The problem is that the body of the pilot would obscure some instruments. (Just like the Joystick in some planes obscures the instrument now - only it would be worse) Then we'ld need a set of command to move the body of the pilot out of the way. 6DOF would only work to a certain point. The last thing in combat I want to be doing is moving my head to unnatural positions to see some guage!

DCS:BS does it by having a key that toggles the people on and off.

Gauges? who the hell needs gauges?? I don`t need gauges in a dogfight!!!! I need my trigger!!!

May be... in time. In principle possible.

Thanks for the updates, Oleg. I was going to ask about the map editor after seeing demos of the new far cry editor, but it looks like your way ahead of me. I noticed the self shadowing and different markings, but I totally missed the licence plates till the last pic. Very impressive, although I can imagine mission making will be nearly impossible now for the obsessive compulsives like me with all that detail to keep track of!

I do have one question, and I apoligize if it's been asked before. Will there be a favorites list or some such for IP addys in online play? For instance my squad has several hosters, and even a ten line (or so) dropdown list would be very helpful on the "join game" multiplay screen.

Wonderful update but ...
 

Hate to be picky but for me the grass is off scale - too big for the size of the 3D models. Is it early stage grass? Or will the size of the grass scale down as video options are turned up during the life of the sim as computers get faster?

Brilliant 3D models, absolutely brilliant. I will continue waiting patiently. Keep up the wonderful work.

RedToo.

Yes, they really look awesome. I wonder if Oleg is secretly working on a sort of all weapons simulation seeing the detailed modelling ;)

I don't mind the gras looking the way it does (actually it looks great) as long as if looking at it from a certain distance it won't have this chess like muster that you so often see ...

I really can't wait to put my hands on this game and I will wait for buying a new computer for that although mine should be changed since long.

Oleg, when you will stop playing with little tanks and give them to us to play with them?

Attention to details is great. This could be first person shooter as well.

Is smiling sun and bad mood clouds also in engine? :)

How many times will people ask if what they see in screenshots are final for release.
Oleg says every time that what we see is not final. Please read.
The models are excellent.
What is really good are the shadows. In real time, the soft edge shadows are the best I have ever seen. Absolutely magnificent.
These shadows and many other things are going to be the standard by which other games and sims will be measured for many years.

Thankyou for the update oleg , Your new map editor looks a lot easier to use than the IL2 one. The models look great, will look even better in my sites when i ground pound them. :)

Thanks Oleg

The terrain and mapping software looks like a map makers dream. The level of detail that will be available in SOW should be amazing and I have no doubt you will achieve your vision of a cinematic combat flight sim. I've been waiting patiently since 2004 and it would appear that SOW will exceed even my expectations.

~Salute~
Chivas

Yes Oleg, all looking to be a very special masterpiece from your team...you will be even more famous person for us sim people :grin:

+1

I gotta say things are looking REALLY cool...top notch work (well worth the wait_LOL)

New Map making tools and Tank and Vehicle models
 

Thankyou very much for this update Oleg.

The map making tools are a very significant step forward from our current IL2 FMB - creating more realistic harbours, towns, cities, factories, railway yards and airfield environs etc. using historic old photos and contour maps will be a great benefit to the game.

The German Tank models and vehicles are also excellent - I can see how you are gradually merging the air and ground environs to one great battle environment where you could set up a ground battle and air support, perhaps deciding to play either as a ground commander or squadron leader.

To you and your team, keep up the very good work.

DFLion

I can see that vehicles have openable doors/hatches.We will have animated soldiers that will use this feature ingame?

Wow, this just gets better and better, I can see why it's taking so long! Good things come to people who wait

Car plates ... oh my!
 

Dear Mr Oleg,

The ground models are great, shadows are so realistic, the map editor is impressive ... keep up the good work (but not indefinitely ...). And ... Finally car plates! They will be useful in case of speeding, cops are at present unable to fine the nazis in Il-2...

