What I have been told is that PCs and their cooling processes are going to be going in two different directions now & in the future ( this may have something to do with Motherboards,design or layout...sorry I'm not much of a computer expert..) but I'd hate to get a brand new top of the line rig only to find out Oleg and his crew have gone in a different direction.I don't mind upgrading the new rig at some future point - thats what I have done with my 5 year old HP ( which is now at the end of the line in terms of what it will handle & has been for almost two years now while I have waited for SOW...) but I'd sure hate to find out that I have chosen the wrong direction now & I'm up a creek for SOW! More advice please.... would love to wade into the bomber formations without FPS dropping to 10-12 and having to go to 1/2 speed to smooth out the fun!?

I'd just like to ask if we can expect to see volumetric smoke effects like BoBII: WoV has from burning planes?

Video here shows the effect a few times:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lPmkkBFT8M

It looks stunning and adds so much more to the immersion. Just watch the dogfight as the 109 catches fire and the Hurricane passes over it around the 4 minutes 10 seconds mark.

This would be superb.

Cheers, MP.

Honestly that smoke looks a little Hollywood-Style to me. At this speed, how could smoke-puffs of that size appear directly behind the machine?

I'm with Feuerfalke on this one. It doesn't look realistic at all ....

I don't doubt volumetric smoke will be in SoW, how could he leave it out if he wants the engine to last? And as Oleg already got the smoke right in IL2, I see no reason why anybody should worry about it looking unnatural like in the vid.

I'm sure they will use some type of "particle" rendering process....

If they just used the oldfashioned 2D-sprites, they'll get kicked where it hurts. ;)

true...

the primary issue that sooooo many people seem to be concerned with is the issue of how light will be rendered in "BoB SoW". Almost all of the graphics questions I read can be boiled down to an inquiry about (real time?) "light rendering"...weather someone wants to know about reflections, mist, smoke, fire, clouds, tree's, "depth of field", whatever...it's ALL an issue of "light rendering" in one way or another.

Some people have expressed concern over OpenGL's ability to render "state-of-the-art" lighting effects (vs micro$ofts DirectX), but I hear that some interesting work has been done in the field of "real time" light rendering within the OpenGL standard... Oleg has already stated that (any) delay(?) with "BoB SoW's" release is not due to the delay in the OpenGL 3.0 standard, so we can assume (I guess) that he has been working within the 2.1 graphics core spec's... I wonder who's work (or theory) his light rendering will be based on?

That's correct. I remember several discussions at the UBIboards, refering to the statement of OpenGL being used for SoW and the doubts and fears connected to that. Somebody stated, that SoW will look photorealistic at highest settings, even considering the routines already implemented.

It was stated that all effects of the DirectX-Engine are possible with OpenGL, too, and lets not forget that Eyecandy-Games like Doom3 or ETQW use OpenGL, too.

Considering the experience Maddox Games has with OpenGL, I expect some very nice eyecandy in BoB. :grin:

In the FMB Menu there is a objects menu with a object sub menu, there are some 700+ objects listed there by #1, #2 and so on, you have to roll the mouse over the numbered item to see what it is. Question, is there a printed list or chart that identify each of these items with-out having to scroll through the list hoping to find what you are looking for?

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...3/m/8211093236

Has a few links for mission building, not sure how up to date the object list is(at least 4.07)


Cheers!
Ax

Where do I find the various airfield layouts for creating you own mission map?

TC

Hi Oleg, whats the hold up with SOW mate?

Online score
 

Hi Oleg,

Maybe this one has been asked already:


Online score could adopt the sharing of kills and points in case of different players hitting the same enemy. This would be more historical, as many airforces used to recognise shared kills, either in the form of fractions of planes, or other.

Additionally, from a programming standpoint it should be easy even to count and attribute the hits in vital parts to a single player and thus limit the kill-stealing.

Regards,
Insuber

+1 !!

This has been suggested a lot of times, but

+1

because I'd really like to see that in SoW!

Probably already been asked, but to what extent will other crew be represented, and to what extent will they be animated? Can we hope for gunner's slewing their weapons on diving Spitfires in the cramped glass house of the Ju-88?

