There is a fair amount of colour footage available from the period, so this is a good source ;)

The smoke seems ok, but it looks like a long caterpillar. Maybe it should disperse more quickly? I'm also assuming the shadows are WIP as some parts don't seem to "connect".

Great screen shots- the lighting on the Bf-109 looks excellent.

S!

Nice update again. I bet seeing all this in motion on a screen would make most of us drool like small babies :D

Yeah I would definately wait, this time next year and we should know more about the spec's required.

Thank you Oleg.

Smoke cloud is too dense in shot_20100628_134750.jpg.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...8&d=1278064719

Should be dispersing and not opaque in the right hand half of the picture.

Whoa! Flak looks right on! Reminds me of B-17II (but better)!

Agree with others that damage smoke looks too thick, and maybe too long lasting, but also realize this is WIP.

All in all, great!

Shite! I meant for that to be a "thumbs up", sorry!

Looks like a mapping issue on the far tail turret in the second last screen shot.

But other than that I might be falling in love with you all over again!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsKO_r76kfQ

Thanks for my weekly fix Oleg. These updates are getting better and better.:grin:

Absolutely love the flak and flame effects.

Well done.

When viewing a large formation of aircraft like that, will the individual planes bob around a little like you see in the wartime footage? That would be amazing.

The aircraft moving around slightly within formations is already a feature of Il2.

Excellent smoke! Much better than flat smoke in the IL-2 :)

This is looking fabulous.
Can't wait to get my hands on the stick again.:-)

Absolutely stunning images, the flak is just beautiful! I hope that you incorporate intimidating sounds for the flak too so when you fly through a dense field of flak you'll crap your virtual pants!

Why can't all developers be as community oriented as Oleg? Thank you, you spoil us. Good things will come to you continuing this path you've chosen!

Oleg,

That formation shot got me thinking. Are you able to model the sound of unsynchronised German engines? I remember my Grandmother telling me how they could always tell when German aircraft were approaching due to the distinctive uneven pulsating sound of their engines. I think this was because the Luftwaffe couldn't or deliberately didn't synchronise their engines like the RAF did.

Would be great to hear distinctions between the sounds of different aircraft but realise this can't be a priority in a sim where you spend most of the time in a noisy cockpit!

I found an interesting thread on the subject here
http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-135198.html

Thanks

It was deliberate, and the RAF did it too.

There's a bit in Guy Gibson's book where he describes how this was common practice when crossing the enemy coast in Hampdens. The asynchronous thrum made life more uncomfortable for the crew but the theory was it put the flak aimers off (I'm not sure exactly how this worked but there must have been some science behind it).

Cheers, Spinner

Thank you Oleg, brilliant work - Friday's are good:)

You wouldn't here it from the cockpit. Flak that went off close enough to cause no damage would sound, at worse, like a plate being dropped (if that).

Looking better each week! Keep the good work up guys!
Really love the smoke and all the little things that matter so much, wich make the game a complete simulator ( or at least very close to it:-)

The damage my trousers has just suffered is irreparable. :o

Everything coming together better than nicely!

since we're talking about graphics
 

It looks gorgeous, but maybe you haven't seen Wings of Prey yet. Of course, it's a little unfair to compare something which is WIP to a released product, and I will personally hold final judgement of SOWs graphics until it is finally ready for release, but right now WOP seems to hold the graphical crown.


http://image.gxzone.com/images/3/c/3c126094416.jpg
http://image.gxzone.com/images/e/4/e481321977c.jpg
http://forum.yuplay.com/index.php?ac...pe=post&id=136
http://forum.yuplay.com/index.php?ac...pe=post&id=149
http://img694.imageshack.us/f/shot20091219220049.jpg/
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_PibNDdSM_Pg/S2...2011.53.45.jpg
http://img3.imageshack.us/f/cloudsq.jpg/
http://forum.yuplay.com/index.php?ac...pe=post&id=575


However you'd rate WOP in terms of its flight simulation, graphically it is a powerhouse. Just look on that last shot, where the outside moisture creates a reflective sheen over the metal. I've never seen that before, it's truly gorgeous. And WOP is full of these little touches... Speaking graphically, it's kind of a shame to me that for some this game already seems to exist in the shadow of SOW.

(To be honest I bought WOP in order to get acquainted with WWII aviation and flight/combat techniques in preparation for SOW, but WOP is still great, and I like to see its graphical accomplishments atleast recognised).


