Well, i can't see the problem... Let's take your 22inch 1680x1050 display (like mine:grin:) and other with 22inch but 1920x1080 (16/9) or 1920x1200 (16/10).

Taking only wide values to simplify, if the base resolution where the minimum screen resolution of windows (640 wide, i think), we have a constant: Minimum wide screen resolution/minimum wide size of plane = 640/2 = 320...

So we have this values:

1680/320 = 5.25 pixels (if the engine can't work with fractions, can be rounded)

1920/320 = 6 pixels

This is a very simple ecuation, can be more complex without loss of resources, because must be done only once before launch flight to calculate the "constant of ampliation" to fit actual screen resolution.

Even more, can have a table with all possible combinations and simple apply appropiate value...

Greetings ;).

Going off pixel topic, I would like ask, if droptanks will explode on ground when dropped while they are full as in real life?

Would be interesting to see this modeled fully - including possibility of it not exploding. Will be nice to use as napalm :evil:

Sometimes drop tanks would explode, probability should be considered for explode/not-explode.

Exploding fuel tanks and napalm tanks are entirely different.

The delivery system may look the same, but definitely not the same.

Napalm is gel and worst kind of hatred for mankind.

Fuel is nasty, but nothing like napalm.

Napalm should only be with napalm loadout, historically correct only.

Drop tanks explode? Ah...

I don't think that a fully loaded droptank would explode when it hits the ground. Assuming the droptank brakes because of the impact, you would have fuel scattered all over the place, but it wouldn't explode. Fuel in order to explode needs to be in the estequiometric proportion with oxygen.
In any case, if there is something the ignite the fuel, you could probably get a fire for quite some time until all the fuel is consumed, but not an explosion.
A half or less loaded fuel tank would be diferent, since in that case you do have a good mix of fuel and oxygen in gaseous state inside the tank itself, and that can cause and explosion.
So it is for what i know and remember, but i could be wrong.

I would be surpriced if a droptank eksploded on impact. There will allways be an ignitable amount of fuelvapour inside, but would impact onto ground really create the nessesary sparks to ignite it? And wasn't most droptanks made out of compressed paper? Or was that just the american ones, thus not relevant in BoB?

I've never read about fires started from falling droptanks. On the other hand, you seldom read about injuries to people on the ground from bullets fired between planes neither, even though there must have been falling down quite a lot of lead over southern Brittain during the BoB.

Skarphol

???...are people really asking for exploding drop tanks? ...good grief :rolleyes:

I'm aware of the math, my point is that there is no way that I am aware of for the sim to know which you have and therefore it would have to be a user selection at which point you'd be back to square one.

Hi All,

Thought Id finally post instead of just watching...I am very confused as to where the screen shots you are all discussing actually are? where do I see the updates for SOW?

Im just being a n00b......its sticky'd and I just didnt look hard enough :rolleyes:

Why so surprise? Everybody here see movies, and in movies drop tanks explodes, so it must be true and want to see the same thing on this sim, since its "realistic" ;)

Good ideia. I would like to use it as napalm too...:twisted: Napalm rulez! Just joking!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68kdcVAliAA

Look inside the sticky post "Oleg Maddox news".

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2040


Regards,
Insuber

Are we talking about the drop tank literally exploding in a fire ball or just breaking apart on contact ("exploding" in a sense) and spraying fuel everywhere, no fire ball?
________
SHIP SALE

Hi oleg and teamwork guys!!

Again this screen shoots are awesome images. The ships detail level from
spit are amazing. Of course, again, great work.

Only a request: the next update could put a plane seen from other plane (like a 110 seen from spit or hurri cockpits, or spit or hurri seen from 109cockpit at various distances)?

About AMBULANCES and FIRE TRUCK: i read all the question and answers but i dont find it. Do you have provide put in the sim? (when press ground control keys could you, perhaps, must order send it toward the runway, in case of fire or when the pilot is hurt).

Thx

I just hope we'll not get nVidia-only features again. And I don't want ATi-only features, too ;).

But it looks really great. Can't wait for some 110 cockpit shots.

When I was posting the question, I meant when I drop tank into fire or hot area.

Right. I might also suggest something regarding the "wonder woman view". It would be great if there would be split options. One option that allows the use of simple gauges and another that allows rotating through normal cockpit, half transparent cockpit, no cockpit and "guncam view". The simple gauges could show lots of information. It should be possible to see all information that you normally could read in the cockpit gauges.
I think Rise of Flight has pretty good simple gauges.

http://home.arcor.de/eldur/bilder/rof-gauges.jpg

I love the red limit thing in the RPM gauge. Getting in there can seize the engine. The cool thing about it: The limit changes depending on the engine temperature. Actually you can see what the max RPM is for a cold engine for example. You actually have to warm it up. The compass also shows the wind direction, if there's wind. The small gauge in the upper row center just shows the radiator flap position, throttle and mixture.

Something like Ctrl+F2, just with F1 :D
Asked for that ages ago. Would be great.