Like Oleg has said many times before...not soon. Actually, what Oleg has said (many times) is he doesn't know when it will be done...it will be done when its done.

Hes never mentioned anything about it not being soon to me.

The only thing I remember him saying awhile back, is that he hoped to have a idea on the system specs required to run SOW this summer. If that ends up being the case it could indicate the code is being optimized and we could end up seeing the game within a few months of the end of the year. :)

Ya, that was it. He said he hoped to have an idea by this summer, but he also said he didn't know for sure. Too me that sounds like its going to be awhile (no time soon)...

I interpreted this the same way. If it was close, he'd probably estimated it at least in a matter of months. Since he couldn't even do that, it could be months, but it could also be years.

On a side note: The first ingame-trailer for Duke Nukem Forever has been released yesterday, so the race is on. :grin:

Hence my original question of, Hey Oleg, whats the hold up with SOW mate?

This is as annoying as when driving the car and the kids in the back seat are repeating over and over again.

"are we there yet are we there yet are we there yet are we there yet are we there yet"

:grin:

That's exactly my impression. I have yet to learn to have the patience to just answer No No No No No No No. ;)

I dont know why you guys are getting annoyed it should be Oleg. :)

Not at all - we're all sitting in the car. Oleg is just the one on the wheel. ;)

With the release of 'that' video of allegedly il2 for consoles,i think it would be nice if we had some news about the computer version.Nike-it say's it is not BoB,but it sure looks like it is related.

Well look at it on the bright side maybe these CPUs will be out by the time SOW is release...

http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/24/s...ickin-laser-b/

It dose make one wonder about this "development update" Oleg has been preparing for the last week or so (before anyone asks "what development update"? I'm talking about the one "Nike-it" mentioned, and "crazyivan1970" mirrored)... ;)

Nah, that's not annoying... what is truly annoying is when just after pulling out of the roadhouse.... someone says, "gotta go toilet".

Now that's annoying.

can't blame anyone for being excited about impending (?) release of new game... it sorta builds the vibe a bit

Hi Guys,

I have posted dev update. Sorry for so long time no see. Simply we are so very busy with Alfa BoB and preparing of source code for Korean simulator... There was still no time-room for IL-2 4.09.. sorry.

Sure, sometime looks like :) :) My son 4 years old begun to speak too much last time when I drive the car and asking me to put for him more attention :)

Good to hear from you Oleg and good to hear the Alpha is under way. Could you comment a little bit on IL2: Birds of Prey? Could you give us some hints how it will compare with SOW?

We are not busy with Birds of Prey project. It is third party project under control of 1C. We just gave them full source code and did neccessary consultations.
It looks good, but not like BoB engine. BoB engine it is not modification of Il-2 engine.
Also I tested periodically BoP and would like to say that the contol of aircraft there and FM isn't like in all arcade sim-games, but control aircraft is more easy than in arcade sims... becasue the guys keeping some original physics from Il-2.

Hope I did right answers for all the buzz around it :)

Thanks for the info Oleg. It's good to hear that SoW is still making progress.

But as you reached alfa version now, that means that SoW is still far from release isn't it?

Sooo... does that mean BoB will look even better? :)

Thanks for the update Oleg, it was much needed around here :)

I didn't really notice much of an "update".

I don't notice much of a comment here... :)

According to Saqson at simhq this is RRG's work,not 1C.Is that true?

Well, we get a few screenies. Not even ingame screenies. No explanations of where they are at, other than it's in Alpha. Not much of anything solid. Just a tidbit here and there thrown to the masses to keep them quiet. It's been a looooong time since it was first announced, and it looks like not much has been done. Look how good the Slovakia map is, and I don't think it took that long. I think if third party people were helping to work on BoB, it would be farther along by now. I may sound crass, but maybe a post like mine can encourage Oleg to fire back and prove me wrong with some viable info. I hereby challenge you, Mr Maddox. Let 'er rip.

I think the Slovakia map took 2 or 3 years (maybe longer...) is that a long time?

I don't think that Oleg can be prodded or manipulated into supplying the community with more "in-depth information"... it hasn't worked in the few years I have observed this technique at work, and I don't think its likely too garner any results in the near future.

