PDA

View Full Version : Birds of Prey GC 2008 trailer


Nike-it
08-27-2008, 05:41 PM
Have a look at the recent video of BoP from GC 2008. New planes, views and battles are presented in the trailer. Very soon the HD version will be available for downloading.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_iCpxeyHFs

Skarphol
08-27-2008, 05:59 PM
Well, it LOOKs really well! Especially the landscape.
But the DM model is hillarious... Not my kind of game I guess.

The looks of that landscape gives me really high hopes for SOW:BOB.

Does anyone know why this game is called "IL-2 Sturmovik Birds of Pray" when it has allomost nothing to do with 'our' game?

Skarphol

nearmiss
08-27-2008, 06:20 PM
Well, it LOOKs really well! Especially the landscape.
But the DM model is hillarious... Not my kind of game I guess.

The looks of that landscape gives me really high hopes for SOW:BOB.

Does anyone know why this game is called "IL-2 Sturmovik Birds of Pray" when it has allomost nothing to do with 'our' game?

Skarphol

Oleg has more to do with it than is presented. Sorry, I can't call my business Chrysler Corp, Exxon, or Citgo. Neither, can the dev of BOP call his product IL2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey.

Oleg has to be involved or he would be the absolute world class dumb a$$ of the year to allow anyone with another CFS (consoler or not) use his brand.

Something is going on.

proton45
08-27-2008, 06:35 PM
Oleg has more to do with it than is presented. Sorry, I can't call my business Chrysler Corp, Exxon, or Citgo. Neither, can the dev of BOP call his product IL2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey.

Oleg has to be involved or he would be the absolute world class dumb a$$ of the year to allow anyone with another CFS (consoler or not) use his brand.

Something is going on.



This sounds like an "X-File" to me...we will have to get to the bottom of this conspiracy right away. ;)

But seriously...maybe they just license the name along with the flight data.

Chivas
08-27-2008, 06:39 PM
I'm sure Oleg is being compensated for the FM and IL-2 name recognition in some form or another. In the end BOP will be very good advertising for BOB. It will draw simmers from the console crowd to the SOW series, if they want a more emmersive and detailed combat flight experience. Even PC simmers will buy a console to play BOP if it comes out before SOW BOB. In the end its all good for the combat sim genre. Just a reminder for those still confused ... BOP and BOB SOW have different developers and engines.

Blackdog_kt
08-27-2008, 06:48 PM
Agreed, it's an arcade game with an arcade DM, but....GAWD, LOOK AT THOSE TRACERS :shock:

It certainly looks amazing and if BoB is anything like it we're in for a really great ride. We just need the sound effects to go with it.

I can't help but crave the "shock factor" i get with every new sim i fly. How it looks and more importantly, how it sounds the first time you get in a tight spot in your new sim...The first burst of flak close to you, or the sound of gunfire connecting with your airframe.

I remember instinctively lowering my head below my instrument panel the first time i dashed through a formation of He-111s in European Air War in my Hurricane.

Getting a feeling of mounting anxiety as the flak grew louder, only to jump up in my seat when it got too close for comfort, as if i had no warning at all about it, even though the past 2 minutes i was watching the barrage form in B-17:The Mighty 8th.

Thinking "oh sh!!!! it's gonna break apart!!!" when i first pulled some extra Gs in Red Baron II and heard the wings start creaking, or heard the sound of fabric getting torn.

And i also remember being in awe at the complexity of gunnery the first time i fired up the IL2 demo, the never before seen visual accuracy and, for the first time, a believable sense of speed and the forces acting on a fighter plane, frightening speed, so much that i was thinking "i can't control this thing, it's too fast and big a piece of machinery for me" as my P39 was dashing down the runway (yes, i've been around from the time of the first release, even though i'm not much of a pilot against online opponents).

Now if we're lucky, we'll get all this and more in BoB as well. Scare us Mr Maddox, like we're about to burn in that Hurricane for real ;)

Meusli
08-27-2008, 06:54 PM
Olegs new sim is not called Il2 Sturmovik, so any damage this game could cause is unimportant but from what I see it looks ok for a console game. Now the money for using the name and FM code is important for the development of SOW.

@ Blackdog kt, hell yey!!! :D

proton45
08-27-2008, 07:02 PM
OK...here's a big "what if" (speculation) statement for you all...

Maybe Oleg has gone over budget and over time developing "SoW BoB" and he is using the money from "IL2 BOP" to further the work on the "SoW" engine (I know, I know...I just drifted off into the Twilight Zone)... :)

Meusli
08-27-2008, 07:24 PM
OK...here's a big "what if" (speculation) statement for you all...

Maybe Oleg has gone over budget and over time developing "SoW BoB" and he is using the money from "IL2 BOP" to further the work on the "SoW" engine (I know, I know...I just drifted off into the Twilight Zone)... :)

Thats what Chivas and I just said is it not?

nearmiss
08-27-2008, 07:33 PM
I'm sure Oleg is being compensated for the FM and IL-2 name recognition in some form or another. In the end BOP will be very good advertising for BOB. It will draw simmers from the console crowd to the SOW series, if they want a more emmersive and detailed combat flight experience. Even PC simmers will buy a console to play BOP if it comes out before SOW BOB. In the end its all good for the combat sim genre. Just a reminder for those still confused ... BOP and BOB SOW have different developers and engines.

1+

Anton Yudintsev
08-27-2008, 07:58 PM
Damage Model.

Guys, damage model in our game is much more closer to reality, than that in IL-2 game.
In IL-2 game it was harder to destroy enemy plane, than in real life - to compensate the lack of inexpereiensity, that you is not scaried (because you can't die in reality while playing), absence of black-outs and sweat running to your eyes.
What we've done - we implemented statstically accurate damage model.

Of course, if you see where to shoot (in Arcade mode there is a cross showing the spot where you should shoot to compensate that bullet is flying with finite speed) and have unlimited ammo - game becomes much more easier to play. Than play in simulator mode!

In any case. Don't assume that original IL-2 was representing REAL damage model (even stastically accurate). It was representing FEEL of real damage model. In IL-2 player has similiar combat stastics to average pilot in WW2 - but that was done by making damage model LESS real, than reality, to compensate that each virtiual pilot is a real ACE, and even robot - a lot of hours in the air, a lot of expereience, no fear of death, no red-outs and blackouts etc.
Real life has MORE 'arcade' damage model (according to available statistics of WW2 and historical consultants), than IL-2. But it was harder to 'play' in real-life.

