Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   Friday 2010-07-16 Dev. update and Discussions about the update ONLY! (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=15585)

zorlac 07-16-2010 10:07 PM

He's on holiday

Blakduk 07-16-2010 10:43 PM

Well done guys- there are so many positive things to say about these screen shots.
The cliffs in the scene with the cranes, the seagulls, the burning fabric on the Wellington (it look like you could recreate the burning of the Hindenburg with this game engine!), etc.
I am really looking forward to some videos.
BTW- will you offer therapy for gamers who get post traumatic stress disorder after being in that inferno in the Wellington?

caprera 07-16-2010 10:58 PM

Fire still sucks :rolleyes:

Blackdog_kt 07-16-2010 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arjisme (Post 170252)
Please drop the off-topic arguments about the DRM! While I think it is a worthy topic to discuss, it should be in its own thread, not thread-crapping this one.

Sorry, it got the better of me.
I just hope we'll get a good simulator with user-friendliness and functionality to match, that's all.
I'm goint to edit the post in question just to keep everyone happy :grin:

tagTaken2 07-17-2010 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luthier (Post 170229)
Korea was always intended as a sequel to Battle of Britain. We thought at first that we could develop them in parallel, but that turned out to be too optimistic. So we're fully focused on BoB at the moment.

Understandable, thanks for the response.

Good times for a flight simmer, and some real gratitude to developers, particularly a bunch of Russian studios for the soul they put in to the games.

EvilFD 07-17-2010 01:11 AM

Wonderful update. Can't wait guys, keep up the good work ;) Please hurry though haha, the anticipation.................

Sturm_Williger 07-17-2010 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caprera (Post 170270)
Fire still sucks :rolleyes:

I think one has to also bear in mind that a static screenshot may not capture dynamic flames at their best.
I'm sure there are many programming tricks used to achieve the look of realistic flames which work best when all is in motion. A screenshot may well capture the action between renderings of some of the flames making it look less than brilliant.

That said, I think the flames we see look pretty damn scary and realistic even in the static shots we have been shown.

~BeoWolf~ 07-17-2010 05:27 AM

Hey Ilya, what's going on with Project Galba?

Have not seen anything on that project for quite some time, is it on hold while you fine tune SOW?

csThor 07-17-2010 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 322Sqn_Dusty (Post 170263)
During BoB the Luftwaffe used allsorts of identification on their planes e.g. yellow noses, white rudder/elevators etc in various sizes. Are they in Sow standard careers or should the community skin them for use?

Great detail. Can't wait to see a shadow overhead and hear it roar past.

*It can be played on LAN whitout online connection i hope....otherwise events will have a problem.
For the rest I don't mind..my cash will flow to the developer.

Dusty most of the german emblems for SoW-BoB were made by me (until I was rudely interrupted by a serious illness and now I have not the time to devote it to finish the last emblems and write the last manuals) and I provided Maddox Games with a number of "manuals" for the emblems, their application and the other facts pertaining to german units and their markings (colour, style etc). The fighter manual alone has 103 pages in PDF. :cool:

Lucas_From_Hell 07-17-2010 06:24 AM

It's too hot to think here, so I can only say it looks pretty awesome and I can't wait to get my hands on that :mrgreen:

About the fire, it does look great, but I think it'd be healthy to increase the resolution of the flames. Right now, you can see some fairly jagged edges from some angles, and that can make some picky guys unhappy and trigger some trolls.

I don't think anyone will seriously notice such details when pulling 7Gs with bullets flying around your cockpit, but judging by the usual standard of bitching about small and ridiculous details, it wouldn't be a bad idea to improve it right away...

caprera 07-17-2010 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sturm_Williger (Post 170284)
I think one has to also bear in mind that a static screenshot may not capture dynamic flames at their best.

ù

I tried but still they look like from another game. And the color itself seems too cartoonish to me...

fireflyerz 07-17-2010 07:45 AM

Yes

whatnot 07-17-2010 08:37 AM

The best set of screens I've seen so far and the first ones with some AA finally which make them look extra gorgeous! Fantastic work and these combined with luthier's teasers made the wait even tougher than before! Gimme gimme gimme! :-)

Some comments:

1) Fire is quite ok to my eyes and it must be frustrating to see dumbass beavis & butthead comments like 'xyz sucks' after the devs go through the trouble providing these luxury updates. Comparing the flames to photographs the biggest difference I see is that the 'white highlight' (or whatever it's called:) in the heart of the flame is too large and bright white.

2) My gut feeling is that every single WW2 aviation nerd looming around these forums will crap their pants and run to the store to get minimum three copies of BOB SOW when it's released even if it would costs 300€ / piece and has a DRM that kills 30 DVD drives an hour and requires 1Gb connection and latency < 1ms. LOL @ the 'I won't get it unless it has x copy protection. No one will buy that bluff, not here atleast :o

3) If the ground would look as good as the skies it would be too much to handle for us waiting for the release. Interested to see what kind of wonders the finetuning will do the terrain.