Sometimes I wonder(?)... English isn't Oleg's native language he speaks Russian... I wonder how much of the subtle sarcasm and innuendo that ends up here (in the form of questions) is lost on Oleg? Is it really an effective tactic or dose it loose something in translation? I have yet to see an on-line translator that can translate "context" or "innuendo"... :)


p.s. I would be nice if he would answer a batch of "new" questions (assuming their are any "new" questions posted here... It seems like I see a lot of repeat questions cropping up again and again...)

Me thinks Oleg will be answering another round of questions very soon. Course it doesn't really matter at this point. When the BOB SOW goes Gold is what we're all waiting for... patiently and impatiently ;)

That's correct. Again 1C is the publisher, not the developer. ;)

The pictures make me even more convinced that Oleg will surprise us all and they even more convince me that some people cannot be pleased, no matter what's the news or what's being posted.... :rolleyes:

^^,
What if Oleg one day came and say... "you guys do you know what?, It's going to come out and then a release date".

That would be cool :P, ive no problem waiting im sure when time comes around we'll get more info but i'd be more awsome if he just out of nowhere said its coming out soon and that's why it's been so quite latly i.e alot of work 2 do :P.

The problem with work in progress is that it's a work in progress. Things are released when they're ready. What possible reason do you think can anyone have to withold things? Alpha screenshots aren't shown at this time because they're alpha screenshots. A sim is a huge number of different components, which all need to come together in the end. Look up some shots from IL-2 alpha and compare them to release shots for a rough comparison. They look like two completely different sims. And the situation today is different than in the pre-Il-2 days. Even though some of you may feel different, it makes little sense to release things that may be unrepresentative of the final result right now - especially after so long a wait.

When things are ready, of course we'll be happy to share them with you. I've been roaming around Oleg's office all this week (and they worked all day Saturday too), and if I can get some of you to take my word for it, things are looking great. There's a crazy amount of really exciting things being done, things never even attempted by anyone before. The sim, on virtually every level, is head and shoulders above everything else.

Oleg and team are trying to build a benchmark sim for many years to come. This is why it's taking a long time. Il-2 lasted all these years because the initial work put into it was solid. Same thing is being done here. Making a masterpiece is hard back-breaking work.

I know it's hard to remain patient in the dark, but what can I say, things will be ready when they're ready.

As we get closer to release, Oleg promises to release more things more often, just as the case was eight years ago, as we were approaching the release of the original Il-2.

Ok, then, Ilya, and sorry for the speculation and discouraging feelings. It's nice to have things clear once more.

It's only that... things are getting boring in the community, and expectations are growing higher and higher; apparent lack of info and of more explanatory updates being a source of anxiety for many MG and RRG fans.

Thank you, Luthier. All we really wanted was a break in the silence, to see how things are going. Type a paragraph every now and again about what is happening with the project. That's not too much to ask, is it?

You don't need to apologise, we know exactly how you guys feel, and it's us who really should be apologising for keeping you in the dark. I mean, I wish we could release shots and videos and stuff, it's just we're not at that point yet. So we've all just gotta hold on.

Trust me, everyone on this side is as interestng in releasing this sim as any of you in playing it. It just takes time.

I'm really curious to see what kind of response your comments will have on the people who are impatient to the point of tears...

I'm willing to bet that their are some people here who don't believe you when you say their is nothing to post. I'm NOT one of them...I'm a "glass half full" kind of guy (its not in my nature to persistently wine), but I'm sure that their are some people here who think your trying to "pull one over"...

thanks for the comments...good luck! :)

Thank You Ilya for posting that.

Thanks Ilya...it gives me a much better idea on how things are going.