What we really need to see to get a better idea of things are some good quality screens of SOW with full texture details, a decent amount of AA/AF, running on machines which can handle it. These preview screens give us an idea but they don't yet point to graphics better 'than anything else on the market today'. Maybe others can see it, but not me. Not just yet. Oleg seems confident, and I'm not saying that SOW won't look as good or better than WOP, simply that I'm not seeing that yet.

It does already look fantastic, and that is very promising indeed.

Ekar, it is VERY easy to stuff a game full of graphical goodies when you don't bother modelling everything else realistically. No need to dedicate computing resources to all those pesky things like flight modelling, artificial intelligence, damage modelling, etc...

WOP is arcade and as close to real air warfare as "Call of Duty" is to real land battles. I'm glad it has whetted your appetite for combat flight simming, but you should really try to move on to Il-2 or Rise of Flight before SoW:BoB comes out.

That effect is already in Il-2. Happening not very often, of course, as it should.

Unfortunately WOP only models a tiny portion of SE England which is totally useless for mission builders. I do like many aspects of WOP graphics, which look very realistic at first blush, but then you see all the missing details like roads, railways, on its colorless terrain. SOW will be much larger, more detailed, and realistic unless WOP makes some significant upgrades in the near future. The current lighting aspects of SOW graphics are amazingly photo realistic.

I agree that some aspects of what little WIP terrain we have seen so far in SOW need work. Oleg being an accomplished photograher knows exactly what it should look like, and I have no doubt he will do everything he can to make it right. Even if he gets it only 80% right it will be a major upgrade over what we have seen in WOP.

Regarding smoke from aircraft fires, this page from the USAAF B-29 Gunners' SOP manual may be relevant:
http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/a...ngineFires.jpg
Black smoke with orange flame is a fuel fire...

Well what I see in the last Heinkel shot are wrong markings, wrong paint and a lot more...but anyway, I have played WoP, I know from where you are coming. Like the others I am glad it has gotten you interested in flight simming. You will notice the huge difference when you switch from arcade 'WoP' to sims 'SoW'....trust me. I started simming back in 2003 and went through the same, from arcade to sims. It's like day and night. SoW has a LOT more to calculate than WoP. Honestly I think it's more than enough in the graphics department from what i can see in the screens. I am interested in damage models, flight models, etc etc etc. But being an old IL2 player I trust Oleg will get it right. ;-)

Presumably it would throw off the acoustic detection systems. Not going to help much against radar though. Probably was far more effective at causing crew discomfort than tricking flak batteries.

I see quite a few comments on the dense smoke effect. Over the years I've watched hours of combat footage and tend to agree with Philip that grey or white smoke is most commonly seen when aircraft are going down. However, after a quick trawl of the web I've found a few original shots which back up the effects we're seeing in SOW.

What I don't fully agree with is that burning high octane fuel always produces billowing black smoke. I've seen countless images of torching bombers with absolutely no smoke at all (see images below). I think this may be due to:

a. Air speed - this creates a bellows effect and supplies enough oxygen to the fire to burn very cleanly. I think when bombers explode or spin and fall and large quantities of burning fuel is dumped into the air, the reduced speed creates a less efficient burn and the black smoke becomes more evident.

b. Other materials burning with the fuel. If rubberised fuel tanks or oil from ruptured tanks burns with the fuel then the smoke will be much darker.

I'm including lots of piccies below so you can form your own opinions. I've grouped them according to how dark the smoke is.

First The Dark Smoke: I think the 4th one is a particularly good match for what we've seen today.

Another Dark Smoke.....

Medium Smoke:

Light Smoke:

And finally, flames but no smoke at all:

I think if Oleg gives us a variety of smoke density like he says then we can all be happy in the knowledge that realism has been achieved.:grin:

Not saying you are wrong, but I decided against downloading WoP. I read too many negatives, didn't like the "YuPlay" thing, and wasn't sold on the realism.

Yes, the WoP videos looked good, but the comments from users did not encourage me. More videos from Oleg would be encouraging as it is easy to make a pic look good, but I trust that between the few videos and many pics this sim will look good.

I feel for the people that have been waiting for this release since it was first talked about in....'06? Then again, I waited more than 10 years for Team Fortress 2 so my sympathy has some limits lol. And, of course, there is the whole Dance with Dragons wait...