Immermann 07-17-2010 08:50 AM

I don't think there's any AA on these screen shots. It's just the blue-greys of the sea that sometimes gives the same effect on the edges of the planes.

caprera 07-17-2010 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnot (Post 170311)
dumbass beavis & butthead comments like 'xyz sucks' after the devs go through the trouble providing these luxury updates

I prefer to call it a "direct critique" and i explained also why i said that.

Surely more helpful than noob pointless cheering for every screenshot shown that even can't recognize AA or HDR like you....so please spare me.

Hecke 07-17-2010 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caprera (Post 170315)
I prefer to call it a "direct critique" and i explained also why i said that.

Surely more helpful than noob pointless cheering for every screenshot shown that even can't recognize AA or HDR like you....so please spare me.



I totally agree with caprera. It's more helpful to give critique instead of always telling it's awesome.
Because in the end when the product is out it's you guys that recognize it's actually not that good/ realistic.
If you tell the developers that everything is perfect, why should the they change anything or go on improving?

Rodolphe 07-17-2010 10:43 AM

...


Nice sun reflexion on this He 111 H internal cockpit glass.

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Reflet.jpg


...

caprera 07-17-2010 10:46 AM

Thanks Hecke, for example i'm happy with the cokpits' glasses, i find them much more realistic than before...

Insuber 07-17-2010 11:06 AM

The better is the enemy of the good.

1C should publish the game as soon as possible, and let us customers evaluate the whole package, in key areas such as DM, FM, LOD's, sound, maps, smoothness and playability, campaign modes, online modes, etc etc.
Improvements and visual fine tunings will came later, when we will be able to appreciate the whole picture and prioritize the corrections for the patches to come.

Focusing on small details now makes little sense, IMHO.

Cheers,
Insuber

caprera 07-17-2010 11:10 AM

They should also sell the game, not only present it to be modded...

Tree_UK 07-17-2010 11:12 AM

I have to say that im not feeling much love for the landscape that Ive seen so far, to me it looks like a water colour painting, i would like to see a comparison screenshot between WOP and SOW landscape i seem to remember Oleg mentioning that he may do this. Also I honestly think that the Il2 trees look better although i appreciate that it is all still WIP's. The detail on the aircraft is incredible though and the water looks stunning.

Hecke 07-17-2010 11:17 AM

Same for me.

+

Planes are great
Water is good already


-

The ground textures look like low resolution and not good at all.
The trees look too bad, too.
fire too bright on its hottest part

furbs 07-17-2010 11:19 AM

i agree tree...but i just hoping we havnt seen the landscape in its full glory yet...and when it all comes together it will look stunning.

luthier...any chance of seeing a short vid of flames and smoke?...im sure it would put lots of peoples mind at rest.

GopherStibble 07-17-2010 11:19 AM

Don't trust Luthier. Many years ago he promised me a potpourri plankton special edition of Pacific Fighters, with varying ocean colours depending on seasonal plankton levels... but... it... never... happened!!

:cry:




:-P

Lucas_From_Hell 07-17-2010 11:25 AM

Better is the enemy of good, but haste is the enemy of perfection. Look at what happened with Rise of Flight - publishers rushed it and they had to release a buggy version that caused disappointment between many flight simmers, and only recently they started their comeback.

Nobody - and I stress nobody - except the developers themselves need the game released in an X date. You might think you want it ASAP, but trust me, you don't.

For evaluating the package in key areas you have experienced people that know exactly how things should look, sound and feel like, and they are to point that out to the developers - that's what beta testing is for.

Early unfinished releases are never good; it has been proved throughout the years.

It's a matter of being professional. Releasing an unfinished product to see the reaction isn't professional at all. Releasing a small beta demo is a different matter, but publishing it? That would be just rushing things out to satisfy a bunch of bored geeks. It's summer, do like Oleg and Ilya and take some days off, relax and forget about this whole thing for a while.

From what I know about the developer's philosophy, they would never release anything unfinished. It's easy to guess by their position about features - it was stated over and over by many members of the development teams that, if they can't implement a feature with 100% accuracy, they just don't include it until it's done.

That's how it should be ;)

C'mon guys, just chill out... You don't need a buggy and rough Storm of War just for having it earlier.

There's nothing to worry about, we can wait as much time as the developers need. Just enjoy summer and be happy, SoW will come someday :rolleyes:

Friendly_flyer 07-17-2010 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luthier (Post 170177)
I think there's over 40 different codes for different types of markings you can put on the aircraft, in addition to the regular numbers (<0 and <0- and I<< and <|- and all that kind of stuff)

I know the Luftwaffe had all kinds of funny markings, but the RAF had some interesting variations too: several different fuselage roundels, tail flashes and fonts for the squadron codes, and mirrored camo pattern (A- and B-scheme for even and odd serials respectively). Are the planes to include some of that diversity?