~Salute~
Chivas

Work in progress - update
 

Thanks Luthier for your update - I have noticed in the last few weeks the community was getting 'very jittery'.
It must be very exciting times for the development teams - three major projects -
BOB/Europe - SOW (PC version)
BOB/Europe - SOW (Console version)
The Korean Air War (BOB -SOW engine)

They will be all well worth the wait. All the aircraft development shots posted by Oleg today were great to see (my father flew the Avro Anson during WWII - very nostalgic pics)

I think the big word for the whole community is 'patience' - the end result should be a big winner for us all.
DFLion

respectfully waiting
 

I appreciate news-worthy updates, I don't appreciate Know-it-All Whiney Child-Men who jump at the chance to chastise Oleg, or correct everyone on what aircraft had what parts, guns, engines, etc..This is a game, sure it's complex and a simulation of flight, but a game nonetheless, I've got every variation of Il-2 from the original, the Gold edition, Pacific Fighters, the downloaded SOM and 1946 and finally the 1946 DVD, I'll be buying BOB, Korea and hopefully the World War I sim (that hasn't had as much speculation about when it will come out), but I hope that it still does. Oleg I would salute you if I ever met you but I would also apologise for the pitiful masses (at least from my country) who don't know anything about programming, and couldn't render a paper bag but have the utter gaul to think that they know better than the people working on this project as to where, when, and how it will be released.
Luthier I read your posting on this subject and I agree with you 100% I hardly post anymore because of all the brainless, harsh and completely baffling behavior on forums. I'm 48, I've been around warbirds most of my life, know a little about them, even been up in a B-25, But I'm no expert, I learn new stuff about these aircraft and their history and the times they flew in everyday and I have Oleg to thank for bringing my childhood dreams of flying fighter-planes of this era to life. Thanks Oleg

I approve this post !!
Good words Krt_Bong !

Let's set all this hysteria down, won't we ?

Well said Krt_Bong. You put into words my exact thoughts. I too am looking forward to buying the same flight sims - and Over Flanders Fields Phase 3 when it comes out. If all goes well we are about to be a bit spoilt for choice.

RedToo.

+1

+1

Keep up the good work...
 

Thanks Luthier,

That's all I wanted to hear.


Please say this to Oleg for me: "KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK OLEG, WE'LL ALL SUPPORT YOU WHEN THIS SIM WILL BE RELEASED".

Regards,
Insuber


PS: it was easy to drop those two lines, wasn'it ? One of these every couple of weeks and you'll keep a bunch of people happy.

Thank you!
 

Thanks Oleg and team for your dedication to the sim and the resent update. Also; kudos to Luthier for his involvement in the making of the update.

I’m a “propellerhead” since 50 years but the “1946” aroused my interest in early jets and I’m looking forward to the Korean ad on.

Viking

good pics Oleg

just one or two a week to keep the vultures away would be nice then we wouldn't have these endless,pointless topics about the health of SOW

Oleg - I have just read your answer about the linking of SOW with the Korean project...
Very interesting. Also noticed you mentioned a WW1 sim, would this be KOTS or is it another project altogether and if so, how many years down the line would that be?

Lastly Theatre of war used the IL2 engine to great effect, are their plans for a theatre of war using the SOW engine (is it capable) and the big question.
WW2-Online was an attempt to make the perfect complete simulation for WW2. Would the SOW engine be able to do what WW2 Online failed at?

That's what I thought, too, but I didn't want to spread even more speculations or draw Oleg into conflict with the marketing guys ;)

At least it would be an extremely good explanation why KotS posted about something very big happening a few month ago and the silence thereafter.

A few years ahead and we make our own virtual airshow, with old crates and jets on the same server :cool: - okay, pure speculation, but that would really mean to enter a new era not only for flightsims.

Guys Oleg stated long ago that if he had publisher support SOW could be turned in (read new version of SOW) a pay for play combined (air-sea-land) sim. I know I for one would GLADLY^pay 15$-20$ per month for such a sim... And think of all the poeple this would reach...

Well if it has to be a pay to play type of game, for me I would prefer the Guild Wars way to play : MMORPG with no monthly fee, but you pay for every upgrade. It works very well and you have thousands of players online all the time.

This could be a viable option to.

I told just about possible ways. I'm personall plan to expand the WWII and finally in that series also to model Russian front as well on new level.
The next after BoB we plan to make the area that never yet modelled :) And it should go on the market after BoB during a year or so.
But the first our target after BoB - to release the Enduser tools that allow them to incorporate new planes, ground vechicles, ships, etc into a sim as a system. We would like to create some industry around it, like it is around MS FS. It is stron point of MS FS on the market. However we understand the problems with such way and we are doinf it with the target of no cheating online. Some time more close to release later I will tell it in all details.
This will be someting new on the market.