Regards,
Insuber

Given that my aerial combat skills leave a lot to be desired, and I seam to have a bit more luck against ground targets, the detailed ground objects are very much apreciated.

What I'ld like to see is some of these models with some damage. :)

External views and cameras!
 

Hi Oleg,

Each day i get more impressed with the detail of the ground object. And i thinks its great because it will improve a lot the feeling of fighting on a real world, even if lots of those details will not be visible while we are flying.
Seeing those ground object bring me some questions i would like to ask:

1) Back in the beginning of IL-2, there was a very dicussed issue (among others) about externals views. About if it was possible to have limited externals view to allow player see some of the action without being able to "cheat" by giving away information to other players.
Will we be able to have limited external views like for example, from inside of cockpits of players of the same side?

2) Another thing i think it would be cool, it's the implementation of friendly and enemy cameras. I mean the mission builder can put cameras assigned to each side, and on the mission the views from those cameras can only be selected for players of that side. Hope i'm clear.
That way, we could put cameras on airfield, and players that had been shot down can do the work of observers on the airfields, since this would not be unrealistic since airfields have people and radio equipment to alert friendly aircraft if they are attacked, or saw enemy aircraft pass near by.

3) Along with chameras and externals views issue, it would be nice if we can assign a camera to a moving ground unit, or even a convoy. That way, you can be an observer from the point of view of a tank, truck, ship, or any other vehicle or ground objetc. And if that object its destroyed, bye bye to the camera and observation point.
In case the camera is assigned to a convoy, instead of a single ground unit, you can swith the point of view between the diferent units of the convoy. And with any unit of the convoy being destroyed, its anothe camera "position" you ca'nt use.
I beleive this would be great to observe the ground action given the excellent details of the ground units that you are showing us.

4) Point 2 remind me, Will we have AI radio calls from airfields under attack, either in offline as online missions?. That's something i wish we had on actual IL-2.

Have to go now.
Take care!

Quick question:
Will the grass be 3d?

Cheers! Thanks for the game Oleg!

Point 3 from Lancelot#s post would definitely add something, the others I am less sure. I think this only would lead to tear more planes to one spot as soon as another pilot of one's own side has detected an opponent. This would make life of a bomber a miserable one.

Map Tools
 

Its interesting to see the map tools which it is planned to be available with the sim.

Will it be possible to overlay scans of real maps so that these can be used as a guide when creating the terrain model, laying out roads, rail, towns, woods, waterways etc?

Will it be possible to import satellite height data (SRTM Data) to create the initial terrain model?

Will it be possible to automatically fill ground textures with buildings and objects, based on standard templates? If so can the standard templates be edited by the map maker?

Will there be any fixed limits on the size of map which can be created?

Will it be possible to copy and paste groups of objects in a map?

Will it be possible to copy and paste groups of objects from one map to another map.

Automatic aligning and spacing of objects?

Will it be possible for rivers/bridges to be above sea level. On IL-2 maps the water surfaces and bridges are all at zero level.

Will it be possible to create more complex rail systems including rail sidings, rail junctions, embankments, cuttings, more realistic looking bridges (without approach ramps), tunnels, rail over road bridges, road over rail bridges?

Will it be possible to make steps in a river, to create waterfalls, river weirs, lock systems, enclosed harbours etc.

Will the sea be tidal with more land exposed at low tide?

Will you be able to crop out part of a large map to easily create a small custom map for online use.

Will you be able to extend the boundaries of an existing map to cover a larger geographical area?

Just a few thoughts.

If you ever want to read some answers to your Qs, please stop here !! ;-)
Just kidding...

As far as I understood, the users will be able to build maps up to a certain size, the bigger ones reserved to Oleg's Team or 3rd party developers.

And I hope there'll be no photo texturing since this makes maps look really dull and flat.

Tanks, numberplates and open hatches
 

Tanks, numberplates and open hatches - WoW the detail is amazing but something is missing! Where are the people, will they be rendered, will we see tank crews around parked tanks. Crews manning AA guns. Truck drivers etc...
Or will everything be empty?