And in a movie there is infinite ammo - which is of course much more arcade, allowing to shoot tons of bullets (from cannons!), which is very effective in 300m distance - because of dispersion. But you can fly with finite ammo as well.

BTW, Henkel has a lot of bombs and 800 litres of gas, and almost no armor - they WERE exploding often.

Meusli
08-27-2008, 08:05 PM
Well Anton I own a 360 and will be buying this game anyway, it looks cool and will be a blast on Live. What features are you going to do for live by the way and how may people are able to fight on live?

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-27-2008, 08:11 PM
Some of you fail to remember it will have scalable difficulty just like IL2. Many of you probably fly IL2 in arcade mode online right now. Probably flying in wonderwoman view, same planes on both sides, no stalls or spins, easy gunnery, ect. But yet snub your noses at a console version you know nothing about. Bottom line is...I very high percentage of this very community fly IL2 as a arcade game rather then a simulator. I am however not one of them, but I still have a open mind and I know consoles such as the 360 have more power to do the job then most of this communities PCs. Certainly more power then those PCs that ran the first IL2. The console audience is broad and there is probably even more interest for a good simulator then that found in the PC audience where most favor MMORPGs. Codemasters realized this and thats why they are bringing the same version of Operation Flashpoint 2 to the 360.

S!

proton45
08-28-2008, 12:21 AM
Thats what Chivas and I just said is it not?



Great minds think-a-like... :)

I guess I sound a little redundant...I must have gotten stuck in the "Twilight Zone" again. The difference between making a point and sounding redundant is 8min without refreshing the page (LOL).

Skoshi Tiger
08-28-2008, 01:33 AM
I guess I'll have to wait until they release "lego Birds of Prey IL2" so I can play it on my kids Wii! :(

Sigh!

Chivas
08-28-2008, 03:59 AM
I agree Anton. I don't know how many times I've seen an aircraft take multiple devasting hits in IL-2 and its still combat effective. This is one thing I'm looking forward to in the complex DM of BOB. Once an aircraft takes serious hits the pilots either bailing out or turning for home, not staying in the fight. That said IL-2 is by far the best combat sim ever made to this point.

IceFire
08-28-2008, 04:33 AM
Looks nice...like an ultimate version of Blazing Angels. Looks like it'll be fun!

But the DM...that Hurricane looks like its shooting 8 cannons :D

nearmiss
08-28-2008, 05:12 AM
Damage Model.

Guys, damage model in our game is much more closer to reality, than that in IL-2 game.
In IL-2 game it was harder to destroy enemy plane, than in real life - to compensate the lack of inexpereiensity, that you is not scaried (because you can't die in reality while playing), absence of black-outs and sweat running to your eyes.
What we've done - we implemented statstically accurate damage model.

Of course, if you see where to shoot (in Arcade mode there is a cross showing the spot where you should shoot to compensate that bullet is flying with finite speed) and have unlimited ammo - game becomes much more easier to play. Than play in simulator mode!

In any case. Don't assume that original IL-2 was representing REAL damage model (even stastically accurate). It was representing FEEL of real damage model. In IL-2 player has similiar combat stastics to average pilot in WW2 - but that was done by making damage model LESS real, than reality, to compensate that each virtiual pilot is a real ACE, and even robot - a lot of hours in the air, a lot of expereience, no fear of death, no red-outs and blackouts etc.
Real life has MORE 'arcade' damage model (according to available statistics of WW2 and historical consultants), than IL-2. But it was harder to 'play' in real-life.

And in a movie there is infinite ammo - which is of course much more arcade, allowing to shoot tons of bullets (from cannons!), which is very effective in 300m distance - because of dispersion. But you can fly with finite ammo as well.

BTW, Henkel has a lot of bombs and 800 litres of gas, and almost no armor - they WERE exploding often.

The trailer reminds me of the old Jane's WW2 fighters where the hit box was huge and you could easily pile up the crashing enemy. Star Wars!

It wasn't as easy as the trailer, or everyone flying a fighter would have been an ACE in a day.

Principal issues with IL2 isn't the damage modeling as much as the AI programming.

Old_Canuck
08-28-2008, 07:14 AM
Anyone seen a landing in BoP yet? It seems to be air to air exclusively.

JoeA
08-28-2008, 10:15 AM
Anyone seen a landing in BoP yet? It seems to be air to air exclusively.


Good question, oh and hi there haven't seen you in awhile. ;)

Nike-it
08-28-2008, 10:20 AM
Anyone seen a landing in BoP yet? It seems to be air to air exclusively.

In some missions you will start from the airfield, the same situation is with landing.

Snuff_Pidgeon
08-28-2008, 11:42 AM
Koool.

mondo
08-28-2008, 11:50 AM
I've got a 360 and I'll most likely buy it. I just wish I could plug my CH pedal and stick into the 360 and it would recognise them.

Nike-it
08-28-2008, 12:22 PM
GameSpy published small preview after playing the game at GC. You can read the article here (http://ps3.gamespy.com/playstation-3/il-2-sturmovik-birds-of-prey/902627p1.html).

proton45
08-28-2008, 01:45 PM
GameSpy published small preview after playing the game at GC. You can read the article here (http://ps3.gamespy.com/playstation-3/il-2-sturmovik-birds-of-prey/902627p1.html).


Mmm...

Gamespy seems to like the game. If the game is that close to being a "sim" it will be really difficult to play without a joystick.

Kind of makes you think (god, I need my coffee_LOL)

Meusli
08-28-2008, 02:42 PM
Mmm...

Gamespy seems to like the game. If the game is that close to being a "sim" it will be really difficult to play without a joystick.

Kind of makes you think (god, I need my coffee_LOL)

There is a joystick for the 360 but I would like to use my own and can not justify spending more on another(my wife would kill me). It will be OK on pad but not the same but beggars can not be choosers!

Skarphol
08-28-2008, 02:44 PM
Iv'e looked at the trailer again and I must say I'm REALLY impressed with the graphics!
The way light and shadow are giving life to the planes is astonishing! Just look at the ailrons of the Hurricane the camera is trailing for a while!

The landscape is mouthwatering. It would be so nice to fly low-level, trying to stay below the top of the trees with that terrain! I noticed that the trees had no shadow, but that is really a minor detail.