So basically, I am new to waiting for this release. I see criticisms of the pics and think, "are you kidding?". Then I remind myself that most other people on here have waited far longer than I for a game they are bound to love.

I gave up combat flight sims after CFS3. I got into BF'42 and such plus got my flight fix with FSX and X-Plane. I remember the combat sims I used to play and the current flight sims and, thus, I drool over what I see Oleg posting because it is SO much more advanced than anything I have played.

So...take my enthusiasm for what it is worth. I am basically neutral in all of this because I come from older flight and combat sims while mainly researching the current (few) flight sims. That research is what drew me to C1's new release.

Splitter

HOLY something, it's looking amazing, can't wait to hear and feel this sim.

I would like to add something, for every one who would like to consider.
I saw one time some people complaining to ati developers directly because of the vents on the 5870 to be too small, without knowing nothing about termodynamics or anything about the engineering development of the product, qa, etc. It's a little sad even.

It is something amazing that a developer engage in direct contact with consumers and even take time to reply, so take advantage of it, requesting features to any kind to human endeavour it's delicate, to say at least.

Just a thougth

Can we get back to talking about this week's SoW update instead of WOP?

You guys know how to derail a topic better than any other forum I know. :rolleyes:

Sutts,

good job on the fire/smoke variation pic's in those aircraft historical shots, it illustrates the scope of "what is real" very well. if you combine that info with the list andywest posted about what combat crews were able to interpret depending on what they saw in types of fires and streaming fluid etc,....

and.......we already know oleg has modeled the engines of aircraft in such detail that various sub components can now be specifically damaged (like cooling system, fuel system, oil pan,etc.. )and lead to certain specific failures (over heating, fuel leak, engine seizure, fires) etc..

then the question arises.....

Dear Mr Oleg,

hope you can answer this question

with the types of engine sub-components damage now possible in BoB (as you have previously confirmed) and you mentioning these will each give a different aircraft performance effect, will some of those same engine component damages( like broken fuel hoses, coolant system or oil hose damages etc), plus the other general aircraft parts damages (like fuel tanks in wings on fire, or munitions in wings exploding etc..), will this combination of factors significantly vary the "visual effects" of flames/smoke and "fluid-streaming" from the damaged aircraft in external view ?

:)

does it show when pilot/gunner is killed?

Looks awesome Oleg, can't wait for it to hit the shelves.

The most striking thing to me looking at these WOP screens is how much better the aircraft in SOW look.
WOP looks like IL2 with better ground textures.

Gee Oleg, SoW is looking mighty impressive! You must be extremely proud of what you and your team are achieving - virtually photo-realistic WWII combat flight simulation!!

I think that the screenshot of the Hurricane giving chase to the Stuka (on fire) is amazing! In my opinion, the orange -coloured flames within the (delayed) dark smoke looks 100%!!!

Please try and get SoW to us this year!

I for one, will pay for add-on's as and when these become available.
I realise, of course, that you are wanting to get a basic top-notch product, capable of expansion, out into the market in the first instance, with add-on's to follow.

Smoke and fire are affected by speed,right?
So shall we see different looking types of smoke and fire?

In the screenshot where the Hurri does a near pass of a Stuka,wouldn't it be obvious that the Stuka's gunner and/or pilot will have there heads turned towards the Hurri,looking at it?
Would be a nice touch................

It all looks great!

What you have to bear in mind from that 4th shot is that all the engines may be on fire (or if fuel had leaked across the whole wings surface then that may be on fire too) so this thick black smoke may just be all the smoke-trails merging together. It does show, though, that what Oleg has shown is not neccesarily wrong, but the size IMO is wrong. I mean, even the smoke in this shot is not as thick as the one in Oleg's shot, and that one only has one engine on fire! :-P
It also shows the size of the flame.

so now you have looked a little deeper into the facts of the matter and found out what actually happened in real life ww2 aviation, we'll just interpret that last statement from you as a retraction from your earlier hasty and inappropriate harsh criticism which called the work-in-progress BoB smoke/fire screenshots "wrong"

:) :)

disclaimer: lighthearted jibes are at risk of incorrect interpretation in net posts even with the use of emoticons. access internet at your own risk and if required use appropriate medical assistance to manage potential disruptions to personal comfort zone and wellbeing.