In BoB intial release we will have controlable stationary AA guns. You may play for them in online or even in sigle play if you wish to create such a mission. This will a first step in realisation of our plans for online gameplay. In a touch with writen above you may imagine what can do with only this feature some crative third party developers.
Tools will alow to "program" by simple ways such objects (aircraft also). But again plase read with attention - this will not kill online. There will be some sort of protection.

We don't plan to copy WWIIOL. But if we will decide to go for only online gameplay, then we can use BoB engine.

Hello Oleg,

well this is my first post specifically for you.... I think you have great ideas and I love it that you put so much effort to make a game like SoW. I just hope that you have the time and the fee to put all the ideas that you have in the game, sooner or later.

I like this idea of being able to control ground units in the game too. And if you make a concurrent to WWIIOL, then I sure would be playing it, but not with a monthly fee, it's a bit too sad for the game. As I said, I prefer it the way of Guild Wars. Anyway, for the moment, such a kind of game is not even an idea, but just giving my 2 cents for the future. Keep on the good work and keep the regular updates. I didn't post anything against you, but I could understand the shaking occuring in the last day when you came out of the silence just after BoP was announced. It was kind of releasing a string of a bow that was pulled a lot. Of course, it needs time to get steady again.

Keep the good work !

Well, Guild Wars didn't really invent that, you know?

If I may remind you, it was another game that gave you the option to either buy addons and run them as standalone or to install them merged with your previous versions of the game. And that was years before GW was released. The name of the Game was IL2FB IIRC ;) - As it was quite successful I see no reason to change that way of distribution. We'll buy them all anyway - LOL

IMHO you, Oleg, and your team did a really, really great job with IL2 and from the mere tidbits of informations released, I can imagine there's a great time coming for us simulations-fans once BoB is released. That's honestly the reason why I have no problem waiting - all good things are worth waiting for.

As more compex coding, more complex AI in terms of features, precise of models comparing to original real planes, we need more time to spend for development. And if we want the new jump of technoloiges, visuals, damage, FM, common physics, etc in one product united all in one with some compromises that will be acceptable for many years ahead, like we did years ago with the release of Il-2, we need more time. Real time of full development from intial to final code of Il-2 was 7+ years. And 5 years success on the market. To repeat it very hard... even more hard to jump over our own heads.
I'm the guy, who dislike to create one time good thing then wait when this good thing will be worse then new others... from others. I'm the guy who like to get always only good. So I would like top get in BoB many things that isn't in any sim in features, etc... or in any possible competitors in future (At least I hope ;))
Somebody told here that why we are doing the planes that didn't play role in the war... It is incorect opinion. Each plane played some role. And each plane that we model is important part of history and GAMEPLAY for single play. It is also important for users that like to make themselves some episodes of airwar that we or others never covered in a flightsim. Also this will make the sim unique comparing to all other BoBs before. If you'll look for years back, you may se that with original Il-2 was really the same situation ...
Or you don't like to try to fly military autogyro for recon or for the tunings of radar and trying to escape attacks of bf109s? :):):):) I can give you a guarantie that it will be for many people very interesting and to feell the things that was never experinced before.... Just little sample... Only when you pay attention to such "outside of main picture" detail the product might be interesting for all.

In short:
We try to make the BoB that will be not like all BoBs before on a sim market...
we try to make not the single one time released game, but the series of expansions... that will work like Pacific Fighters in the past... stand alone or merged with previous release, begining from BoB.

Sounds great!

I am still a fan of games like Falcon and B17II, which had a rather limited number or even a single aircraft modeled, but in very high detail and with a lot of dedication. Considering the incredible detail and the number of planes in BoB, I think your team already did an awesome job and I think it is the right thing to do for a long living simulation. And there are even more things ahead considering avionics, radar and stuff, as we read before.