If SOW:BOB has grapichs as good at this (I guess it will), and a weather as good as indicated it will be, this will become a dream to fly. I wouldn't even miss enemies..

Skarphol

Anton Yudintsev
08-28-2008, 04:31 PM
The trailer reminds me of the old Jane's WW2 fighters where the hit box was huge and you could easily pile up the crashing enemy.

There is no 'hit box' in the game.
There are several parts of plane, which are _modelled_ and bullet is tracing them, simulating loss of velocity and damaging to each part. Not in case of explosive bullets.

When you hit right engine, it will burn.
If you hit bombs - they are exploding.
Henkels are not armoured, and Hurricanes in trailer are with cannons.
So they are exploding.

nearmiss
08-28-2008, 04:55 PM
There is no 'hit box' in the game.
There are several parts of plane, which are _modelled_ and bullet is tracing them, simulating loss of velocity and damaging to each part. Not in case of explosive bullets.

When you hit right engine, it will burn.
If you hit bombs - they are exploding.
Henkels are not armoured, and Hurricanes in trailer are with cannons.
So they are exploding.

Hurricanes with cannons... that'll do it. LOL

I've been doing the bOB II WOV shooting the .303s. You do get a response from the program that you got hits, but mostly no results. The devs have a strong penchant for historical accuracy so the firepower is pretty nil on the British side. I don't disagree, since providing a more historically accurate BOB is the user and dev intent. Still gets frustrating emptying your guns with no kills and having to head for base. IMO, this would be a loser for sure in a console game.

I think you've done right thing with console game. Console players like a lot of high quality graphics, fast action, explosions and lots of victories.

I hope you do well with BOP. It certainly won't hurt to have renewed interest in WW2 Combat flight simulation. Personally, I've got a $4,000+ PC, a $1,000+ in Controllers and have absolutely no thoughts of going to console games. I'm an adult, so sitting in front of TV with bowl of chips and a Monster drink and pushing buttons at light speed is not how I see myself.

Chivas
08-28-2008, 05:17 PM
The thing I find with BOB WOV is its harder to setup your joystick to make the Hurricane as solid a gun platform as it really was. That said the DM in BOB WOV has some of the same problems as the IL-2 damage model. You can do significant damage to an enemy and still have a hard time catching him to finish him off. Although I know Buddye has been tweaking the DM to slow down the damaged aircraft in WOV.

nearmiss
08-28-2008, 07:32 PM
The thing I find with BOB WOV is its harder to setup your joystick to make the Hurricane as solid a gun platform as it really was. That said the DM in BOB WOV has some of the same problems as the IL-2 damage model. You can do significant damage to an enemy and still have a hard time catching him to finish him off. Although I know Buddye has been tweaking the DM to slow down the damaged aircraft in WOV.

Buddye works his bumm off, and he definitely is an anchor for the BOB II. The AI performance is friggin' world class awesome. Now, if I could knock some planes down... LOL

Anton Yudintsev
08-28-2008, 07:42 PM
Hurricanes with cannons... that'll do it. LOL

Nothing to laugh at.
There were Hurricanes with cannons during BoB.


I think you've done right thing with console game. Console players like a lot of high quality graphics, fast action, explosions and lots of victories.

I think, you completely missing the point.
In BoB there WERE hundreds of planes in the air. Try reading historical books or whatever.
Noone promises you a lot of victories, if you'll play in 'simulation' mode.
Damage Model in our game makes plane easir to strike down, that's true.
But that affects ALL planes - and your plane as well. Fair play.
It is easier to get killed, if you are not afraid of combat. Like it really was in WW2.


I hope you do well with BOP. It certainly won't hurt to have renewed interest in WW2 Combat flight simulation. Personally, I've got a $4,000+ PC, a $1,000+ in Controllers and have absolutely no thoughts of going to console games. I'm an adult, so sitting in front of TV with bowl of chips and a Monster drink and pushing buttons at light speed is not how I see myself.

PS3 allows to use peripheral.
You know, consoles are cheaper than same PC.
That's because of:
* Sony PAYS for it. You are paying for PC, at least 30% margin (or more). Sony PAYS from it's own pocket for each unit. To make it cheaper for you.
* There MILLIONS of same hardware. Much more than any videocard for PC. Mass production makes things cheaper, you know.
* Consoles are DESIGNED for games, in hardware.
* There is no Windows running on it, taking 30% of CPU and memory.
* There is only one hardware, so you can optimize the game for it much better.

So I think, your 4000$ PC is actually XX% worse, than 499$ PS3. I know it is painful :).

proton45
08-28-2008, 08:10 PM
The thing I find with BOB WOV is its harder to setup your joystick to make the Hurricane as solid a gun platform as it really was. That said the DM in BOB WOV has some of the same problems as the IL-2 damage model. You can do significant damage to an enemy and still have a hard time catching him to finish him off. Although I know Buddye has been tweaking the DM to slow down the damaged aircraft in WOV.


I had the same problem with my joystick and "BoB WOV"...I could never get it "set up right". I never felt "connected" to the aeroplane. Aeroplane response would always "lag" or it would be "twitchy"...

Biggs
08-28-2008, 08:15 PM
the bottom line, Anton, is that no RAF fighter should be able to shred wings off of any plane with a half second burst of .303 fire... it just didnt happen... EVER. the .303 had no EXPLOSIVE power like that of a cannon shell.

the ONLY way to break enemy planes appart with the .303 was to hit an ammo hold or explode a fuel tank...

also why did they choose to go with the x12 MG hurri and not the much more common 8... are we flying the MkII hurri or the mkI?

also the "mkIX" in one of the vids need to be reworked... the engine section of the fuselage isnt long enough... right now its the same length as the mkI, with just the mkIX exhaust ports. the front windshield is also wrong on the MkIX the armor glass was moved to the inside of the cannopy after the mkV was produced.

lastly the 109E in the vids has the wrong armament, it should have 2 mgs firing from the top of the engine. the vid shows a single cannon firing through the spinner which is obviously incorrect for that variant.


it seems like the production team is just mix and matching types of planes together which is really disappointing.

nearmiss
08-28-2008, 08:20 PM
Nothing to laugh at.
There were Hurricanes with cannons during BoB.


I think, you completely missing the point.
In BoB there WERE hundreds of planes in the air. Try reading historical books or whatever.
Noone promises you a lot of victories, if you'll play in 'simulation' mode.
Damage Model in our game makes plane easir to strike down, that's true.
But that affects ALL planes - and your plane as well. Fair play.
It is easier to get killed, if you are not afraid of combat. Like it really was in WW2.