Hi

I see the smoke has benefactors and retractors about the thick, will be a difficult decission. You know from what side I am and what is my opinion about this smoke. Can I make a suggestion? In some ocassions of high velocity, the particles of smoke will be so much separated as you can see in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IEewyz7dXg
For that I suggest add another .eff for the smoke, one with TSmokeTrailParams system for the first part of the smoke for cover the holes between smoke particles. Would be nice, thanks for this games ;)

The effect with light reflecting off the aircraft in the rain is easy to do. Since the lighting model already has a reflective sheen to it, similar to the one in Olegs pictures, all you need is a line of code that says something to the effect of "when weather conditions are rain, reflective value is increased to X".

Combined with the bump mapping that Wings of Prey uses to create panel lines, (and which SoW also uses, but without overdoing the effect like WoP does) and you have the same effect.

Tnx Oleg and team!:-P
Great pictures and i have a new screensaver now!
This game wil be superb!
When we get info about release date?:)

No, it matches my earlier point exactly. It can happen, but from all the evidence I have shown it is not very common (depending on the type of damage to the aircraft. Certainly to the extent shown in the pictures Oleg posted it is wrong). So yes, my earlier point, despite being harsh, stands. Oleg's smoke is wrong. It might be that thick, but not that large and long (although from digging into this further it depends on the amount of fuel left in the tank.) In any case, the smoke is wrong if it is larger than the same smoke from all 4-engines of a bomber. I will remain thinking this until someone posts a complete video showing a stuka being shot down with smoke looking exactly like the pictures we've been shown. I'm not trying to be mean and nasty, but if we have the option to make SoW an outstanding product the moment it is released then that should be in Oleg-&-Co's best interests ;)

EDIT-and yes, I would happily be wrong in everything I have said above as it would mean less work to be done on SoW, but I need to see proof first :D :P

Incredible Oleg. Have not posted in some time - BUT I've followed all the updates.

Smoke, fire and reflection effects are stunning. Good scale to them too.

Soon, soon I think :)

S!

Gunny

Hi Splitter
That's fine. I understand your enthusiasm well. I don't want to sound like I'm pushing a wheelbarrow for WOP (not sure if that's even a proper idiom or not :-P). As I said previously, SOW is the real reason I've garnered a new interest in WWII combat flight simulation. There's no doubt in my mind that when released it will likely blow everything else out of the water. All I'm trying to express is- credit where credit's due. WOP is still a fine game/sim in its own right, even as it falls short of some of the expectations of the discerning hardcore flight sim community (no mission builder for instance). But it does happen to have lovely graphics, and since a large part of what we're talking about in this thread is cosmetic details, I thought it relevant to bring up. That's all.

Right, back to SOW.

~S~

Bring it ON !!! I cannot wait to get in and fly SOW for myself, the looks are fantastic :grin: Thank you for the updated pics... (wipes gruel away and off key board) :P

Oleg, on formation topic, will it be possible to connect 2 or more flights for some time and disconnect them? Like RAF squadrons in big wings.

Another excellent update and some interesting discussion going on.

The first thing that came to my mind about that smoke is "hmm, maybe it's WIP, it's look a bit too big", but then it seems perfectly fine in that rear quarter picture with the flames. I was thinking that this kind of smoke would be fine for slow moving or stationary objects (eg, ground targets, parked aircraft, etc), or even when close to the fire it originates from, but it seems a bit thick when extending further behind a moving aircraft.
Then i started thinking that it's all a matter of relative airspeeds, viscosity (ie thickness) of smoke depending on what kind of materials are being burnt and dispersion...and a few posts later, Oleg himself confirms they have taken this into account. It's simply amazing that half of the times that i'm thinking "it would be neat to have this feature in the sim", the developers confirm it as something they have already worked on! This is why i trust the final produt will be excellent, because these guys are right within our heads and know how we think and what we want to see :grin:

Another thing to consider is that seeing something in motion conveys a better experience. Some bits and pieces of what we see in these updates seems a bit weird sometimes, but i always keep in my mind that we're seeing static shots with no AA/AF, i'm sure seeing it all move and change in high resolution will be something completely different.
For example, the flak bursts in this update are just a time-frozen screenshot of irregular black smoke, but seeing it animated might include an initial flame/flash/shockwave effect from the burst and the abrupt but gradual forming of the black puffs of smoke around it, so that as the flash dies down the smoke is formed. We'll have to wait for a video update before we can really judge this aspect of the sim. Who knows, it might look even better in video.