That makes the problem. Higher resolution = the pixels are smaller and therefore harder to see. I kept flying at 1024x768 for that reason, online and offline. Until Vista 64 forced me to use my desktop resolution as there's absolutely no fix for the good old 60Hz bug in x64. At least for Il-2 (=OpenGL it just won't work, other DX games are fine). And I have a hard time spotting things now with just 1280x960. 1600x1200 makes me virtually blind.
And I think the dots are just 1x2 pixels (mostly one dark and one bright next to each other). Was a 2x2 black dot back in the old Il-2 though.

Normally they shouldn't. But under certain circumstances yes. When I drop a half-full tank and some bombs at the same time (and the don't get separated too much on their way down), the bomb explosion should make the fuel burn/explode, increasing the power of destruction. The same goes for shooting incendiaries or HE shells into the tank when it's still on the plane.

It's a much more fulfilling experience to learn to read gauges and pilot an airplane based on the viewpoint a pilot actually has, external and no-cockpit views is already noob enough. The idea to have certain levels of realism and training to advance the skill level of less experienced pilots is the right way to go. Make it too many arcade options then you just make it too easy for those who simply don't want to learn and spend too much time catering to the arcade crowd rather than focusing on actual simulation.

Right, therefore it's an option that can be disabled. I might add that performance tests in Il-2 have been done with arcade cockpit, just because it gives TAS values. I would really love not just to learn the gauges, but also all the buttons. Try some radio usage in DCS Black Shark and you'll know what I mean :D. I still use the Win+Home to start everything, just because it's quite hard to learn the startup procedure. But it will be an achievement when I finally can do it by heart. WW2 planes don't have all these avionics, but still it's not just about pressing I and then pushing the throttle forward to take off. I want to do everything a real pilot had to do in the cockpit.

Yup, Hopefully oleg will address this probelm in BoB.

Pixel count alone can't be measurement of how hard it would be to see 2x2 dot. Display dot pitch must be taken into account too to be fair. High resolution large screen isn't the same as high resolution small screen - it is way harder to notice dots on the later, due to smaller pixels, despite the same pixel count.

I think you'll find gentlemen that regarding arcade settings usually not usually used for training ,but more for fun. For example with the Wonder woman cockpit high deflection shots are no longer a guessing game and evasion from attack aircraft is unlikely. There action is quicker. On the flip side full real is tottally the opposite. BUT more rewarding. Basically it depends on the pilot. I do not believe its a training tool of any kind. Especially as il2 is not just about having good gunnery. As far as seeing how other pilots go about getting kills with an extra veiw. Learn yourself. Most good pilots are the ones able to pick up a book and read basic tactics. There are plenty out there. There should be no short cuts in il2 . Thats what made it such a great game, the fact that it takes dedication to even come close to mastering.

I believe that the greatness and popularity of Il2 is not due to the difficulty of the FR settings, but to the "scalability" of the difficulty degree, allowing either beginners, or people who cannot dedicate more thant a couple of hours per week, to have a lot of fun with no-cockpit view and simplified handling.

Then, after one's retirement, there will be enough time to learn and enjoy FR and la ot of other stuff.

Bye,
Insuber

um... where's my Friday fix? :grin:

:-P Hahah beat me to it :D

Ditto:shock:

We need our drugs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies...very-happy.gif

Luthier what are you doing ? Couldn't you post some screenies for us ?? :)

But it seems that nowadays most of the players playing on Hyperlobby are beginners. Some begginers tend to play in the arcade server forever just because they cannot live without wonder woman view or external view. And I'm seeing many players playing in arcade servers at least 4 hours per day!

I haven't been online for quite awhile.

What you are saying reminds me of the MSFT ZONE maturity process.

When it got to where all the neophytes and kiddies start popping on for hours at a time it turned into a joke. The zone didn't survive long after that.

Arcade play is definitely an indicator of a younger Xbox type players.

Play in arcade servers has 3 utilities: Training dogfight manouvering, gunnery to keep your habilities well fit for critical situations in aw, adw and FS (in this servers we avoid dogs at maximun) and satisfy your ego killing noobies :twisted:

The plane surface seems to be pretty reflective in these pics. More here

http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/k...rricaneI_2.jpg
http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/k...ne_Cockpit.jpg

Nice photos, blades!

Yes, compared to the photos, the screenshots do look unrealistc and lacking details. Hopefully the lighting effect will be more realistc in the final version.

So no updates this week? :confused:

Or am I missing something?

Yes, you miss this, Du Held ;)

Foo' bar your skins are fantastic, especially the JG27 North Africa ones. I've always really enjoyed them.

???? To me the photo's show that the 3D model matches the photo. ????

If you remember the original comment was that the decking behind the cockpit shouldn't reflect as much light as the canopy glass. In the first photo we see that the surface of the plane should be reflecting much more light than is shown in the 3d image. The smooth texture of the aluminum decking behind the cockpit IS shown in the 3D model. The second image doesn't really prove much as the open canopy hides the detail in question.

I followed the link and couldn't see an image taken at the same angle.