I also find that a great part of the success of IL is exactly because of the things you said: This game is not about flying some planes against each other on an airquake-dogfight-server. It's to a large extend offline and coops, now, and considering we will have AI-planes and AI-Objects in Dogfight-Servers in BoB, these additional planes will be even more important for various missions to come. :cool:

I have to say something about this. I've got my own "priority ladder" for aircraft, ground objects or ships one could add to a simulation.

1.) Primary Objects

These are the main fighting types - those that are historically relevant for the operation(s) simulated by a certain release. This includes aircraft flyable for the player and AI only (say recon types, liaison aircraft or transports) as well as ground objects (tanks, artillery, AAA, trucks, cars, ships etc) needed to display ground operations. Objects of this category are absolutely necessary to accurately simulate the air combat (and ground combat) as it happened in history. However this category also takes the replayability value of the flyable aircraft into consideration.

An example: For the simulation of the "Battle of Britain" the Bf 109 E and the Hurricane Mk Ia ar of vital importance. Both have a great replayability value for the players, both offline and online. Both were used by other nations in later conflicts as well (i.e. Romania 1941) and can be reused for later releases as well.

2.) Secondary Objects

Objects of this category are historically relevant, too, and are adding to the player's immersion when re-enacting the air combat during the operations in question. But in contrast to category 1 these aren't vital for the simulation of the conflict, either because they fulfilled secondary roles or were only present in very small numbers. Secondary objects can also be AI-only aircraft which weren't made flyable (i.e. because the aircraft fulfilled a role which isn't present in campaigns or because the technical limitations of the engine make it impossible to use it in its historical role). The replayability value is less big than those of category 1, but still relevant.

Example: Dedicated short-range recon aircraft, liaison aircraft etc ...

3.) Tertiary Objects

These are objects which were historically present, but not relevant in any relation. They have very little replayability value.

Example: That autogyro. It fulfilled exactly one role for a very short amount of time in numbers not worth mentioning.

I suspect most players have something similar in place using similar characteristics. People wondering about the relative value of types like the autogyro, the Anson or the Bf 108 wonder if the development time (which you mentioned specifically) wouldn't be better spent on aircraft types of category 1 (such as a flyable Do 17, Wellington etc) instead. The questions arise because we - the fans - have little to no real facts at hand about the features you plan. We have no real fundament for our personal evaluation of the planned objects. My 0,02 € ...

Oleg, great to see you posting here after the ORR was closed at Ubi :(

I saw you say that you were at Alpha stage in an earlier post, so how far along do you have to get until 4.09 is released, so the servers can use the great maps?

Awwwww come on , I had to ask ;)

Cheers, MP.

(please don't say 2-weeks...unless it really is lol!)

True, csThor, but IMHO it's a question of character.

We all have basically the same information and hints like the few fall on two different grounds:

1. People who just want to fly this sim after waiting so long in the planes they know and like.

2. People who want to live through a start of a new series to come, with as many options as possible and planes they fall in love with, though they never knew them. How many knew about the LA5 before IL2?

IMHO the first option gives us quick action, the second a longer lfe-cycle and long-time motivation. I think Oleg made it pretty clear that the later is the main goal, as this is just the start of a new series and considering the success of IL2, I'm pretty convinced this is the way to go.

You're missing my point, Feuerfalke. I do not judge aircraft usefulness merely by their prominence, but their historical relevance for the operation/timeframe/geographic are simulated by a software release. For example if Oleg chose to release an AddOn for SoW depicting the operations over North Africa from 1940 to the end of 1941 a Spitfire - while highly iconic - wouldn't have a place because historically there were none!
As Oleg said: Each aircraft fulfilled a role in the war. But to a flight simmer not every plane and every role is worth simulating (i.e. not everyone would want to fly 5-hour weather recon sorties all across Europe). There's the simple question whether the gameplay value of a certain type is worth the investment of the developer (time, money and manpower).

I, for example, do question the usefulness of the autogyro. I'm a strictly historically minded player who puts history way above any "KeWl" factor. The autogyro fulfilled one role in limited numbers in a very limited timeframe. It can't be used (historically) outside of a narrow scope so it doesn't offer as much relative gameplay value as, say, a cockpit for the Do-17Z or perhaps a Fairey Battle.