PS3 allows to use peripheral.
You know, consoles are cheaper than same PC.
That's because of:
* Sony PAYS for it. You are paying for PC, at least 30% margin (or more). Sony PAYS from it's own pocket for each unit. To make it cheaper for you.
* There MILLIONS of same hardware. Much more than any videocard for PC. Mass production makes things cheaper, you know.
* Consoles are DESIGNED for games, in hardware.
* There is no Windows running on it, taking 30% of CPU and memory.
* There is only one hardware, so you can optimize the game for it much better.

So I think, your 4000$ PC is actually XX% worse, than 499$ PS3. I know it is painful :).

As you like it.

I use my PC for a myriad of things, not just playing games. I only do Combat flight Simulator type game BOB II WOV, IL2, but even then not more than a few hours a week.

I do all kinds of other things with my computer, which are a great deal more important to me than playing a game. So... for me a console to play games in front of my TV is very specialized and would be a waste of money for me.

My computer choice is great....feeling no pain.

Good luck

Anton Yudintsev
08-28-2008, 10:13 PM
PC is for work, not for gaming.
That was exactly my point.
So it's price shows nothing about it's ability to play games in better (lower) quality.
PC will evolute, and consoles won't (for next 4 years).
But today's 4k PC will become old trash after 4 years as well.
Moreover, console will play all games in the same FPS and without driver errors or whatever even after 10 years.

Anton Yudintsev
08-28-2008, 10:16 PM
it seems like the production team is just mix and matching types of planes together which is really disappointing.

It seems to me, that you are one of those guys, who knows everything better.

We are using a lot of materials, and historical consultants as well, paying them money, and you are measuring fueselage length in trailer.

I really don't want to continue that discussion.

Tbag
08-28-2008, 11:34 PM
This is just looking awesome. I'm going to buy a PS3. I'm not going to buy a PS3. I'm going to buy a PS3, I'm not...............

nearmiss
08-28-2008, 11:59 PM
PC is for work, not for gaming.
That was exactly my point.
So it's price shows nothing about it's ability to play games in better (lower) quality.
PC will evolute, and consoles won't (for next 4 years).
But today's 4k PC will become old trash after 4 years as well.
Moreover, console will play all games in the same FPS and without driver errors or whatever even after 10 years.

So will the console, and the games date just as fast for consoles. Since kids don't have alot of money the games and consoles to have potential for longer lifespan. A kid may not be able to afford the latest and greatest console and games, so they buy one that is a little older and play with it.

Then there are the kids that constantly rag on their parents for a new updated console. The parents reluctantly jump into that, knowing full well an arsenal of games will have to be bought to keep junior happy.

Regardless, I don't think there is a meeting ground for the PC/Console until the console allows for elaborate interface connections, i.e, as a PC. I don't think that would be a bad thing overall. Afterall, whenever I change between the BOB II and IL2 I have to reconfigure abunch of things to get either game to work correctly. I don't play either on the Vista, so I have a dual boot to XP. Yeah, it's a pain in the wazoo. It's would be great to just pop in a disk, and everything worked properly.
That would require standardization of many things to work, and from what I see... Sony, Nintendo, Xbox are not going to yield up anything to outside vendors. The have fewer problems when they have control of the whole console and it's interface products.

IceFire
08-29-2008, 01:34 AM
It seems to me, that you are one of those guys, who knows everything better.

We are using a lot of materials, and historical consultants as well, paying them money, and you are measuring fueselage length in trailer.

I really don't want to continue that discussion.

Might want to pay them a bit better then...there are some obvious inaccuracies I've seen so far. If this is to be an authentic experience then the details better be right. Doesn't have to be rivet for rivet...but the look of the planes and the armament better be right. Or the right types better be used.

If the time period is supposed to be Battle of Britain then the most obvious types should be Spitfire Mark I and Hurricane Mark I. The Mark I.b was a rare type that failed in the front line role. The early Hispano cannons it was fitted with jammed after only a few seconds of firing at best. Only a couple of squadrons flew them and while they appreciated the hitting power...hated the fact that the cannons jammed and wanted their old Mark Is back. So for a rare type...its showing up surprisingly allot in the trailers. Looks beautiful...but if its going to be accurate...if thats your audience....then it should be accurate.

Skoshi Tiger
08-29-2008, 01:40 AM
the bottom line, Anton, is that no RAF fighter should be able to shred wings off of any plane with a half second burst of .303 fire... it just didnt happen... EVER. the .303 had no EXPLOSIVE power like that of a cannon shell.
...
it seems like the production team is just mix and matching types of planes together which is really disappointing.

A He111 weighs something like 26500lbs(12 metric tons) all supported by the spars running through the wings.. Thoses spars are engineered to support the weight with at least weight as possible.

The 8 .303 Brownings will in 1/2 a second, throw out something like a pound of lead traveling 2450 feet per second.

I'm sure if this half second burst was concentrated on the right spot, the consequences would be devistating. Even half a 'G'+ in a evasive action and our efective weight of the bomber would be 18 metics tons! All through those spars!

"Ever" is too big a word. I'm sure there were a few pilots on both side who thought "That is impossible! How did he do that!"

Also I'm not sure if BOP has ever been put forward as a 100% historical sim!

Cheers!

nearmiss
08-29-2008, 02:08 AM
Just thought of something funny...

In all my years of combat flight simming I've never discussed a Console game with anyone. Nor have I ever played one.

:-P

Monterey
08-29-2008, 02:23 AM
BoP is a console GAME.

It will be mostly kids playing it, so it doesn't have to meet all of your anally correct standards.

Anton is a GAME developer, so give him a break.

Leave the SIMS for Oleg and Ilya.

Anton Yudintsev
08-29-2008, 02:36 AM
So for a rare type...its showing up surprisingly allot in the trailers. Looks beautiful...but if its going to be accurate...if thats your audience....then it should be accurate.

I just don't get you point.
1. There WERE such hurricanes (with Hispano).
2. They were rather rare.