You would like to know to much and too early.
Right now I would say that most of requested by you features are used for internal tools.
For the end user some of them will be removed due to many commercial reasons.

100% answer can be done for the size of map. For the end users it will be limited in size. Because the great size map will will keep only for us, as a developrs of the next after BoB new sim or/nad map + objects addons on a payware basis.
So in general enduser will be able to make own maps say for online gameplay in proportions like it is done for Il-2.

So, Oleg, how large can these user-made maps be?
Can we get a minimum of 100x100 kms?

Bomber pilots would not be afected if this is limited to ground targets only. Not a bad idea there but somehow switching between many static cameras to get to that one thing you're searching for might be a bit boring IMHO. ;)


Also:

Just so they don't get missed.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.
I look forward to the next development update.
They are always amazing.

Hello Oleg!

I can understand the statement above...to a degree!
Does that mean for instance there will be limitations on size or which zones are acceptable (that is commercially OK), or that useful creation tools would be forbidden to non-commercial creators?
I believe many map makers would be interested in making accurate specific operational or target areas like airfields, radar stations, V-weapon sites, marshalling yards, bridges...the list is endless! To insure proper insertion in the bigger map, "pruning", "grafting" and duplicating tools will be a must...are you referring to this kind of tools?

Will it be possible that MG integrate (a bit like in IL2) certain high-quality and accurate (= up to MG standard) non-commercial areas in the basic maps during a update, for everyone to benefit?

Thanks again for all your updates, cordially

JVM

PS If ever you have time to answer some of the questions I asked before (and also via direct mail) I believe I may not be the only one interested...even if the answer is "too early to say"!

A global WWII sim ?
 

Hello Mr. Maddox, thx for the great work.

I'm very impressed by the amazing level of detail on all the ground objects and vehicles. I can hardly figure out how it will look like on the 1:1 scaled map you're creating. Now I'm thinking that it would really be a shame not to be able to walk around and discover that beautiful environment from a first person perspective. Even more, I begin to dream about a tactical FPS, using that huge map and the new AI to issue orders to our squad members, just like we currently do to our wingmen.

Dont get me wrong : I know that you're doing a flight sim. I dont expect it to be possible at the release date. My question is : does the game engine allow it, and how far would you allow some 3rd party developpers to work on the non-flight aspects of the sim.

Thx again to you and your team.

Personally, I hope the non-flying aspects of user inter-activity are kept to a bare minimum. Manning AAA emplacements has already been said to be included, but I feel if additional interactivity on the ground is added, it will be more of a BF1942 instead of a detailed, high-quality flight sim.

Ok, you're welcome :)

But I dont get the argument though. As far as the accuracy of the flying aspect is not in question, I cant see anything being lost in such a development. The realism of the sim experience would not suffer at all from it, but on the contrary would allow the player to evolve in an world of intricated events, just like it was in real. But ok, that's just me.

Personally I hope 3rd party development, if not 1c, take the land and sea elements of the "sim" to the same level as the Aircraft eventually.

There is far more potential for this not turning into BF1942 style of "game" if done right, in fact some dogfight servers on HL are not far off BF1942ish "air quakes" at present :)

Too true :sad:

I second that. Oleg and his team needed 5 years to cover most of WWII in Il-2. If they want to redo all theaters with BOB engine featuring a much increased level of detail plus include controllable tanks, ships and infantry it will either take forever or will become arcadish at some point.

Holy cow! That map making tool looks just awesome. To bad that we are not allowed to do full size maps ourselves. At the other hand, I understand that with a tool this easy - someone would do a full map of the med in quite a short time etc...

Another interesting thing is naturally that OpenGL still seems to be the favoured API :) Now that OGL in Vista has become quite OK in SP1, I don't feel bad about that.