:arrow:Hello Oleg , as one Of my main interests in il2 is making movies I am wondering what kind of , if any , recording (placeable cameras) and play back facillities have you got planned for BOB , sorry if this question has already bin asked and answered :grin:

What if Oleg included the autogyro primarily as a proof of concept: Helicopters can be implemented in SoW as well. What do we know? Sorry for speculating again.

I can't tell you finally how many types of cameras, but will be more features than in Il-2 and more useful.
Recording will be possible in two formats one of them is similar to NTRK, another - ready video, but still under question in which format finally.
But only NTRK will be possible to use for full HD video conversion.

I'm sorry, I'll make my point more clear, because I think you missed mine:
Again: I think this is not only about planes we'd like to fly or that are important for some addon in an historical context.

A simulation of this magnitude and with the goal of lasting a decade, different aspects become important, that go beyond historical considerations.
For the Battle of Britain the role of the autogyro might have been negligible, for demonstrating what can be done with this engine, attracting 3D-Party developers and players who are NOT ONLY interested in exact historic missions, this unique aircraft can really be a new step in flightsims.

Remember, the SoW-Engine is moving from early WW1 and 2 and Korea on into the future and if it the physics engine of SoW is capable of realistically modeling a rotary aircraft, this is an devastating blow for any competitor. So the reason for including an autogyro IMHO is just the same as with including the Su-26m and a lot of fans didn't get the idea behind that either.

Exactly ;)

Cool :)

I like the movies from Glowing Amraam for LockOn and BlackShark, who uses the camera-positions extremely well. Seeing a dogfight from underneath the wing is really cinematic and I saw some prop-plane-videos where the camera seemed to be attached at the outside of the cockpit and it really gave the movie an awesome realistic feeling, as the movement of both planes was much better visible than from within the cockpit.

This is where we seem to disagree then. A historical simulation must remain true to itself IMO. And as such historical relevance is the "Make or Break" criteria for me - it was either relevant or it wasn't. I have no use for the "KeWl" factor some people seem to be so fond of ...

Quite frankly the Su-26 is more a proof of concept than the autogyro. I don't want to cling to this example too much,though, as I'm talking about a general principle here. As I said above the core of a historical simulation is its attempt to simulate historical air combat. Any other ... derivated use ... is and has to be secondary to historical accuracy. Such use can be derived from a historically correct base, but a historically correct use cannot be derived from a fundament made of "KeWl" objects which aren't historically relevant.

Well, that seems to be the problem, then. SoW is not a historic simulation. BoB is.
SoW is a unique engine to simulate aircraft and vehicles in a combat environment.

BoB however is the first "addon", if you allow me to put it like this. The first of a series of addons with historic content on a limited area and time-setting.

Bringing both things together in SOW:BOB means showing what can be done on the one hand, simulating the Battle of Britain on the other. IMHO the autogyro is a child to both fathers, the SU to the first, the other planes to the later.

It has little to do with the cool-factor, but rather with the fact that MG has a wider perspective than just putting up a game for us with a few historic planes.

I think you have a different perspective than I. I think each release within the SoW series has to be self-sufficient meaning it has to contain everything it needs to run as a stand-alone. As such each individual release is a single project and not just an "AddOn". This is why I place so much emphasis on the "historical relevance". :)

No, I think we have quite the same perspective. It's just that the initial release of SoW has to prove a lot more than IL2 had to. And it's clear to me that this cannot be achieved by just historically rebuilding a few planes, that were already in IL2.

You know the boards as well as I do and I doubt you have missed the comments, what's the deal with BoB, as you won't see the eyecandy on a plane from 200m away, anyway, or the hedges down below from 30,000ft, that turbulences and exact physics, startups and stuff are irrelevant for a large portion of players.
Just look at Hyperlobby and tell me the relation of players on FullReal-Servers and those on easier settings. Or just count the number of servers. And like it or not, I am convinced the hack has also pushed the line further up.

As you can also see from the game I advertise for in my signature, I love decent simulation, but I also see that it's not us hardcore-simmers alone that can pay Oleg off and again, we're at the beginning of something really big ahead.

