Java isn't that slow... it was like crap before 1.42 and since 1.5 (= Java 5) it starts being quite good in competition.

The guys should clean their keyboards and mice more often http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Apparently the women have clean input devices http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies...very-happy.gif

I prefer such details. Better it takes longer than to have a pay-beta release.

I like pony tails http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies...-surprised.gif

Great idea! Or just put it somewhere in the program, credits screen or something like that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I hate those "ears sticking right out of the head" elves. I too can't understand why anybody likes this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies...very-happy.gif
I prefer the "Spock style" http://www.ubisoft.de/smileys/3.gif

CRTs are still the better ones. They just give a better picture and don't need to interpolate lower resolutions. Run one at 85-100Hz and it's image is rock solid, no headache. I had a 22" EIZO S2232 worth 500€ for a very short time. But it still couldn't compete against my Vision Master Pro 514, although it was ages better than those cheap TN panel displays which are less than 200€. So I gave it back, still using my 5 year old tube. It's dark compared to flat screens (I often have to increase gamma just to see something on dark photos, screenshots etc), but its colors are awesome, at any viewing angle. Even on the S-PVA, which is probably the best panel type around, colors looked somewhat artificial, just not right. Especially dark colors which are still quite bright because of the backlight. It's like a crappy energy saving lamp compared to a good old light bulb. It just feels wrong.
They still have to get better... but I doubt there will be some "any resolution" flat screens soon, which is the main problem. I run things at 1280x960 mainly, but Il-2 at 1024x768, some older games like Baldur's Gate run at 800x600 etc. I can only get a perfect image in all these with a CRT. I tried to run 1280x960/1024 on that 1650x1050 screen and it was just horrible, although EIZOs have a very good low-res interpolation. At least it didn't stretch the image to 16:10. Not all wide screens have an option for not stretching the image across the whole screen.

What in the world are you talking about :confused:

Wip!
 

I’m happy to see so many young talented people working on SOW. Some can make music and other art and this “crew” can fill our computers with a history lesson never possible before. Almost like a crystal ball looking backward into time.

It fills me with envy to see them at work as I myself find it hard to handle a modern cell phone.

God luck to them all!

Viking

PS! Possible to see a He 111 next Friday?

sweet
 

thanks for showing us the workplace . . . and the crew working . . .


Good to see the game's coming along .. . . . and the mission briefing updates too.

I agree, the hangar looks virtually perfect.

However, there is definitely something not quite right with the grass. Look at it - the blades are ENORMOUS!! Quite the wrong scale. Still, I'm sure this is WIP. If not, I'd love to see the lawnmower that can hack through that stuff ;)

PPanPan

HAHA...
His meaning is that,
the hangar itself looks outmoded,just like a one built in WWI,when the well-known ace Manfred von Richthofen lives.
and fortunately,it's not a Work in Completion one.

May I laugh heartily? Yes? Aaaah, thanks, it always feel so good...

1) The WW1 (fighter) hangars were mostly canvas over wood structure, sometimes wooden constructions, but not often...

2) The hangar shown is a very faithful reproduction of a Bf-110/Ju-87 class german hangar, as still (partially) existing in Rely/Norrent-Fontes airfield in North of France.

3) Its only caveat is the fact that it is weathered too much: this was not the case when this hangar was in use: it was brand new (camouflage paint instead of rust, no "old" interior paint...) and possibly that there was no white paint or whitewash in this class of hangar (usually the brickwork was apparent), but this could be construed as poetic licence...Nobody will come forward to say the opposite with any manner of certainty!

Many german fighter hangars are variations around this theme (and they were really many, many variations: out of my mind, only for France, at least 15/20 types just for concrete/masonry T-based hangars for Bf-110 or lower aircraft classes)...
Add to this fully wooden hangars, U-based hangars, simple revetments...then we could look into the bomber hangar variations then the workshop hangars variations...

These hangars were the real thing!

JVM

This is the second time someone has brought up the issue of something looking too weathered for what is suposed to be new equipment/structures (the first being cockpit interiors). I wouldhave to agree this is a concern I share. Just saying.

That hangar has clearly been nerfed. I bet the Brits get nice shiny hagars.

I won't stand for this. I will bomb the Brit hangars first chance I get.

Oleg or Luthier... I understand you get annoyed by the embarrassing off-topic discussions about how your office looks etc, but is it possible to get some comments regarding the C# code we've seen on the shots? When did you start using that? As MDX is deprecated and does not support Dx10, are you using XNA (or even SlimDX), or does the render loop run on C++? What are your experiences? After writing some C# test game in Dx9 MDX way back when I gave up after they rewrote the API every release, with obvious lack of management backing. However, they seem to put a lot of effort into XNA now - and it feels like it has more internal backing etc...

I understand if you are not interested in commenting on this, and I suppose you regret releasing that shot where the code is visible ;) Just curious as the rumors about just some percent or two in performance loss compared to C++ on the latest iterations of managed DX sounds really interesting...

/Mazex