/Mazex

Map making tools and some more questions
 

Oleg, thanks for your answer to ‘Asheshouse’ excellent questions. (see above)

It looks as though the map making tools will be very comprehensive – you will have a basic set of tools for ‘end users’ and a more comprehensive set of tools for ‘developers’. The ‘end users’ will be able to make their own maps to the size of our current online maps for free and the ‘developers’ will have access to create much larger maps to on-sell on a payware basis.

I know that most of our community would always want to fly (including me), though I have enjoyed making some quite realistic ‘ground action’ to fly over –or attack, in some of my campaign missions using our current FMB.

Question 1. With much more realistic ground vehicles/objects in SOW-BOB, will you be able to create more accurate ground battles – artillery placements, troop movements, tank movements etc while you are fighting the air battle? – will this eventually lead to some alternative ground fighting simulation play with the air battle doing an ‘AI’ above you?

Question 2. Can you divulge any more information about the airfield environments in SOW-BOB? I am very interested to know if you can get ‘AI’ aircraft to taxi from their dispersal points to their take-off points and on return from the mission, taxi back to their dispersal point to rearm and refuel.

Question 3. Will you be able to change skins on static parked airfield aircraft?

Question 4. Will there be some ‘AI people animation’ during rearming and refuelling.

Question 5. Can static airfield aircraft be modelled with panels removed/raised for service or repair.

Question 6. Will there be a comprehensive set of animated/static airfield service vehicles?

DFLion

Dear Mr. Oleg Maddox,

since I saw the extremely detailed moddeling of ground objects, I begin to wonder if it wouldn´t be a nice feature to fight(armed with a cute little pistol) ones way back to friendly lines when shot down over enemy territory?

I know it rarely happened in history but was possible.

I bet many of us thought of that scenario when reading XY was captured by enemyforces.

Thanks for answering,
Emil

P.S.: If someone else already asked the same question, I´m sorry. But I couldn´t find it anywhere.

In the offline situation I wouldn't want that, but I would like some (10%? 5%? 2%?) chance of making it back to base if shot down over the enemy lines. Otherwise there's no point bailing out or landing on the other side of the front line, you might just as well crash, it's probably quicker. It may never have happened on the Eastern Front, but in the West it was occasionally known to happen, and given all the subs at least crossing the "front lines" in the Pacific, I would imagine that some pilots were occasionally recovered there. Perhaps if you did make it back to base, it might be that in a career that would sometimes mean the start of a new campaign.

Oleg has said he doesn't want "BoB SoW" to be a "first-person-shooter"...

Why he is bothering to include such detail (he won't say) is anyone's guess at this point...

I remember that someone once asked him about a door that appeared to open and close and he just said that it was part of a feature that they would implement in the future. They where building that feature into the code so it could be used (somehow) in the future...but he has also said he doesn't want a FPS...so go figure. :)

Perhaps the "insta spawn in pit on runway" has worn thin over the years, running to your Hurri/Spifire under scramble conditions would be a great feature methinks.

More interaction with the terrain would be great, but then again I like flying JU52 supply missions :)

Ah, some out themselves as ego shooters ;)

And bailing out definitely has some sense: saving your life as a virtual pilots (it's a sim you know ;) ).

The sides on the small squares on the map are 10km long. Did you ever walk 10km? It will propably take an hour if you can walk on a road, even longer when you have to walk through a forrest, river, hedges, jungle ...

Capture a car/truck then or even take the train :D

Sims are also games. I've a suspicion, I don't know whether it's correct, that there's a difficulty adjusting algorithm at work in IL2 (offline), and it only takes any notice of the result of a mission when the mission completes, you "die", or are "captured". Restarting the same mission breaks the immersion anyway, so why not get it over with.

In IL2 bailing out over enemy territory gets you back to the same mission start, with the same weapons load, exactly as if you "died".

I'd like an option of only flying one mission once.

I can see that option working two ways, firstly "dying" making you start the next mission with the lowest rank, and working your way up the ranks again, secondly just starting the following mission with no difference in rank.