Oleg has stated that there will be a simplified skinning process, with rivets/lines/wear, markings and camo paint all in different layers. Can you tell us which of these layers you plan to make available to skinners? Will the layers be laid out in the same fashion as in IL2, with the plane "unfolded" over a picture file??

I/ZG52_Gaga 07-17-2010 11:39 AM

I take it that the Seagulls are not final right?

at first, i thought you pasted the Acs on a random sea background and there were left overs from a monochrome deleted background that had the Acs on .....

I'm not crazy about the screenshots ... but they'll do ... :)

I/ZG52_Gaga 07-17-2010 11:42 AM

I take it that the Seagulls are not final right?

at first, i thought you pasted the Acs on a random sea background and there were left overs from a monochrome deleted background that had the Acs on .....

Seagulls bon't blend in well that's my opinion ..

I'm not crazy about the screenshots ... but they'll do ... :)

Insuber 07-17-2010 12:03 PM

Lucas,

No hurry here (not after 5 years, come on!), and no wish of a buggy software. I'm just afraid that perfectionism will kill the chicken in the egg. If fires will stay cartoonish, I will not deem SoW as an unfinished software.
Again, small details can be adjusted later. I mean small details, not bugs, of course, such as flames colors, sea hue, or tree nuances.

And RoF is a successful experience, IMHO.

Cheers,
Insuber

Hecke 07-17-2010 12:07 PM

BTW On the Crane photo. Are these little zeppelines or what?

johnnypfft 07-17-2010 12:37 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzIPYnQ6zNE

Superluminal_8 07-17-2010 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hecke (Post 170345)
BTW On the Crane photo. Are these little zeppelines or what?

Barrage ballons

Lucas_From_Hell 07-17-2010 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insuber (Post 170344)
Lucas,

No hurry here (not after 5 years, come on!), and no wish of a buggy software. I'm just afraid that perfectionism will kill the chicken in the egg. If fires will stay cartoonish, I will not deem SoW as an unfinished software.
Again, small details can be adjusted later. I mean small details, not bugs, of course, such as flames colors, sea hue, or tree nuances.

And RoF is a successful experience, IMHO.

Cheers,
Insuber

I see your point, Insuber.

However, we both know this community very well, and I guess you are aware that some members will troll and complain for the very unimportant details, so for the sake of the dev's mental health, I think that should be avoided :mrgreen:

Plus, most of these small imperfections are easy to correct during the final stages, it's not something that can postpone the release for another month. Those details are something people will see quite often while flying, so sooner or later it will catch a nitpicker's eye, and I can't see why not dealing with it if there's enough time :) Even if it gets postponed for two more weeks, I think that's a reasonable wait for getting a polished simulator.

About Rise of Flight, it has become a successful experience after constant patching and debugging, but in the very beginning, most people were everything but happy about it as a whole.

TallBonapart 07-17-2010 01:12 PM

If be honest,I don't care much about ground textures,trees,water,seagulls,DRM and all that secondary and unimportant stuff.Just give me nice and realistically looking cockpit,good physics,and I will give you my 40 or 50 Euros straight away.So no need to wait 1C,after all its just a business,not the competition for most sophisticated product of the decade.

Tbag 07-17-2010 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tree_UK (Post 170333)
I have to say that im not feeling much love for the landscape that Ive seen so far, to me it looks like a water colour painting, i would like to see a comparison screenshot between WOP and SOW landscape i seem to remember Oleg mentioning that he may do this. Also I honestly think that the Il2 trees look better although i appreciate that it is all still WIP's. The detail on the aircraft is incredible though and the water looks stunning.

I think we've seen much better landscape shots than those in recent updates already:

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-conten...0/grab0003.jpg

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-conten...0/grab_010.jpg

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-conten...0/grab_011.jpg

Foo'bar 07-17-2010 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hecke (Post 170345)
BTW On the Crane photo. Are these little zeppelines or what?

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/storm-of-...hots-mai-2009/

Barrage balloons.

Hecke 07-17-2010 02:51 PM

Quote: I think we've seen much better landscape shots than those in recent updates already:


yeah a bit better.

But especially the trees (shape and) colour look much nicer than in the latest updates.

Chivas 07-17-2010 04:01 PM

I agree with Lucas_From_Hell that a product shouldn't be released early, but that doesn't always work.

ROF for example would not have been released at all if they waited until is was finished. They needed the cash flow to continue work on the sim. Sure this upset a few people, but it did save the product, that many are enjoying now. Instead of having nothing in the end, you now have a developer with the cash flow to continue to improve a great product.

SOW is in the same boat although I'm sure it will be in a more finished product when released than ROF was. The SOW developer has stated many times he must release the sim as soon as possible for financial reasons. He has also stated in the Russian forums he would have liked to delay the release until 2011 to add some features but it won't be possible.