As for the fuel leak streams they do seem a bit out of place (Oleg said they are WIP after all), but notice how they start narrow at the point of the leak and gradually grow wider as they move to the back of the airframe, even if it is still WIP. It's the small details like these that make it awesome in the long run and the more of them you have in any game, the longer it takes before it starts looking repetitive.

In any case, brilliant update. I can't wait to fly this and i'm also itching to show it off to a few friends who are into WWII history but have never tried flight sims.

knowing oleg i bet the smoke size depends on the size of the leak feeding it, whats burning, and the weight of the oil being burned and a few other factors :-P

The exhausts are shown exactly this way in this photo.
The caption is - "An early production Sunderland I".

Screenshot.

Oleg! Seeing all these great shots of the Ju-87s and Bombers got me wondering...

What is view from the rear gunner and turrent positions going to be like? Will we get guns with more animation than IL-2? Seeing rounds in the gun and ammo belts move, shell casings flying everywhere?

I love being a gunner on a bomber and really looking forward to flying as a gunner online in Storm of War!

further to kestrel79's comment, if you're a gunner in a JU87 or JU88, will you be able to slide the gun around the canopy frame housing rather than just have it just fixed & aimed with the mouse?
At the moment you can seen the grab handle to swing the gun housing round, but can't.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right. Bump and specular as well, as they change the surface details depending on the light angle. It took me a bit of study of these shots to confirm whether the planes have normal/bump maps- I'm still not entirely sure for most of them. They definitely appear to have some nice spec maps already. And the modeling really is fantastic.

Can't wait to see it all moving... :)

The Stuka crew seem very undisturbed about their Stuka being shot to pieces.
One would expect the crew to at least look at the aircraft attacking them and show some sign of panic or emotion. These germans don't seem to care.
I'm sure this will be fixed in the final product but now they look a bit uninvolved.

Dynamic aircraft
 

Wonderful pictures Oleg!

Two questions which cannot be answerd by analyzing static screenshots:
1: Will there be wing-flex?
I know that WW2 fighters had very stiff wings, but ALL wings flex, and seeing this flexing from the cockpit adds seriously to immersion (optical feedback for g-load, turbulence and atmospheric effect induced by high speed combustiuon of airborne munitions (Flack). For an example of extreme wing flex, see below at around 3:50: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de54Rg30tGI
I believe that the simplest way to introduce wing flex would be to add a gpu vertex translation, warping the complete aircraft slightly.

2: Will the damage visuals include semi-attached bits and pieces (flaps /ailerons antennas) fluttering in the slipstream?

Looking forward to the reply.

Flutter

(which could also be visualized nicely using wing flex geometric modifier, although only if combined with motion blur, since wings of WW2 stiffness are reduced to a blur (high frequency flutter) just before they disintegrate completely)

Nothing you will notice when flying anyway.....

Well i read that about the Spitfire wings.

Not sure if the wings of the other planes flexed that much aswell, especially the short and "compact" wings of the 109.

Would be great to have this in the sim, still no priority for me and i doubt we'll get that anyway.

Agreed. I haven't seen many cases where Oleg's overlooked details that us casual forum members can point out and which are not due to tech limitations.

The smoke at first glance seemed excessively dark/large to me but I was surprised to find how closely it matched some pics I shot at Oshkosh last year:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2618/...4ddf920d_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2730/...ff55b070_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2677/...aaab3e87_o.jpg

I'm pretty sure these are fuel 'bombs'.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...8&d=1278064719

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...6&d=1278064578

Oleg's previous answer to this was -

"When we will have in future the planes where it is visible in reality – probably yes. But say on Ju-88 – it is invisible (at least in flight with high G for sure)"

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...flex#post28675

Hate to state the obvious, but it looks then like the SOW flames should be less hard-edged and more connected to the smoke, blending more smoothly into it. In reality it's the density of the smoke
in the foreground that gives the flames behind them the appearance of being hard-edged. As you say though, the technology might not allow that.

more flex
 

Thank you Les, I did not know about that thread. But seeing that the reply dates back to 2007, and that the answer is "probably", I would still appreciate an up to date answer from the master himself.

I was almost in your picture (just to the right on the stand) ;)

Smoke looks spot on.