Mr. Maddox. Could you please give a brief overview of the online features of SoW:BoB? I don't mean on-line features like playable AAA and other, I'm talking about dedicated server software. Would the broad community be enforced to write their own server commanders(SC by Gennadich team) of there will be something native. Will the dedicated server have some web stats engine? And how detailes this stats will be? Thanks.

Hi Oleg,
This is my big question:
What new immersion based features will you have in the game that aren't in IL2? I don't even really mean things inside the plane. Right now, when I play IL2, I feel like there's only me in a giant and empty world.
What will you add to make the player feel as if he is more in the game? Things like birds flying, cities with moving cars and smoking factories, random civilian aircraft, etc? Maybe this isn't possible with today's computing, but being able to see people moving on the ground here and there would be amazing and really help the player feel like a part of a bigger picture.

Thanks!

Those were times when civilian aircraft circulation was a bit restricted, you know...this not FS-X! Random military aircraft, on the other hand (transport, trainers, liaison, ferry...) would make indeed a lot of sense!

JV

I agree that small things like those you mention would add to the immersion - and from what I've heard there will be more of that in BoB (moving buses etc). Civilian air traffic during Battle of Britain in southern England must have been VERY limited though... Anyone knows? Did they fly civilan traffic to the London area at all during the battle? Maybe night time with lit wings with large civilian registration marks? I know the BOAC operated Mosquitos used "lights on" in the beginning but swithced them off as Lufwaffe did not care to much about that (but found them easily).

/Mazex

Yeah sorry, random military air traffic. Random civilian air traffic makes no sense.

Just one sudgestion and I don't know if it even makes sence but could be fun.

For night missions, when enemy planes are detected (either visually or on radar) approching a city... all of the city lights go dark. So flying toward a city you would see the few lights still on go dark could be fun. Especially for cities that where further from the coastal areas and less likely to be bombed...

Would be fun but I think not necessarily realistic. In bigger towns blinding your windows was obligatory so no city really turned dark.

One of the things that really gets me in online play is how disorganised the teams are.

I generally use team speak but still out of the 30 odd people on the server I play at maybe 7 or 8 at most will be using it (normaly a lot less).

I wonder if it would be able to build in a few more features into the ready room that would allow each side to work as a team. Things like a real time list of objectives that need to be completed. Current listings of planes/pilots available etc.

We can get things like this in IL2 using the console, but I was thinking a bit more focus on the presentation of the information to make it easier for people to work as a team.

Just an idea

Squads work as teams in online servers, but they have their own TS server, so you can't see them...

If all pilots would speak on one and only channel with all their different languages it would be the pure Babylon :)

True enough, As the Czech and polish pilots found out flying as the RAF.

But still there needs to be some way of fostering a co-ordinated team approach to the game. In game I don't have any problem with different squadrons using their own channel.

Surely if you enter a game halfway through, It would be good to see what objectives have already been met and discuss with the other players entering the game or reflying what should be done next.

This is just an example but "in game" coms like Battle-Field 2" for example would be a nice approach; it is very easy to set up quickly in game and easy to join a com channel or "team" and each channel can be named with a relevant term.
You can still co-ordinate but in a more organised fashion and there could be some sort of built in "switch to" buttons for going between the different fighter channels and or bomber channels.

Much better than everyone using seperate coms exclusive to their own groups IMO.

Question to Oleg
 

Hi Oleg,

First thank for answer all question did in this forum.

1- will exist bomb view in BOB??
2- BOB will have posibilities to go back (rewind) on plays of tracks?
3- Do exist anyway to put a direct ground object view instead have to put a cam on mission builder?

Thanks

Wondering if we are going to see another update this week. One does get used to weekly updates way too quick ;)

+1

I could handle a nice update this Friday.

the editor map is good for create any situation of war.
but the texture for map not satellite photo but synt immage.
and another difficult problem for the map is creation of mesh terrain the mountain and the valley not real to reality.
Example i want create the island Sicily how many create the vulcan ETNA?
How do I create the equal reliefs of the ground to those of the reality?
i think this is EDITOR MAP for game tipe the SIM CITY or another GAME.
but this is WW2 simulator this is a serius game.
for the serius game takes the serius map editor.
i loock Oleg Maddox like create synt file.
Example in il-2 sturmovik the sound not real but synthetic.
this map editor is synthetic immage.