IF sales are good for the BOB SOW series, you will see a constant improvement of features as the sim progresses thru many addons. Hopefully the community will have the foresight to see that their favorite aircraft, theater, improved features will eventually be available in the SOW series, but they will need to support the developer now not later.

erco 07-17-2010 05:00 PM

Incredible update- can't wait to see it in motion. And as others have said, Luthier really ought to be in marketing, he knows how to push a simmer's buttons!

I took part in the beta test for ROF, and, while I can't argue with the developer's decision to release an unfinished game rather than shelve the whole project, my experience with the beta put me off buying the game, which I had fully intended to do. I'm still interested in ROF, I gave the demo a whirl a few months back, but I'm still not impressed with the game. Sure, the graphics are great, lots of people are enjoying it, but it still doesn't feel polished enough (seriously, no SLI support?) for me to bother with.

Oleg & Co are 100% right to only release what is working 100%. If that means some features are cut (initially) from the release, so be it.

furbs 07-17-2010 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tbag (Post 170357)


yep...those trees look much better...so i wonder why they dont look as good in the last few updates?

anyone have a idea?

=XIII=Shea 07-17-2010 05:35 PM

IMHO people should pass judgement until we see an actual gameplay video,showing smoke,fire,ground detail,I think Oleg and the team know what they are doing;)

David603 07-17-2010 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by furbs (Post 170373)
yep...those trees look much better...so i wonder why they dont look as good in the last few updates?

anyone have a idea?

Didn't Oleg switch from using trees that were made by his own team to using trees made by a company called Spreadtree since those shots were taken?

Oleg also said something about bugs in the system and how they were using the reduced detail distant models at the moment, which would explain the poor trees in the most recent shots.

zauii 07-17-2010 06:26 PM

Comparing screenshots to one and another never gives any fair results.
Just wait til you have the game in motion and on your computers until you judge.

lbuchele 07-17-2010 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luthier (Post 170135)
Oh sure, in our next add-on, BoC, Battle of the Cranes.

Our cranes are actually animated, they turn their heads, the winches move, i.e. they kind of look like they're doing something.

That´s good news , but I demand cranes might be able to transform in giant robots, flying ones if possible , to fight the nazis.
Megan Fox must be included in the Collector´s Edition, of course.
This is just the minimum I require from a realistic flight simulator.:rolleyes:

CRO_Adriatic 07-17-2010 07:11 PM

Now looks really scary to burn...

Splitter 07-17-2010 07:31 PM

Not to offend anyone, but I can't believe the nitpicking on the scenery.

I have bought software since it came on cassette tape. I have seen good graphics (for whatever time period) on bad games and "OK" graphics on very good games. Poor games don't get played for very long. Good games with OK graphics were (and are) played for many hours.

The are many things that go into actual "game play" that are more important than being able to take photo realistic screen shots.

I know from competing that most people have to sacrifice some aesthetics for frame rate. People are bringing up RoF as an example of what happens when a product is released too early but looked pretty. I would also point out that Crysis was a good game, and gorgeous, but many end users couldn't play it on their systems. The graphics were too good for all but the most powerful systems. So I would say that the greater danger is in SoW becoming another Crysis....stunning but unplayable for many.

In the US we have an expression: boondoggle. Programmers chasing their tails tweaking graphics and delaying release dates equals a boondoggle. Games staying in development for years on end equals a boondoggle (Team Fortress 2 anyone?).

Releasing a solid, great game that is used as a platform on which to improve further updates and releases equals a WIN for the end users and the publisher.

We're talking about the tree shade colors? Seriously? Were I Olegg I wouldn't be publishing these updates at all. I am waiting on the release of a new version of my favorite flight sim and the owner of that company gives almost no details so as to avoid discussions like this. That sim is still getting buzz in their community....especially because the current customers are hanging onto every rumor and tidbit of information that leaks out.

The fire has too much red in it? Seriously? The graphics look almost good enough for release, if the gameplay is outstanding then we won't be griping when it is released. The expression "you can't have everything" comes to mind, especially when we are talking about a $50 product.

Splitter

Rodolphe 07-17-2010 08:01 PM

...


Quote:

Originally Posted by luthier (Post 170135)
Our cranes are actually animated, they turn their heads, the winches move, i.e. they kind of look like they're doing something.



Well, those crane should do something like this ? :grin::grin:


He 59 B, Seenotflugkommandos 3 , Boulogne-sur-Mer. 2nd half of 1940.
http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Seenot.jpg


Any news about the He 59 project ?

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/He59.jpg
...

Hecke 07-17-2010 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splitter (Post 170401)
Not to offend anyone, but I can't believe the nitpicking on the scenery.

