next update will be a substantial one. Simhq has a nice preview of ROF, that sim should make the wait for SOW alittle easier to take.

Sorry for misunderstanding your earlier post SlipBall.

~Salute~
Chivas

[SlipBall]

Gentle soul! I've just got to get some of the medication you are using.

:-P


Yahoo! I got another drug sale:grin:

[SlipBall]

Yes, I'm hoping the next update will be a substantial one. Simhq has a nice preview of ROF, that sim should make the wait for SOW alittle easier to take.

Sorry for misunderstanding your earlier post SlipBall.

~Salute~
Chivas



Thank's! A very interesting review. ROF it looks real good to me, it should be alot of fun

[baron_UA]

Oleg`s interview (russian)
Part 1: http://spread-wings.ru/index.php?opt...d=154&Itemid=1
Part 2: http://spread-wings.ru/index.php?opt...d=156&Itemid=1

There are some new pictures. ;)