???? Not sure what you are getting at. Is the editor not complicated enough?
I know you are refering to satalite imagry but you must remember what Oleg showed was a few clicks of a mouse, this in an attempt to show ease of use.
I am sure under the hood the editor has all the bells and whistles you want :grin:

Would be nice...I think that most of our up-dates have arrived on Mondays (?)...right? :)

Saggy Tracks?
 

Hi Oleg,

Amazing detail with the models, for example the damage on the tank transporter.

One thing: Will the final tank tracks sag like the loose ones in real life? They seem to look a bit too tight.

Cheers!


Flying Nutcase

Guess there is no Monday update. :(

oh well, maybe Friday.

Hi Oleg, I have a question for you, why the planes in Il2-sturmovik not represent the real velocity???? for example: one FW-190d9, in the war have a max velocity of 730 km/h at 11.000 meters, in the game this is not true, and the Ta 152c have to low performance on all altitudes, why???
Sorry for mi english, but i speak spanish, and my vocabulary suck. Salute

Not before the modeller will change that, I guess ;)

SoW Website
 

Is there any update on the opening of the SoW BoB website & forums?

no

it is under construction and design at the moment. I hope to get it working in the end of december. The team that ordered for the creation of site is too busy.

Sure that real D9 wasn't able to reach 730 km/h
Ta-152c - I hope you don't read indicator speed that to get image of real speed with which aircraft is flying. Compare indicator speed in cockpit and in the mode without cockpit. Without cockpit the speed is real. In cockpit - indicated. Please read in internet or books what is real speed(TAS) and indicated(IAS)

If you only want you can create the map with sattelite precise and with the limits that gives you the grid of tools.
But you can't load directly the dot matrix (raster) image into the tools. You will need to work with it to the standards of tools... to create layers of altitudes, etc...

Nothing comon here with the SIM CITY :)

Another way if you want to create new quick map that is siutable for the new scenery of online gameplay... then our tools will give you ability to make it very fast and easy and looking like real surface with only features that we offer in standard set... However even in this case you can make own textures and to add it in tools that to work with them and use in new map.

Joystick is a _must be_ device for the flight sim. In all other cases with the other devices the FM must be simplified and it will be in BoB for the possibility to play with gamepad for example. Except special flight sim devices like bomber control column wheels, etc... But it is another story...

Notice: However if you are playing with gamepade or other similar device and then connect the online server where all other plays with the joystics (settings on the server) then you automatically will get the switch to normal FM... and possibly will be not able to play with others on the same level of aircraft control, like with at least Joystick.

my personal opinion as well as all pilots that I know and was asking specially for this item, all tell that clickable cockpit by the mouse is Ok for the the civil aircraft (say such funtctions like levers, wheels, etc), but anyway it isn't even comparable to the real life precise of hand movement... Say, pedals also clickable?
Mapping on the device or even keyboard is more close to real life than to make all things clickbale/moveable by the mouse. Especially in military aircraft....
Some reealtive sample: I would be glad to see how some will be control aircraft by the joyistick and then by the mouse simultaniosly clicking on the fire button on the control column in 3D cockpit. This sample I give only as realtive. But it is easy to understand in comparison...

Completely agree.
I did read your post only when already answered myself. But you explained some details way better than me. :)

I told such things by other words alredy many times...
Completely agree :)

Why don't know?... some 5-6 years ago I was asking on the forums... and real pilots...
Voting of hardcore players - 1 per 100-120...
Voting of pilots - want all, but only for one time test of interest. Then will switch it off...