I have bought software since it came on cassette tape. I have seen good graphics (for whatever time period) on bad games and "OK" graphics on very good games. Poor games don't get played for very long. Good games with OK graphics were (and are) played for many hours.

The are many things that go into actual "game play" that are more important than being able to take photo realistic screen shots.

I know from competing that most people have to sacrifice some aesthetics for frame rate. People are bringing up RoF as an example of what happens when a product is released too early but looked pretty. I would also point out that Crysis was a good game, and gorgeous, but many end users couldn't play it on their systems. The graphics were too good for all but the most powerful systems. So I would say that the greater danger is in SoW becoming another Crysis....stunning but unplayable for many.

In the US we have an expression: boondoggle. Programmers chasing their tails tweaking graphics and delaying release dates equals a boondoggle. Games staying in development for years on end equals a boondoggle (Team Fortress 2 anyone?).

Releasing a solid, great game that is used as a platform on which to improve further updates and releases equals a WIN for the end users and the publisher.

We're talking about the tree shade colors? Seriously? Were I Olegg I wouldn't be publishing these updates at all. I am waiting on the release of a new version of my favorite flight sim and the owner of that company gives almost no details so as to avoid discussions like this. That sim is still getting buzz in their community....especially because the current customers are hanging onto every rumor and tidbit of information that leaks out.

The fire has too much red in it? Seriously? The graphics look almost good enough for release, if the gameplay is outstanding then we won't be griping when it is released. The expression "you can't have everything" comes to mind, especially when we are talking about a $50 product.

Splitter



All I have to say about this and all similar comments: OMG

Giving critique to the developers about screen updates is not an insult.
It's just help to make everything better.
When will you people understand?

Don't you know the saying: Two heads are better than one?

Oleg and his team are not all knowing.

Friendly_flyer 07-17-2010 08:14 PM

Splitter speaks the wisdom here.

PhilHL 07-17-2010 08:15 PM

Hello Oleg Maddox!

I have a question for you. The damaged planes look very similar to the ones in IL-2 (lot of Alpha-Channel use). I have seen many very good damage models in other games which look much better as on your screenshots. For example many racing games. or the damage model of rise of flight, i knew your answer, but SOW will be released way after ROF and it should be better in my eyes.

Is the damage model in SOW again relativly simple as in IL-2? Like having tree different damage models for every part of the plane and if this particular part is hit by bullets it will always look the same?

I know you have the dynamic weathering effects, thats not what I want to hear ;)

I have the feeling, also in other new games that some parts are not really beeing improved. More poygons, highter res of textures and more effects.. yeah thats nice, but thats not a game mechanics improvement.

As I first saw some screens of SOW i just thought.. oh no.. they use too much from il2 in this new game. I know you are basicly the same programmers but IL-2 looks very similar to SOW and not only the graphics.. also the above mentioned doubts of the new damage modell.

Can you release a more professional made video of SOW?? Videos are not the strength of your team or not in your interest or both.

Avimimus 07-17-2010 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by csThor (Post 170299)
Dusty most of the german emblems for SoW-BoB were made by me (until I was rudely interrupted by a serious illness and now I have not the time to devote it to finish the last emblems and write the last manuals) and I provided Maddox Games with a number of "manuals" for the emblems, their application and the other facts pertaining to german units and their markings (colour, style etc). The fighter manual alone has 103 pages in PDF. :cool:

I hope your health does well.

Very impressive number of pages there...

SlipBall 07-17-2010 08:48 PM

Thanks for the up-date, everything's looking great!

Avimimus 07-17-2010 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilHL (Post 170406)
Hello Oleg Maddox!

I have a question for you. The damaged planes look very similar to the ones in IL-2 (lot of Alpha-Channel use). I have seen many very good damage models in other games which look much better as on your screenshots. For example many racing games. or the damage model of rise of flight, i knew your answer, but SOW will be released way after ROF and it should be better in my eyes.

Is the damage model in SOW again relativly simple as in IL-2? Like having tree different damage models for every part of the plane and if this particular part is hit by bullets it will always look the same?

I know you have the dynamic weathering effects, thats not what I want to hear ;)

I have the feeling, also in other new games that some parts are not really beeing improved. More poygons, highter res of textures and more effects.. yeah thats nice, but thats not a game mechanics improvement.

As I first saw some screens of SOW i just thought.. oh no.. they use too much from il2 in this new game. I know you are basicly the same programmers but IL-2 looks very similar to SOW and not only the graphics.. also the above mentioned doubts of the new damage modell.

Can you release a more professional made video of SOW?? Videos are not the strength of your team or not in your interest or both.

Hi, as Luthier is off for the weekend and Oleg is on vacation I thought I'd pass on what I've gleaned.