Smoke
 

Have any of you seen the smoke from an aircraft explosion? Perhaps more simply put, the smoke from any fire where oil and fuel are mixed? Added other petroleum materials? Here's some perspective: The aircraft I fly has engines that burn at over 800 C. That's contained combustion with metered fuel and controlled air provisions. An exposed heat source to the elements, mixed with it's own volatile components and fluids, will certainly produce extremely thick, dense, and nasty smoke -- with terribly hot fires associated.... Oleg, looking great. You guys seem to know a thing or two about aircraft in every respect. Constructive criticism is good only when it contains intelligent insight.

I can't wait for your product to come on line. Guaranteed purchase from me.:grin:

Beautiful smoke and fire effects.

And to keep it simple, watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNg91...eature=related

I assume the SoW : BoB WIP smoke and fire effects showed in the screenshots are very like the fire and smoke after the P-38 crash in video (1:20)... :cool:

Perfect work!

there was different smoke types in il2, white, thin black, heavy black, etc why wouldn't there be in BoB?

In one of the very early videos (i think you can find them in your IL2:1946 DVD) there is some footage of both of these. In one case you could see the ammunition belts moving. In another part of the video there was a rear gunner view from a Stuka and the gun position was rotating.

Mind you it was not ingame, just some animations in the 3d editor, but it was there from the beginning. I don't know if it will make the release (maybe it's too heavy on processing power, who knows?), but the ability to do it is obviously there. I'm guessing we'll see a lot of features like these get enabled in later patches during the life of the simulator, as the processing power of the average PC rises, just like we got options like water=3, etc in IL2.

True but Oleg's effects are a pretty good approximation in my opinion and I have a feeling that they'll look better in motion.

Cool! My first Oshkosh ever. I was there for two days and could only see a fraction of it. Hoping to go again soon.

Have you seen the bonus DVD added to Il-2 1946? It was shown there very well and clear that it is possible.

Will there be also glycol?

Will we have Adolf Galland´s cigar to smoke into the Bf 109 cockpit?:-P

Oleg: First time posting here. Excellent job with the series so far. I'm a huge fan! Would you consider putting a tool in the sim that would allow players to create custom formations? There were so many different SOPs and methods of organizing air wings on all sides. Rather then try to include a limited selection of formations in the game, allow players to create there own and make them exportable files as are aircraft skins and missions. That alone greatly expands the possibilities for much more epically scaled missions. Such as the London blitz campaign or simply the recreation of a red star formation with a flight of Yaks for a victory parade over Moscow, for example.

I spent the better part of a year trying to make a large bomber formation in 1946. Its proven impossible in the current version of the sim...
http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/...WingSlide2.jpg COMBAT BOX – LEAD GROUP (A)

http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/...WingSlide3.jpg COMBAT BOX – HIGH GROUP (B)

http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/...WingSlide4.jpg COMBAT BOX – LOW GROUP (C)

http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/...WingSlide1.jpg COMBAT WING – Consisting of three Combat boxes

Below are blown up images that are found at the bottom of the combat wing slide for your reference.

http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/...CWTopView2.jpg COMBAT WING – Top View

http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/...CWTailView.jpg COMBAT WING – Tail View

http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/...CWSideView.jpg COMBAT WING – Left Side View

http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/...AngledView.jpg COMBAT WING - Below and angled view

-Ry

Wow, that's a lovely piece of work Ryan, well done!

One day.......

Jeez Ryan, what a great idea!! :)

Gallands cigar?

hahaha all we need now is the bottle of champagne with flute, french butter and breadstick on a nearby table.

i can practically smell the fuel and leather, feel the warmth of the sun, hear the ground crew chatter.

:)

Excellent idea and impressive work for showing what you are looking for. Something similiar to this was requested long time ago by me and others, but also for being used with fleets (combat and transport fleets), armor divisions, and so on. But i think nobody thought of exporting them as an exportable file that you can use and send to friends or download from the web.
I call that great thinking! ;)

Hope we also get what we want with this! :)

excelent work!!! nice
now fighter formations and attack tactics bf109 bf110 hurricane & spitfire

Nearly perfect smoke Oleg, good enough for ME!! LOL!!

BUT I hope Stuka tactics are up to par. In IL2, stukas just fly till they die, in the original BOB, Stukas would turn into attackers, and use it's slow speed to out stall fighters etc.

Nothing worse than a beautiful looking aircraft with BAD AI!

.

...

And the odoriferous and nauseating sweat of the "kanalkrankheit". :grin:


...