Also... I remeber some developers of other sims were on the way to make start up complex... Where their sims? Even with not precise start up for each aircraft modelled they were bankrupt... and the projects and companies were closed sold , etc...
I won't such situation with me. I want the long life of the new series and to get commercial success... or for what I'm so hard working? :)

For the MS FS fans third party developers we will offer in time many things... So we will probably grab their attention very well... Experience of MS FS is good sample, and at the same time with MS CFS - bad sample...
So we will have our own way that to get attention of both alternative-opposite groups of users, creators, etc...

Hi Oleg, how would be improved the sounds in SOW (compared to the IL2)? The same question for engine overheating "feauture"...will you include different types of cannon rounds?

I still do the IL2 1946. I have added the 4.09 patch. The IL2 is still a very viable combat flight sim compared to other CFS.

The current IL2 needs more state of the art... AI performance and a more programmable (for users) mission builder.

There is still alot the current IL2 has to offer online and offline players.

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

The old MSFT CFS2 is still viable, because of the great programmable mission builder. There is a steadfast community of users that love that old CFS. The AI performance is terrible, the landscapes are terrible, but still the 3rd party devs are pumping out stuff for the old CFS2.

In fact, there is a large community of users of the old MSFT CFS2 (sim-outhouse.com). The CFS2 never had a patch release and there has never been any support from MSFT. Actually, it is quite amazing.

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

IL2 as it is, with an improved FMB and improved AI performance will still be a very viable CFS for several more years. I don't know what that would take, since I'm not a game programmer. I do know I still enjoy the IL2 along with many others.

There are now IL2 MOD releases. The MOD releases have generated alot of new interest in the IL2 series and the upcoming BOB SOW. I don't think "from what I see" MOD have done anything, but keep peoples interest.

IL2 has always been handicapped by the maps, as far as player interest in the IL2. The third party guys love make maps, skins and stuff. I think with a more open architecture for maps the BOB SOW would almost have a life of it's own.

I do respect an important thing ... the aircraft modeling, damage modeling, flight modeling are within the original IL2 program core. I think everyone appreciates that. Modifications in the aircraft used in other CFS has always been the death of the ONLINE game, and very confusing for users.

If additional efforts were made on the IL2 I don't think the work would be a waste. IMO, several more add-on releases for IL2 are viable and should be good income producers. I would gladly make a purchase via download, for add-ons at this time. In fact, I think many other devoted fans of the IL2 series would agree.

Especially, if a add-on release package included a improved FMB and improved AI performance.

Well, I certainly don't want you to go broke:)...I can wait and hope for a third party solution someday. I think MS was/is so popular, because pilot's can interact with the cockpit

Hi Oleg,

Thanks for answering everyones questions; but now I have a question myself ;)

Oleg in SoW BoB, will you model barricaded fields throughout southern England as was the case guring 1940, as civiliens, farmers etc feared an invasion. This proved to be anannoyance though to RAF pilots who wished to 'prang their kits' but were met my large wooden obstacles! :grin:

Any thoughts? ;)

In air combat you'll get your butt blown out of the sky continuously, while you're trying to mouse over and click a darn button. LOL

We have what we need, which is keystrokes to do the job.

You can duplicate dedicated switching by using something like the new CH products MFP controller.

http://www.chproducts.com/retail/mfp.html

You can actually custom build your own switch panel.

As Iself and others who'd like to see a clickable cockpit have repeated again and again: Nobody wants to fire weapons or even move the stick in the VC with his mouse, but there dozenths of commands you don't need during combat only when you have plenty of time, like folding the wings, switching lights, start the engine, etc.

I'm not a mouse fan, nor do I want clickable switches...everything would be assigned to a key or button. As I said, I can wait for some third party on that matter. :)

Clickable cockpits don't do anything for me. All I want are a few keys like magnetos, fuel cocks, fuel pump, and start button that can be mapped to a Hotas or separate panel.

Wouldn't the combination of a clickable cockpit and TrackIR be a complete nightmare?
Think of sitting in the cockpit, keeping a lookout for events happening around you and at the same time try to hit a tiny swich wich is constantly on the move as your head are turning to look for trouble?