:arrow:Thanks Oleg thats great news , and thanks also for the speedy reply :grin:

The difference will be in the framework - the GUI, the interaction between AI and user, the campaigns, the single missions, the online part etc ... Incorporating unusual types is not going to draw more non-hardcore simmers than a solid gameplay part. This is where SoW will succeed or fail.

My English is probably much worse than I thought.

The autogyro is not to attract non-hardcore players or those not interested in perfect historic contects BUT it will demonstrate to 3rd Party-Developers what the engine is capable of and bind them to the product, increasing variety and support quickly. In a way exactly what you said: the autogyro will prove if the framework is good enough to stand above IL2-limitations like the problem with the multi-engines planes!

Non-hardcore players however are attracted by variety and fun. Maybe they will like the autogyro, yes, but I doubt they will buy BoB solely because of the autogyro.
On the other hand, if you present them in brutal pure and perfectly historic way the planes that flew in Britain, they'll walk right across the shelf with SoW:BoB and to the 10 bucks-pyramid and get 1946, because from their point of view they get the same aircraft for a fraction of the money.

And gameplay, AI, RADAR, communication, complex interactive campaings? That's for hardcore-players, too, but not for people who start the game and use the quick-mission builder 99% of the time.

So, for the hardcore-simmers, SoW will succeed and fail with all what you said above, but for the casual player it is most important to ensure a great variety of gameplay and planes in a quick time, maybe including those that are out of the ordinary.

Just consider how many people whine on this board that there is no Mustang or FW190 in the initial release, to see the importance of the initial success of the SoW-Engine in many different aspects of the game.

I think he missed my 4.09 question ;)

About it's release date.......just asking....if we are near yet?

Cheers, MP.

My guess: We're a lot closer than yesterday. :o

I do not think we'll have it soon :

:arrow: Dose anyone here know how to turn Feuerfalke off...? , I think he's the human version of C3PO and seems to have a response rate for any and every question asked that would put a mini gun to shame.:grin:

Lets not start on a topic like this...ok? Everyones a winner here, ...ok? :)

:arrow:Not lookin to START anything proton , was an observation and a JOKE , nothing more , Im just as happy as anyone here with the response I got from Oleg and I have no intention of bringing this thread down by starting yet another slanging match ... Feuerfalke , it was a joke , hope YOU see it that way , if not , dont really care.

I got "reply to thread" mapped to my X-52s trigger ^^

;)

the best news to me about SOW is that it wants to be a platform. something that grows. something where we all can contribute to make it grow. i dont care what is in the game from the beginning related to modells or maps, what counts is what tools we get and what systems are open for us.

to build a open and secure system is very difficult. almost impossible. and oleg is a guy who is aiming high and has the skills to do it right.

im a happy xplane user recently because of the same reasons....its a platform and it grows. ...and that gives me lots of joy.

i cant wait to learn more about the tools. maybe a future update can shed more light on that part of SOW.

btw hello all. i was only lurking around here since i dont really play il2 anymore and couldnt add much information, but am still active with openfalcon and xplane, and soon hopefully dcs and sow. but this news form oleg just have been too good to keep quiet :P

Will aircraft fatigue be modelled. By this I mean will planes lose there edge over time, slowly losing the pristine handling they had when new.
Basically i am asking will all hurricaines (insert any plane type here) handle the same no matter how long the are in service.
on that point will realistic plane maintance be modelled. Ie if a plane is damaged in the morning sortie will it be avaliable for the afternoon sortie or will the squadron be one plane short as they would have been in real life.
The Battle of Britain was all about destroying the RAF, it would seem logical that this would be modelled into the game, pilot and plane shortages that is... :)

it would be awesome if there was a (multiplayer) option where the server actually stored and remembers individual aircrafts (including battle damage etc) instead of just # respawns via the gennadich script (which is great nonetheless). which basically interlinks with what bobb4 asked, now you can land with many holes and respawn with a totally new plane as if nothing had happened to the old one :)

this would also require some sort of "behind-the-scenes" repairs and refueling/rearming simulation, maybe with server-adjustable times requried for each