Wow, RyansPlace... Now that is the way to make a request/comment !!! Clearly and politely stated with illustrations and written text.

I'm really impressed...and I think its a good idea. Keep thinking, I think you are on to something.

Custom formations
 

"I'm a huge fan! Would you consider putting a tool in the sim that would allow players to create custom formations?"
That is great work.
But your request would have to be written like this.
"Oleg, could you write the AI routines so that custom formations of up to wing size can be dictated by the user"

We are talking about the AI routines. Likely the weakest part of IL2, and the most challenging for this new game. Or any game. Each of those bombers has to be assigned gun arcs. Each of them likley have to be assigned a take off slot, master bomber, back up master, etc.

Cool idea, but I think its hitting simulation gaming in its weak spot.
Of course, we cannot see the AI in these screen shots. Who knows at this point how good it will be. Maybe great if it can use Cores of a muli core CPU just for AI.

Again, great idea, well presented.

zakkandrachoff, Il2Pongo, proton45, ECV56_Lancelot, and anyone I missed: thanks for the support. I'm hardly trying to hijack this thread, but as I said, this is something i've been struggling with for the better part of a year. It's simply not possible in IL2 due to lack on tools and AI limitations. I've maintained a progress thread with a lot of pics, but earned little notice at the underused IL2 Mission Builder Forum (new tab) on the 1C: Maddox Games site. Feel free to have a look.

Oleg's team does a fantastic job at creating realistic flight sim environments with dazzling effects that simply blows the competition away. Equally great, were the limitations of the tools that allow you to direct how these aircraft interact with the sim world in IL2 1946. This is an area I look to more then the visuals when scanning his weekly updates. I know he keeps a number of cards close to his chest. I hope tools greatly expanding the versatility of the FMB are among them.

http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/...Intercept6.jpg
Me 109s (AI) maneuver behind a Combat Box of B17's to execute a stern attack. Note: the AI only seems to recognize the closest aircraft initially identified (the lead aircraft in the formation) then maneuvers to the most direct flight path to attack that aircraft while ignoring all others... usually resulting in the fighter either being shot down or colliding with another bomber prior to reaching its target.

http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/...l/AirWing1.jpg
Two Combat Wings in action over the Gulf of Finland.

http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/.../CWEditor3.jpg
FMB view of two Combat Wings with a P-38J escort. Each aircraft must be placed individually in IL2 1946 and only maintain formation cohesion for a short time (less then 10 minutes) before altitude/airspeed variations stretch the group into a bomber stream.

If understand Oleg, he has up to 40 aircraft in a single formation. This is a good start, but looking down the road, we're going to see a need for even larger ones. Heck, the 1943 8th Air force SOP i'm using requires 60 bombers in a single formation. But that can easily be divided into nine subgroups (see graphics from the first post) of six to seven aircraft each. Numbers aside, I’m encouraged to hear this is being addressed in the next release.

One of the major issues that detract from any sense of historical accuracy is the AI simply can't handle how to attack a large formation. You should be able to program the AI. Add options to the waypoint tab that specifies a priority targets at each waypoint of the flight. Fighters, bombers, ground targets, or avoid enemy contact are the basics. You should also be able to assign what type of attack to perform with a pulldown menu with several options (such as, head on, flank, stern attacks, massed attacks, ect). AI simply can’t make these decisions yet, so it should be left open on the FMB.

Escort fighters should have a ‘wander limit’ option on the waypoint tab that limits how far they will pursue an enemy threat before they break off the engagement and return to there assigned escort group.

To put these into practice: Lets say for example, in the FMB I have a 40 ship formation of German bombers with 12 escort fighters that I want to attack with a group of 20 British fighters. The bombers are broken into two wings of 20 aircraft. The lead wing is assigned the escort with a wander limit of 1000 meters. I take eight of the British fighters and place them ahead of the others with the priority set to 'fighters' on the waypoint. They are the element to draws off the German bomber escorts and otherwise keeps them occupied. The other 12 British fighters have there priority set to 'bombers' with attack type set to 'head on attacks'. Meaning, they will concentrate on the bombers, but only attack from the 12 o'clock position. As the scenario plays out, the escort takes the bait but only tangles with the British fighters until they wander outside the 1000 meter range limit from their assigned escort detail, then immediately breaks off the engagement and attempts to return to the formation. Maneuvering only to avoid British attacks. Once reunited with the formation, they attack British aircraft that pose a threat to there bomber group.