I recon if they had a realistic reflection people would be complaining that the lighting was over done.

I like DF servers that have externals on but wonderwoman off. And yes, the main use is training and fun. But for ego satisfying I fire up DosBox and play the old Dynamix sims... doesn't even need a joystick actually. If I just want some quick kills, this is the best. A mission with 8+ kills and some ground targets is done in 5-10 minutes :D
I try to do some ground attack on DF servery anyway... I don't like the pure dogfight scenarios.

agree, the pics show that the screenshots are highly accurate. The color of the paint at the places where light is being reflected is almost an exact match. After all, paint IS acrylic (plastic) so to use a plastic looking material as a shader is the correct modeling approach, crank the specular highlights up a little on those screenies and you have almost an exact match.

WAL :rolleyes:

The grass in this screenshot is obviously seriously undermodelled!

http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/k...rricaneI_2.jpg

The grass was WAY longer in 1940! I have charts!! Oleg, this kills the immersion!! Plz fix.

Skarphol



Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Don´t forget the ground crew uniform, completely porked! :D

i don´t understond what is wrong

this cockpit is very similar to your pic, Skarphol.

http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/hurri0012.jpg

explain right what is wrong for you

Well, I was not really complaining about the cockpit, it looks fantastic!
I am more worried about the grass in that Hurricane screenshot. I think the grass was way longer in 1940, as they had not yet invented lawnmowers you could sit on. Thus they had to either cut the grass manually, or hire some local sheeps to do the job. I've not seen any screenshots with sheeps yet, thus the grass should have been considerably longer! And this is a great immersionkiller to me, and I think Oleg is neglecting this huge aspect of flightsimming! OLEG!! Plzfix!

It's a joke. Notice that the "screenshot" he is talking about is a photograph. Probably not a photograph from 1940, but still.

I however do have concerns, the paint on aircraft should be matt, except in the case of parade finishes, such as the finish on the aircraft in the photograph, which is presumably a current day photograph, of an aircraft finished in modern paints, for parade type duties. Some paints are acrylic now, but they weren't in WW2.

This from "How to go plastic modelling" by Chris Ellis, copyright 1970:

There's other screens of long grass. Look in the past three weeks or so.

Here

http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/grab0104.jpg

Skarphol I have your big grass, look

http://www.mickcharlesmodels.co.uk/history/right2b.jpg

:rolleyes::lol:

oleg promess cows, i dont know anything about sheeps. maybe in ThunderJet will be sheeps.

Shine.
 

Here is a 1940's shine.

Not all aircraft were 100% matt, and wind and dirt could polish the surface.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...4949u10fg9.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...4949u10fg9.jpg

Picture is taken during wartime, see here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...418#6451009418

Look at the sky reflecting in the painted part of the canopy!


The next photo is taken in 1942, as you can see in the link.

http://www.spitfiresite.com/photos/h...-ix-715192.jpg

http://www.spitfiresite.com/photos/h...-squadron.html



This shows sheen from a certain angle too.

http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servl...~61&mi=1&trs=3

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...03-00301-1.jpg

Here too, 1940'sSpits under production. Showing sheen:

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/331...143FD4AE7FC81B


1942, loook at the shine on the tailplane:

http://www.crashsiteorkney.com/useri...tfire164Sq.jpg


A real shiner - Group Captain A.G. Malan, DSO, DFC, with his usual Spitfire Aircraft ZP-A (1940):

http://samilitaryhistory.org/vo013dtc.jpg


I agree that most aircraft looked matt a lot of the time, but depending on different types of paint/wear/lighting conditions they could also show sheen/shine.

.

YES! That's more like it!
In that picture we can also see two members of StKG-69 performing the well known "Low Level Inverted Stuka"-technic for tossing propaganda leaflets into WAAF's restrooms for telling how much more 'well hung' german airmen are compared to the britons.

Skarphol

That photo is from the BoB film isn't it? ;)

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/...-g/hurican.jpg
safe to say sun angle is the main determining factor - unless these planes just so happened to be flying in formation according to least glossy to most glossy :)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Hurricanes.jpg
The under side of all these are reflecting the clouds bellow, of course diffused reflection and not specular reflection - but I don't think we have to worry about specular raytraced/mirror maps being applied to the paint.

during the war some r.a.f pilots used to get the ground crew to "polish" their plane so that they could get an extra mph out of it. Also during the war materials were in short supply so this may also have contributed.

Thank you for the screenshots and update.

All I want for Christmas is an few screenshots and an update. :rolleyes:

for Christmas, I'd like a SoW video. I'll even buy the expensive cookies for Santa ;)

my grandfather claimed to have gotten 15 km/h top speed increase from his P-38J after waxing it

Eh? what's that in knots or mph? and did he convert it or you?

:grin:

km/h = kilometers per hour convert it yourself

Yeah, but some people convert by changing the units without changing the numbers. I once read of a 3 metre katana (japanese sword), because somebody boobed, so I was interested in how reliable the conversion to kilometres was. I'm not saying the conversion was out, just asking. :)