So what?
I know they were rare. And we both agree they were really exist.
'They appear too often in trailer'. Huh? They appears in the game rather often.
Our intention is NOT making all planes appear on screen statistically accurate percentage of time. It even sounds a bit silly, you know.
We are making game.
They are some historical air battles - but even those are not documentary movies, player participates there.
And some are not present at all.
Some planes we like more than others.
Some planes are not even present in the game.
In 'Simplified' (arcade) mode - there is cross on the screen showing where to shoot. No spins, and auto-flaps working on landing. I don't think that Earth should stop because of that.


So what?
It seem to me, that you are trying to show your own knoweledge - I agree, you know what you are talking about (at least here).
But than you'd better to confirm that what we see in trailers is historical accurate planes, not arguing about that because 'they were rare'.
We are not writing books, we are making games.

Simetimes, I think it is better to stay away from forums, like Oleg does :)
It doesn't seem to help performance of our title.

Anton Yudintsev
08-29-2008, 02:47 AM
BoP is a console GAME.

It will be mostly kids playing it, so it doesn't have to meet all of your anally correct standards.

Anton is a GAME developer, so give him a break.

Leave the SIMS for Oleg and Ilya.

You know, you are right. We are developing game.
And it is flight-sim as well.

Funny thing is, that it is not book. Everyone agrees that they were such planes in BoB - they are talking that they were RARE. So they should appear rarely in trailers (or in the game).
That is not about sim it or not.
It is about 'historical truth'.

Guys, actually, it is impossible to make Sim (and game also) that is historicall accurate. You can be better pilot, and change battle dramatically. And than what? We should change history of WW2? Or tell player, that he is performing too good, and game is over?

But we are not doing that.
They ARE historically accurate planes in correct theatres of war.
Not exactly the same planes of the same types flying with same pilots, flying in the same directions and repeating same mistakes. Just historically accurate. No matter how RARE or COMMON they were.
And they are simulated (in Simulator mode). With perfect original IL-2 flight model.

And it is huge part of the game, which is NOT for kids.
It was easier for us not to make it. It takes time, money, and nerves to do it.
It is for hardcore community.

Ugh.

BTW.
Game is 14+.
Avearage age of next-gen console players is 20+.
Not so many 'kids'.

Chivas
08-29-2008, 02:51 AM
I'm sure the majority of simmers will find IL-2 BOP very entertaining. If its possible to continue support for the game with new maps, features, and aircraft it will have a long life.

Biggs
08-29-2008, 03:04 AM
A He111 weighs something like 26500lbs(12 metric tons) all supported by the spars running through the wings.. Thoses spars are engineered to support the weight with at least weight as possible.

The 8 .303 Brownings will in 1/2 a second, throw out something like 6 pounds of lead traveling 2450 feet per second.

I'm sure if this half second burst was concentrated on the right spot, the consequences would be devistating. Even half a 'G'+ in a evasive action and our efective weight of the bomber would be 18 metics tons! All through those spars!

"Ever" is too big a word. I'm sure there were a few pilots on both side who thought "That is impossible! How did he do that!"

Also I'm not sure if BOP has ever been put forward as a 100% historical sim!

Cheers!


yes "ever" is a bit too tough a word but i wanted to emphisize the fact that the .303s had a extremely hard time with causing major structural damage from the round itself... bombers came home with 200+ bullet holes at times...

yes spits and Hurris were able to make enemy A/C explode, but again, it was because of a well placed (or lucky) hit to a vital part of the plane.

Im not sure if Anton already said this but i hope that there is a selection for "realistic damage".

IceFire
08-29-2008, 03:06 AM
I just don't get you point.
1. There WERE such hurricanes (with Hispano).
2. They were rather rare.

So what?
I know they were rare. And we both agree they were really exist.
'They appear too often in trailer'. Huh? They appears in the game rather often.
Our intention is NOT making all planes appear on screen statistically accurate percentage of time. It even sounds a bit silly, you know.
We are making game.
They are some historical air battles - but even those are not documentary movies, player participates there.
And some are not present at all.
Some planes we like more than others.
Some planes are not even present in the game.
In 'Simplified' (arcade) mode - there is cross on the screen showing where to shoot. No spins, and auto-flaps working on landing. I don't think that Earth should stop because of that.


So what?
It seem to me, that you are trying to show your own knoweledge - I agree, you know what you are talking about (at least here).
But than you'd better to confirm that what we see in trailers is historical accurate planes, not arguing about that because 'they were rare'.
We are not writing books, we are making games.

Simetimes, I think it is better to stay away from forums, like Oleg does :)
It doesn't seem to help performance of our title.
Oleg and I have gotten along quite well actually...not that we talk that often but a few good ideas exchanged on rare occasions. I'm quite realistic about what goes into making games and indeed works of art because thats what I think games are.

But let me get back to my point. Another forum member is pointing out that there are some issues with your planes and you have assured us that you have people working on the history. Great! Then lets make sure we have something that represents history...so either include all of the different types present (i.e. 8 gunned .303 Spitfire I versus Spitfire Ia with twin cannons) or choose the most common type that represents the time period the best.

Why choose the type that failed in combat? Or...in the case of the Mark II Hurricane...simply was not available until the battle was already decided? Unless your time period is September to November in which case the Mark IIa is perfectly acceptable. I'm not actually sure off the top of my head when the 12 gunned IIb arrived...but I don't think it did during any of the time considered part of the Battle of Britain. Then there is the 109E which is firing a 20mm cannon through the propeller hub (another forum poster here rightly spotted that one). Again...a type that was extremely rare. I forget the model number of the top of my head but a 109 expert can surely tell you that this type is not a common one at all.

Yes it existed...absolutely...your not wrong in this. But all of these were rare, not present at the battle, and generally failed as major production variants at the time. But yet suddenly they are everywhere. If the other types are present as well...then bonus...these are neat to have as bonus aircraft. But not the main types.

Its OK if this is meant to be an arcade shoot em up for XBox with nice graphics and a fun style of gameplay. Believe me...I'm actually a fan of Blazing Angels because they intentionally did not go the route of being historical. Just loosely based on history. But this new IL-2 game is doing two things:

1) Purporting to be related to earlier IL-2 titles by using the same branding and name thus trying to gain the attention of sim pilots.

2) Trying to look very realistic and simulate a real battle that took place.

Thats what it looks like...and if thats what its trying to do it should do it and do it to the highest possible standard including the history. Rare planes should be rare. Or not present. Common types should be present to be most historically accurate. Feel free to disagree but I think it does a disservice.