The damage model won't include the type of warping/bending seen in Rise of Flight. WWII aircraft tended to be made out of metal cantilever structures which would snap and fragment before they would bend (in most cases) and it wasn't felt to be worth the effort (last I heard anyway). However, the new model will include structural weaknesses and failures. So damaged aircraft may break up in flight some time after being damaged (or even after the combat has ended) depending on how sharply they turn etc. This is similar to the modeling in Rise of Flight. The damage model is based on a system similar to that used in Il-2, but more detailed. The main advance is much more detail to internal modeling (eg. more parts to the engine, more complex engine failures). Oleg also seems to have stated that it will include modeling of wing spars - so the type of unpredictable damage seen in Rise of Flight, where a luck shot can sever a wing is possible. Finally, bullet holes will appear at the exact points where machine-gun bullets hit. However, damage from cannon shots will be much like in Il-2 and always appear in the same spot (the reason is that this can allow much more realistic detailing by Oleg's artists then any automatic system could)

The dynamic weather model is being rebuilt for the new engine.

As a basic principle I wouldn't expect radical differences in art or style from Il-2 (it is after all, being made by the same people). However, expect a lot of very interesting surprises and very real improvements to AI, weather, ground target details and many other areas. The sim will also allow much more end user modification - so terrains, smoke, new aircraft etc. can be made.

I hope that help satisfy you're appetite. I too await new videos, but after ten years I've finally achieved patience and a little bit of confidence in Oleg's abilities. My only concern is that he may be too much of a visionary and try to achieve too many features too soon.

whatnot 07-17-2010 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caprera (Post 170315)
I prefer to call it a "direct critique" and i explained also why i said that.

Surely more helpful than noob pointless cheering for every screenshot shown that even can't recognize AA or HDR like you....so please spare me.

Yes, we need more people writing oneliners about what sucks in the screenshots, that improves the game and developer's motivation a lot.

And we also need more gentlemen like caprera calling people noobs cheering for every screenshot when they point out two areas that could need improvement in a bit more civilized manner. That contributes to the discussion pretty well too.

AC_Black 07-18-2010 02:11 AM

~S~

Thanks again DT looks great :cool:

Chivas 07-18-2010 07:15 AM

Fire is very dynamic and can only be fairly critiqued after seeing it in a video. Saying the fire suxs at this juncture would be a noob comment.

Sutts 07-18-2010 09:07 AM

Thanks for the update guys, impressive stuff.

The trailing fire is really good. I think you'll have to see it in a video to get the full benefit though. You can get away with lower resolution textures in areas that move or change rapidly like the fire. I'd rather see the developers make frame rate saving decisions in areas that aren't really noticable like this. If we go 100% photorealistic on everything then it will never run on most people's PCs.

The fire inside the fuselage is fantastic and very scary looking. Never seen anything as real looking as that before in a sim. I particularly like how the fire has highlighted internal details like the flare chute tube (I think) in the rear fuselage.

Cheers

Kudlius 07-18-2010 09:28 AM

Sea looks fantastic, but forest? Is that real map?

Dano 07-18-2010 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by furbs (Post 170373)
yep...those trees look much better...so i wonder why they dont look as good in the last few updates?

anyone have a idea?

I'd hazard a guess that we are seeing a low quality landscape with low quality trees, ie; the worst it will look.

socorrista22198 07-18-2010 10:08 AM

Hi

I think particle systems are part of the past, would be nice use volumetric systems http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPILh1JrEM0


Thanks for the game :)

nearmiss 07-18-2010 02:48 PM

That looks like a marshmallow farm growing its product in time-lapsed views. :razz:

KOM.Nausicaa 07-18-2010 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splitter (Post 170401)
Not to offend anyone, but I can't believe the nitpicking on the scenery.

I have bought software since it came on cassette tape. I have seen good graphics (for whatever time period) on bad games and "OK" graphics on very good games. Poor games don't get played for very long. Good games with OK graphics were (and are) played for many hours.

The are many things that go into actual "game play" that are more important than being able to take photo realistic screen shots.

I know from competing that most people have to sacrifice some aesthetics for frame rate. People are bringing up RoF as an example of what happens when a product is released too early but looked pretty. I would also point out that Crysis was a good game, and gorgeous, but many end users couldn't play it on their systems. The graphics were too good for all but the most powerful systems. So I would say that the greater danger is in SoW becoming another Crysis....stunning but unplayable for many.

In the US we have an expression: boondoggle. Programmers chasing their tails tweaking graphics and delaying release dates equals a boondoggle. Games staying in development for years on end equals a boondoggle (Team Fortress 2 anyone?).

Releasing a solid, great game that is used as a platform on which to improve further updates and releases equals a WIN for the end users and the publisher.

We're talking about the tree shade colors? Seriously? Were I Olegg I wouldn't be publishing these updates at all. I am waiting on the release of a new version of my favorite flight sim and the owner of that company gives almost no details so as to avoid discussions like this. That sim is still getting buzz in their community....especially because the current customers are hanging onto every rumor and tidbit of information that leaks out.