Skarphol

Well you could simply stop locking around for the one or two seconds you need to click on a switch.

I don't think that clickable switche's is the way to go...it would be very immersive to just have a more detailed start-up, programed to a few keys on the keyboard. I would not expect, or have to have a complete full real start-up procedure. Just a bit more than we have now in IL2. Having the engine a bit tempermental, start then die because of error or outside temperature condition, would be very cool :-P

we are not FS or CFS pussies to use clickable cockpits...we have to deal with other things....

you know...I'm not "dead set" against clickable cockpits, but I don't see the point in spending the time to integrate that feature (now) when their are so many other thinks that would make the game better... FOR example: I would love it if the explosion you see "matches" what is blowing up. Gas explosions look different then ammo...black powder looks different then C4 in a wood building (or brick). Burning gas in an areoplane looks different in a "rubber bladder" then in a steal tank. Half a tank of gas explodes different then a full tank with a full bomb load. GP bombs explode different then incendiary, ect...

Hi Oleg,

You didnt see my question i guess.

Thanks.

@proton

you realize that the explosions in your pictures are pure hollywood and have only a very distant relation to reality??

Hi Oleg, I would like to ask if you might release a small sound example in one of your up-coming game updates...109E at idle speed inside the pit would be :cool:

So...it doesn't change the idea. I just used the "gas" explosions as an eye catcher...

p.s. we could see gas explode in the context of the game...aviation fuel in barrels ect.

Oleg, with all due respect. If a "more complex" cockpit control or engine start is such a watse of time, why did you include take offs and landings or even an eject sequence for Il2 if its unnecesary. When you get shot down, it doesn´t matter if you eject or not, or whay take off at all, why did you give us the choice of taking off, (to make the feeling more inmersive) and yet you don´t want to give us the choice of transfering fuel from tank to tank, or select magnetos or turning on the bateries... we don´t need much, just a little more than in Il-2. Ususally setting the cockpit and doing stuff befor taking off sets the mood, the amience, to get in the role of a fighterpilot, not just a kid palying a "planes game".... Every new sim has more and more interactivity than previosu ones.. It feels that leaving the SOW series out of that trend like if you would still continue to do movies in Mono sound and not use stereo...and Sounf FX and that kind of thing...

Why not enchance the experience of being there for those who ant it?

Agree with Baco

I don't want a totally realistic start procedure, but mapping a couple of switches, fuel pump, and start button to a hotas or keyboard that must be set right for the engine to start creates a hightened immersion. Hearing the engine cranking over, and not being totally sure it will fire is an immersion factor that shouldn't be left out of SOW, especially in scramble situations.

Yes I agree...also, I would love to have the engine a bit tempermental on the winter map's. I wonder if Oleg will have temperature affecting fluids :-P

Yeah... I think that all here agree with a simple engine start sequence, but a little more complex than in IL-2 with battery, fuel tank selector, maybe a primer, two or three more commands, and ready to go. PLEASE!! :-P

Obviously people have not read what Qleg has said on the matter.
Basically it is a compromise for the online community who would not enjoy spending ten to twenty minutes going through realistic starts up procedures.
Lock-on has all the bells and whistles, look what a great commercial hit that was.

He has already indicated it will be a bit more realistic.
But imagine flying in an HIII in WW2, you would spend 20 minutes on the ground as your squad slowly circles above until it is your turn to take-off.
You might enjoy it the first time you do it in single player but after a few months????

I am more interested in damage model and FM than bells and whistles.
"Wow look I spent ten minutes inflight transfering fuel from my damaged right wing tank to my central one..."

Things I would like to see is a gunner kill does not shut-down your rear guns for long in a large bomber in real life someone else would take over over time.
but an entire mission flown without a rear gunner because of one lucky burst is unrealistic.
Pilots should have the option of reassigning crew positions.
When all is said and done IL2 was a survey sim and so will SOW be. That requires some compromise.