I sincerely and honestly wish the team involved the best of luck because they are working on a subject very near to my heart...but I wish a little more care was used. Then again...its meant for the XBox 360 and maybe we shouldn't expect such seriousness. But I do. I'm definitely in the target audience owning a 360 and being an avid follower of aviation.

And please don't think I'm some how showing off my knowledge. Thats not my style. I know things and I talk about them when its relevant only :)

Anton Yudintsev
08-29-2008, 03:20 AM
Oleg and I have gotten along quite well actually...not that we talk that often but a few good ideas exchanged on rare occasions. I'm quite realistic about what goes into making games and indeed works of art because thats what I think games are.

But let me get back to my point. Another forum member is pointing out that there are some issues with your planes and you have assured us that you have people working on the history. Great! Then lets make sure we have something that represents history...so either include all of the different types present (i.e. 8 gunned .303 Spitfire I versus Spitfire Ia with twin cannons) or choose the most common type that represents the time period the best.

Why choose the type that failed in combat? Or...in the case of the Mark II Hurricane...simply was not available until the battle was already decided? Unless your time period is September to November in which case the Mark IIa is perfectly acceptable. I'm not actually sure off the top of my head when the 12 gunned IIb arrived...but I don't think it did during any of the time considered part of the Battle of Britain. Then there is the 109E which is firing a 20mm cannon through the propeller hub (another forum poster here rightly spotted that one). Again...a type that was extremely rare. I forget the model number of the top of my head but a 109 expert can surely tell you that this type is not a common one at all.

Yes it existed...absolutely...your not wrong in this. But all of these were rare, not present at the battle, and generally failed as major production variants at the time. But yet suddenly they are everywhere. If the other types are present as well...then bonus...these are neat to have as bonus aircraft. But not the main types.


I know it. You know it. How much of others here know it?
There can be some author's vision in the game, can't it?
We are not throwing away historical realizm like Blazing Angels series.
Just pushing some limits. Because it is game, and because it allows better gameplay. And still histrically true - because there WERE such planes.
As an example.
Have you seen 'Battle of Britain' movie (1969)?
It is historical movie. But it is movie.
No flyable Mk I were even that time, and producers used other modifications.
Some scenes were completely fictitious.
But still it is great, historical accurate movie.
Read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain_(film) .


Believe me...I'm actually a fan of Blazing Angels because they intentionally did not go the route of being historical. Just loosely based on history.


Blazing Angels is arcade game. It is far away not only from history, but from simulation as well. And even reality - I don't think, what I've played in BA2 was _airplane_ :).


And please don't think I'm some how showing off my knowledge. Thats not my style. I know things and I talk about them when its relevant only :)

I was only giving you a credit.

P.S.
Spitfires engine sometimes stopped, when flying down. I haven't heard players complaining, that in game there is no such effect :) Because it simply silly.

IceFire
08-29-2008, 03:32 AM
I know it. You know it. How much of others here know it?
There can be some author's vision in the game, can't it?
We are not throwing away historical realizm like Blazing Angels series.
Just pushing some limits. Because it is game, and because it allows better gameplay. And still histrically true - because there WERE such planes.
As an example.
Have you seen 'Battle of Britain' movie (1969)?
It is historical movie. But it is movie.
No flyable Mk I were even that time, and producers used other modifications.
Some scenes were completely fictitious.
But still it is great, historical accurate movie.
Read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain_(film) .



Blazing Angels is arcade game. It is far away not only from history, but from simulation as well. And even reality - I don't think, what I've played in BA2 was _airplane_ :).



I was only giving you a credit.

P.S.
Spitfires engine sometimes stopped, when flying down. I haven't heard players complaining, that in game there is no such effect :) Because it simply silly.
Fair enough on the authors vision. If such a vision is the case then by all means...its not mine...it is yours and ultimately your the author.

Also a fair point on the Battle of Britain. One of my most watched DVD's (and tapes :)) in my collection. A superb movie that gets as much right as it can. Indeed no Spitfire Mark Is were available. The very similar to almost identical Mark II (the only one flight worthy at the time) makes an appearance in most of the close up shots. The rest are Mark V and IXs with the cannons taken off or cleverly concealed. They did a pretty good job there too. No CGI for them to hide behind. Definitely trying to make them look like bog standard Mark Is on the other hand which was the intention. Absolutely a fair point.

Early Spitfire and Hurricanes had carburetor fed engines which when pushed forward into negative G maneuvers would cause the fuel to rush away from the feed and the engine would indeed stall. This could happen upsidedown, yes, but also while pushing forward on the stick to chase a 109. This was later solved...particularly in the Mark V series of Spitfires and later. In IL-2 1946 and in all previous versions a negative G engine stall occurs on the Hurricane I as it should. One of the many stop gap solutions was called "Miss Shilling's orifice" after the inventor came up with a simple solution to the problem. Have a look if your interested :)

Honestly I wouldn't mind a proper engine stall in the game BoP as well. Simulation mode on. Certainly I'm looking forward to that in Storm of War. Not so much silly in my mind :)

In any case...as I say...wish you the best of luck in the development of this game. A big challenge and a work of art absolutely.

Anton Yudintsev
08-29-2008, 03:41 AM
Early Spitfire and Hurricanes had carburetor fed engines which when pushed forward into negative G maneuvers would cause the fuel to rush away from the feed and the engine would indeed stall. This could happen upsidedown, yes, but also while pushing forward on the stick to chase a 109. This was later solved...particularly in the Mark V series of Spitfires and later. In IL-2 1946 and in all previous versions a negative G engine stall occurs on the Hurricane I as it should.

Yeah, I know a history. :)
But in IL-2 it happens on the Hurricane I, but not on a Spitfire, which was my point.
In our game we have identification of engine stalls, but engine won't break, only engine power lowers. (sometimes engines've stopped running in a real).


Honestly I wouldn't mind a proper engine stall in the game BoP as well. Simulation mode on. Certainly I'm looking forward to that in Storm of War. Not so much silly in my mind :)

I was talking about our console players - they were not asking for that :).
They'll be confused in such a case.


In any case...as I say...wish you the best of luck in the development of this game. A big challenge and a work of art absolutely.

Thanks a lot.

Biggs
08-29-2008, 03:42 AM
artistic license is one thing, but when you clearly have a model (variant) of a 109E that actually shows the Mgs in the cowling, yet you code the plane to fire a cannon through the nose cone that isnt even there, is something completely different.

im sorry to say but its just plain incorrect.

yes 3 cannoned 109s existed, but they were not the 109E.

im really not trying to rain on your game.. i think its beautiful and ill probably buy it.... im just saying you should look more carfully at what your programmers are doing to particular aircraft models.