The fire has too much red in it? Seriously? The graphics look almost good enough for release, if the gameplay is outstanding then we won't be griping when it is released. The expression "you can't have everything" comes to mind, especially when we are talking about a $50 product.

Splitter

++1

zauii 07-18-2010 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splitter (Post 170401)
Not to offend anyone, but I can't believe the nitpicking on the scenery.

I have bought software since it came on cassette tape. I have seen good graphics (for whatever time period) on bad games and "OK" graphics on very good games. Poor games don't get played for very long. Good games with OK graphics were (and are) played for many hours.

The are many things that go into actual "game play" that are more important than being able to take photo realistic screen shots.

I know from competing that most people have to sacrifice some aesthetics for frame rate. People are bringing up RoF as an example of what happens when a product is released too early but looked pretty. I would also point out that Crysis was a good game, and gorgeous, but many end users couldn't play it on their systems. The graphics were too good for all but the most powerful systems. So I would say that the greater danger is in SoW becoming another Crysis....stunning but unplayable for many.

In the US we have an expression: boondoggle. Programmers chasing their tails tweaking graphics and delaying release dates equals a boondoggle. Games staying in development for years on end equals a boondoggle (Team Fortress 2 anyone?).

Releasing a solid, great game that is used as a platform on which to improve further updates and releases equals a WIN for the end users and the publisher.

We're talking about the tree shade colors? Seriously? Were I Olegg I wouldn't be publishing these updates at all. I am waiting on the release of a new version of my favorite flight sim and the owner of that company gives almost no details so as to avoid discussions like this. That sim is still getting buzz in their community....especially because the current customers are hanging onto every rumor and tidbit of information that leaks out.

The fire has too much red in it? Seriously? The graphics look almost good enough for release, if the gameplay is outstanding then we won't be griping when it is released. The expression "you can't have everything" comes to mind, especially when we are talking about a $50 product.

Splitter

+1 & quoted for truth.

Tempest123 07-18-2010 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splitter (Post 170401)
Not to offend anyone, but I can't believe the nitpicking on the scenery.

I have bought software since it came on cassette tape. I have seen good graphics (for whatever time period) on bad games and "OK" graphics on very good games. Poor games don't get played for very long. Good games with OK graphics were (and are) played for many hours.

The are many things that go into actual "game play" that are more important than being able to take photo realistic screen shots.

I know from competing that most people have to sacrifice some aesthetics for frame rate. People are bringing up RoF as an example of what happens when a product is released too early but looked pretty. I would also point out that Crysis was a good game, and gorgeous, but many end users couldn't play it on their systems. The graphics were too good for all but the most powerful systems. So I would say that the greater danger is in SoW becoming another Crysis....stunning but unplayable for many.

In the US we have an expression: boondoggle. Programmers chasing their tails tweaking graphics and delaying release dates equals a boondoggle. Games staying in development for years on end equals a boondoggle (Team Fortress 2 anyone?).

Releasing a solid, great game that is used as a platform on which to improve further updates and releases equals a WIN for the end users and the publisher.

We're talking about the tree shade colors? Seriously? Were I Olegg I wouldn't be publishing these updates at all. I am waiting on the release of a new version of my favorite flight sim and the owner of that company gives almost no details so as to avoid discussions like this. That sim is still getting buzz in their community....especially because the current customers are hanging onto every rumor and tidbit of information that leaks out.

The fire has too much red in it? Seriously? The graphics look almost good enough for release, if the gameplay is outstanding then we won't be griping when it is released. The expression "you can't have everything" comes to mind, especially when we are talking about a $50 product.

Splitter

++1 from me!

philip.ed 07-18-2010 03:42 PM

I disagree slightly, if a product is future-proofed and has an excellent market like the Il-2 market the company should make the best looking product available. It may not be highly playable on full-settings this year, but give a year or two it will grow into something astounding. ;)

Splitter 07-18-2010 05:13 PM

Well, whichever side you come down on for graphics, I think we can all agree that we won't buy the game if they put time limits on missions lol.

From what I have seen on graphics and such so far, the only things that would stop me from buying this game would be poor missions, poor campaigns, poor flight models, or a total lack of a career mode (and I am flexible on that last I guess). I don't want to be thrown into a different airplane for every mission and I would really prefer some strategic control over targets, mission assignments, and tactics.

But, as for those game play elements beyond graphics, I guess we will have to wait and see. It's just that I would hate to wait for "better trees" and fire when a game with solid game play could be released sooner rather than later.

Splitter

David603 07-18-2010 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splitter (Post 170525)
Well, whichever side you come down on for graphics, I think we can all agree that we won't buy the game if they put time limits on missions lol.

From what I have seen on graphics and such so far, the only things that would stop me from buying this game would be poor missions, poor campaigns, poor flight models, or a total lack of a career mode (and I am flexible on that last I guess). I don't want to be thrown into a different airplane for every mission and I would really prefer some strategic control over targets, mission assignments, and tactics.