...I know its not fair to compare the issues with Il2 1946 with a next gen. sim that hasn't been released. Perhaps this belongs in the 4.10 patch forum. I just want piece of mind that these particular aspects of the sim will be addressed.

Just a few thoughts.
-Ry

EDIT1: Added captions to the pictures
EDIT2: Typo fixes

Impressive....

Another very nice up-date, I think the shots look great!...the smoke looks good to me as-well:grin:

I understand perfectly, and there is a lot of good ideas. I think you should also post this here

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=6909&page=57

Its the LONG thread of questions and requests about SoW. Even if its long, you must know that Oleg and its team read and follow that thread, most likely you will not get an answer, but surely it will readed by them.

Formations
 

RyansPlace
your description highlights my concerns about what your request would mean to the AI routines.

Or the specs of your computer...

A propos, speaking of computer specs any insights of what we need to run the game?!

Not yet, but I decided to wait for my upgrade until Q1 2011 when we probably will have Intel Sandy bridge (rumours are saying with 2.5 GHz clock is already faster 20 % than Core i7 975 extreme) and ATI 6870 and 6970 (dual GPU) that will be probably way more faster than a Nvidia GTX 480 and more efficient too (28 nm process)
This time I´m planning to spend serious money in my setup, only because SOW and already decided to wait for this next generation chips, even if SOW is already launched, because I want to play it with the most eye candy I could do.

oleg repeatedly stated he wont give a formal announcement of specific specs until the release of the game is finalized, but......

going by more general statements he has made on that topic you can assume this much:
- whatever is a high end pc at release time, and that means a high end "gamer" pc (indicating cpu, gpu, & ram suitable for at least 1920 x 1200), not your mum's office pc, then you can expect fluid frame rates with most options/details turned on, and can play the sim in all its glory on a single decent size monitor (and need a monster gaming pc to use multiple monitors)
- a medium level "gamer pc" with a "good cpu" and "good gpu" will be able to have fluid game play at release, but with some eye candy turned down and maybe a step down in resolution

for those expecting to use multiple monitors you also already know the motherboard types you will need (ie at least 3gfx card slots if you plan to go high end with 3 monitors, and make sure they are all 16x). and yes, quad cores will be an advantage, we already know that much to.

in addition to that we know oleg and Co are testing game play on medium level machines right now to ensure most people with modern pc's will be able to play it at release time (if he only aims it at people with uber pc's he is cutting out 80% of his prospective customers, and obviously he aint no fool)

since the current intended release time is 15th of september 2010, you have a fairly good idea of what "high end" pc means right now. if closer to that date it looks like there will be a 1 or 2 months delay that wont change much spec wise. if all goes pear shape and there are major delays, and you better pray there isnt because the development team cant financially afford further significant delays, then an early 2011 release would mean the spec levels will have gone up one notch and the new cpu/gpu generation will be out (making them the new yardstick for "high end"). also note this might mean a mb chipset change for multiple gfx card users.

if you have half a brain and are able to use common sense you obviously dont want to make major upgrade purchases BEFORE the game has been released (or oleg gives specific specs), and reports come in from reviews for different gfx cards performances (partic ati vs nvidia).

it really is that simple :)

I fully agree with zapatista.

I agree as well (although all he needed to write was the last line, as the rest I think is still speculation) :D

From what I saw in WW2 footage, Oleg's vision of smoke is pretty good...

Here's a snap from some real WW2 footage:
http://i905.photobucket.com/albums/a...rsch1/smok.jpg

Awesome! The water, smoke, fire, dynamic lighting and models; just stunning!
I drooled over the keyboard.

no, it isnt speculation at all

all you need to do is pay attention to what oleg himself has said in the past, and in this case it was VERY recently

in a recent reply of his to an umpteen'ed time question about system spec (mid june 2010)

and you will find my above posts contains a fairly good translation of that oleg'ish statement to plain english

Well, from Luthier said about not wanting to release system specs yet as it is all subject to change right down to the final, it is speculation. Of course the best PC today should play the game at least on lowest settings (we know that from Luthier's hints) but everything else is not set in stone ;)
I don't think Il-2 could be run on perfect settings at release, and even today you need a half-decent PC to play Il-2 on perfect (10 years later...) so whilst I think you may be right in what you say, I don't think that anything is certain yet :D