IceFire
08-29-2008, 05:13 AM
artistic license is one thing, but when you clearly have a model (variant) of a 109E that actually shows the Mgs in the cowling, yet you code the plane to fire a cannon through the nose cone that isnt even there, is something completely different.

im sorry to say but its just plain incorrect.

yes 3 cannoned 109s existed, but they were not the 109E.

im really not trying to rain on your game.. i think its beautiful and ill probably buy it.... im just saying you should look more carfully at what your programmers are doing to particular aircraft models.
Actually it was possible to mount a MG-FF firing through the nose cone...but apparently there were problems with this installation. Not sure what those problems were. I guess the intention always was to do it that way but they couldn't quite get it sorted out properly until the Bf109F models.

Still...its the absolute least common variation and another type that ultimately was a failure just like the Spit Ib and Hurricane I with experimental cannon armament.

Most common 109E armament was the E-4 model with two MG17 machine guns in the nose and two MG-FF/M 20mm cannons on the wings. The only other variation should be the E-1 model with MG17s in the nose and on the wings (but these were apparently all converted to E-3 or E-4 standard).

IceFire
08-29-2008, 05:16 AM
Yeah, I know a history. :)
But in IL-2 it happens on the Hurricane I, but not on a Spitfire, which was my point.


Actually a correction. There is no Spitfire Mark I in IL-2 so therefore no reason to model the problem. The earliest Spitfire in IL-2 is the Mark V which did not suffer any adverse negative G problems that other planes didn't also suffer (no WWII warbird is capable of prolonged negative G).

If there was a Spit Mark I then it should be modeled.

Anton Yudintsev
08-29-2008, 12:07 PM
artistic license is one thing, but when you clearly have a model (variant) of a 109E that actually shows the Mgs in the cowling, yet you code the plane to fire a cannon through the nose cone that isnt even there, is something completely different.

im sorry to say but its just plain incorrect.

yes 3 cannoned 109s existed, but they were not the 109E.


There was Bf-109E-3 with 2MG17 in the nose, two wing cannons and one MG FF/M. According to some sources, it was flying prototype according to others - series plane.

If that was a point.

Anton Yudintsev
08-29-2008, 12:11 PM
Actually it was possible to mount a MG-FF firing through the nose cone...but apparently there were problems with this installation. Not sure what those problems were. I guess the intention always was to do it that way but they couldn't quite get it sorted out properly until the Bf109F models.

Problem is it was rarely used by pilots, because of vibration.


Still...its the absolute least common variation and another type that ultimately was a failure just like the Spit Ib and Hurricane I with experimental cannon armament.


You are wrong. It is not a failure. We are not showing you historical documentary movie.
It is game. It simulates planes, which were actually exists - so it is historical correct.
We are not showing you WW2 statistics - and we do not guarantee that all planes will appear on screen same percent of time as they stastically appeared in the skies those days. It is nonsense.


And I hope this is last time I am repeating that.

Anton Yudintsev
08-29-2008, 12:13 PM
Actually a correction. There is no Spitfire Mark I in IL-2 so therefore no reason to model the problem. The earliest Spitfire in IL-2 is the Mark V which did not suffer any adverse negative G problems that other planes didn't also suffer (no WWII warbird is capable of prolonged negative G).

If there was a Spit Mark I then it should be modeled.

Probably you right :(
I am starting to forget what it was in IL-2 (and it's add-ons).
Another example. Afair, Bf109 (at least some of them) were able to get out of spin only each second turn - it wasn't simulated.

Biggs
08-29-2008, 06:24 PM
There was Bf-109E-3 with 2MG17 in the nose, two wing cannons and one MG FF/M. According to some sources, it was flying prototype according to others - series plane.

If that was a point.

thats good and all but thats not the plane that is in your game right now..

im not protesting the fact that they didnt exist. im saying, if the 3d model of the 109E in BOP has mgs in the cowling then i suspect that bullets should be coming out of them and not out the nose...

IceFire
08-29-2008, 09:40 PM
Problem is it was rarely used by pilots, because of vibration.



You are wrong. It is not a failure. We are not showing you historical documentary movie.
It is game. It simulates planes, which were actually exists - so it is historical correct.
We are not showing you WW2 statistics - and we do not guarantee that all planes will appear on screen same percent of time as they stastically appeared in the skies those days. It is nonsense.


And I hope this is last time I am repeating that.
I understand perfectly what you are saying. I just disagree.

And in all honesty the Spitfire Ib and Hurricane experimental with cannons WERE indeed failures so much so that the pilots lobbied to have their old planes (with 8x.303 machine guns) returned to them. Thats pretty damning for those early cannon armed RAF fighters.

Anton Yudintsev
08-29-2008, 10:30 PM
thats good and all but thats not the plane that is in your game right now..

im not protesting the fact that they didnt exist. im saying, if the 3d model of the 109E in BOP has mgs in the cowling then i suspect that bullets should be coming out of them and not out the nose...

Oh, I get it now.
1. There was nose cannon there.
2. Trailer was captured from March (or April) version. Now is August. Game will be released in 09.
Some of models were just placeholders of others, that time.
Because I am mostly playing latest build, I haven't got what you were talking. I even talked to other guys from our team to clarify if I am wrong :)
Hope, it's clear now.

Anton Yudintsev
08-29-2008, 10:33 PM
I understand perfectly what you are saying. I just disagree.

And in all honesty the Spitfire Ib and Hurricane experimental with cannons WERE indeed failures so much so that the pilots lobbied to have their old planes (with 8x.303 machine guns) returned to them. Thats pretty damning for those early cannon armed RAF fighters.

So, that's a point where we can't get to one understaning, than...
Just hope, it won't spoil game experience you. Or you can just not buy game - if it is so critical to you :)

IceFire
08-30-2008, 12:12 AM
So, that's a point where we can't get to one understaning, than...
Just hope, it won't spoil game experience you. Or you can just not buy game - if it is so critical to you :)

Yes I believe we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

When the game is finished and released I will look at it, read the reviews, and we'll see. If the gameplay and fun factor can make up for it then I will give it a fair shake.

EAF51/155_TonyR
08-30-2008, 08:41 AM
I hope this was in arcade mode:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqFL7VKvbc4&feature=related

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-30-2008, 08:46 AM
Actually a correction. There is no Spitfire Mark I in IL-2

My version has one. ;-)

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-30-2008, 08:49 AM
I'm sure the majority of simmers will find IL-2 BOP very entertaining. If its possible to continue support for the game with new maps, features, and aircraft it will have a long life.

Ahh and there lies the beauty of Xbox Lives Downloadable content. :-)

S!

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-30-2008, 08:57 AM
If SOW:BOB has grapichs as good at this (I guess it will), and a weather as good as indicated it will be, this will become a dream to fly. I wouldn't even miss enemies

Here is the nice thing about it...no upgrade required. It will look (good HDTV/LCD required) and play the same for everyone with no issues. Perfectly everytime. Im quite certain we cant say that about a PC version.

S!

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-30-2008, 09:01 AM
I hope this was in arcade mode

Press F8 in IL2 and you get the same thing.

S!

Biggs
08-30-2008, 09:18 PM
Oh, I get it now.
1. There was nose cannon there.
2. Trailer was captured from March (or April) version. Now is August. Game will be released in 09.
Some of models were just placeholders of others, that time.
Because I am mostly playing latest build, I haven't got what you were talking. I even talked to other guys from our team to clarify if I am wrong :)
Hope, it's clear now.

oh i see now...yes everything is clear now.

so the final version of the 109e will have the 2 mgs on top of the cowling and 2 cannons in the wings.

KOM.Nausicaa
08-31-2008, 12:06 AM
I hope this was in arcade mode:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqFL7VKvbc4&feature=related

Unfortunately I that is exactly how I expect BoP to be. its an arcae game destined to dumb american teenagers, dont forget.

Anton Yudintsev
08-31-2008, 02:14 AM
Unfortunately I that is exactly how I expect BoP to be. its an arcae game destined to dumb american teenagers, dont forget.

Video is in 'arcade' (simplified) mode.
Flight model is from original IL-2, so nothing new can be dicovered here.

Ironman69
08-31-2008, 09:10 AM
Anton, can you tell us which version of IL2 you are using for the basis of the Flight Model? Is it pre- 4.01m of IL2? 4.01m had the new updated FM that was supposed to be more accurate ( was beta for BoB FM ). Thanks for your input.

Anton Yudintsev
08-31-2008, 03:12 PM
Anton, can you tell us which version of IL2 you are using for the basis of the Flight Model? Is it pre- 4.01m of IL2? 4.01m had the new updated FM that was supposed to be more accurate ( was beta for BoB FM ). Thanks for your input.

It was last one available in Nov. 2006.

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-31-2008, 05:41 PM
Unfortunately I that is exactly how I expect BoP to be. its an arcae game destined to dumb american teenagers, dont forget.

"Video is in 'arcade' (simplified) mode.
Flight model is from original IL-2, so nothing new can be dicovered here."

Proving you do not know what you are talking about. Your speculations are without merit and the average age of the console gamer is 33 years old so I would say your teenage comment is off the mark as well. Your comment regarding "dumb American" is just plain ignorant and uncalled for and if anyone is showing any sign of being dumb I would have to it is you thus far. If you do not know what you are talking about and can not speak it in a rational unbiased way then keep it to yourself. I think you will find you will look far less foolish in the future.

S!

Drum_tastic
08-31-2008, 07:05 PM
Some of you people amaze me.

These guys’s are trying to create something good; in fact very good from what I have seen. I reckon they have been working their nuts off to make this happen and it is obviously within their interests to make it the best they can.

So why are people slagging it off before they have even seen it?

I'm no tech head who knows the ins and outs of producing flight sim games, I don't need to to enjoy it, I leave that to the experts and from the posts I have seen here there are a lot of them about.

I think we are very lucky at the moment; we have got BOP around the corner, ROF around the corner and of course BoB in the pipeline and Il2 to keep us busy in the meantime. For people who love combat flight sims could it really be any better. I believe it is all raising the bar

So why don't we give Anton and his crew a break and look at it as he is on "our side"

ECV56_LeChuck
08-31-2008, 07:14 PM
+1

Yeah man good work Anton, Good to see the effort to bring a flight sim / light sim to consoles. A lot of ppl will enjoy the game.

robtek
09-01-2008, 04:21 PM
i have to agree with the previous posts.
While i wouldn´t touch a game-console for anything in the world this game is state of the art within the limitations of a console-game.
And doesn´t it look great???

KOM.Nausicaa
09-01-2008, 04:29 PM
"Video is in 'arcade' (simplified) mode.
Flight model is from original IL-2, so nothing new can be dicovered here."

Proving you do not know what you are talking about. Your speculations are without merit and the average age of the console gamer is 33 years old so I would say your teenage comment is off the mark as well. Your comment regarding "dumb American" is just plain ignorant and uncalled for and if anyone is showing any sign of being dumb I would have to it is you thus far. If you do not know what you are talking about and can not speak it in a rational unbiased way then keep it to yourself. I think you will find you will look far less foolish in the future.

S!

I must apologize for my sentence. I had an argument on a political forum with some americans that day, I was angry and I think it must have influenced what I said. Apologies again.
Btw, I have a console myself (PS3), I am 41 years old and enjoy it very much.
Apologies also fo the devs of BoP. I think the sim looks very good. I think it will be "arcadish " maybe, but that hasn't stopped me from posting updates about it on other forums I frequent.

Kirill Yudintsev
09-01-2008, 07:57 PM
Video made in simplified realism level - you can see this in the first seconds (screen after selecting mission)

=GI=Joel
09-02-2008, 02:40 PM
http://www.slipperybrick.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/ace-edge-flightstick.jpg

=GI=Joel
09-02-2008, 02:41 PM
looks like the joystick has il2 all over it. think its an x45.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-03-2008, 12:17 AM
i have to agree with the previous posts.
While i wouldn´t touch a game-console for anything in the world this game is state of the art within the limitations of a console-game.
And doesn´t it look great???

What limitations are you referring to exactly?

S!

robtek
09-03-2008, 08:14 PM
What limitations are you referring to exactly?

S!

First thing that comes to my mind is that trackir isn´t supported and then i believe that most people dont have the necessary hardware like keyboard, joystick etc.
Wthout this basics and pure cockpit - view it will be...just arcade, me thinks.
There may be more like a i.e. a low resolution, but then i do not know enough of consoles to make definite statements.