But, as for those game play elements beyond graphics, I guess we will have to wait and see. It's just that I would hate to wait for "better trees" and fire when a game with solid game play could be released sooner rather than later.

Splitter

I'm going to assume you have played the console game Il2 Birds of Prey but not any of the PC Il2 Sturmovik games. None of the problems you have mentioned such as time limits on missions, changing between aircraft every other mission etc have ever been in the the PC games, they were all introduced by the development team that produced Birds of Prey.

As far as the quality of missions, the team at Maddox games have always produced good missions and campaigns, and there are literally thousands of player created missions and campaigns out there for Sturmovik.

nearmiss 07-18-2010 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splitter (Post 170525)
Well, whichever side you come down on for graphics, I think we can all agree that we won't buy the game if they put time limits on missions lol.

From what I have seen on graphics and such so far, the only things that would stop me from buying this game would be poor missions, poor campaigns, poor flight models, or a total lack of a career mode (and I am flexible on that last I guess). I don't want to be thrown into a different airplane for every mission and I would really prefer some strategic control over targets, mission assignments, and tactics.

But, as for those game play elements beyond graphics, I guess we will have to wait and see. It's just that I would hate to wait for "better trees" and fire when a game with solid game play could be released sooner rather than later.

Splitter

The BOB SOW is a different genre of game. It is an advanced air combat simulation more than a game. If you have a propensity for detail and have the patience to take weeks or months to learn to fly one aircraft it might be for you. You'll also have to have a very competent computer, joystick, and some other hardware that will cost you a great deal more than the game.

Technologically advanced products are often cheap so most people can afford them, but are never going to make the required effort to get the most from it. Most people never think about how much they are willing to learn, cell phones, tv sets, etc. to properly enjoy the value of advanced technology.

You can buy a copy of the IL2 1946 very cheap right now. I would suggest you buy a copy and then see if you are into it. Regardless, the BOB SOW won't be that expensive. You can always Ebay it, and get most of your money back if it's too much for you.

Splitter 07-18-2010 06:21 PM

I see why you would say that, but I have not played the Birds of Prey console game although I am aware of the complaints from end users. I have played other games in the past that had time limits on missions so I can sympathize. The same goes for switching planes every mission (Janes ATF, grrrr...).

The fact that the design team has produced good missions and campaigns in the past is promising. I hope and trust that they will stick to that strategy. My "want" in a similar area is for a good career mode.

So thanks and good to know!

Splitter

Chill31 07-18-2010 08:00 PM

the first picture with the blenheim on fire looks fake due to the amount of damage it has sustained. it looks see through...a little over done in my opinion

DK-nme 07-18-2010 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chill31 (Post 170551)
the first picture with the blenheim on fire looks fake due to the amount of damage it has sustained. it looks see through...a little over done in my opinion

I believe U mean the Wellington? Well, if it is the Wellington U're refering to, Barnes Wallis' geodetic design made the Wellington very strong. The screenshots are therefor very plausible. The Wellington was built in an advanced metallic structure, with fabric covering all the plane - thus flames burn through the fabric the way U see on the screenies...


DK-nme

Wolkenbeisser 07-18-2010 08:48 PM

Phantastic shots! Fingernailbiting here, just as it was back then with old IL-2.

Is there someone else out there, who stops breathing while clicking on the newest friday-update?

Just great! Thanks lutier (and all the staff around Oleg).

Romanator21 07-18-2010 08:53 PM

Last week's smokes were rather strange to me, but the flames coming from the Wellingtons look spot-on. Keep it up Oleg and Company! :)

GHOST 07-19-2010 12:03 AM

I do a lot of reading and not much posting, but i have noticed a lot of interesting talk about the fire. I came across this video and i thought all of you would be interested to see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc3In...ext=1&index=17

nearmiss 07-19-2010 03:01 AM

It isn't so sweet when you see it happening in the real world.

THanks for the video

baronWastelan 07-19-2010 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nearmiss (Post 170592)
It isn't so sweet when you see it happening in the real world.

THanks for the video

If it hadn't happened in the real world, would you be interested in BoB?

zapatista 07-19-2010 05:04 AM

the fires in the BoB aircraft looks very good imho so far from what oleg has posted, and is very close to the real thing (as we have seen from posters here providing real life video and photographs as a comparison).

to have one newbie retard post in a thread here "this sux" is absolutely meaningless. not only does it show bad manner and low emotional intelligence, but it shows a complete lack of understanding of what real life fires look like in real historical events, and there is no shred of evidence provided to make some kind of counter argument

the real question is going to be about the degree these fires (and smoke) will vary in BoB depending on what parts on the aircraft are damaged, and how long the fires will last, and if the fires and damage spreads etc.. so we get some variation in small fires and big fires, mixed with variations of smoke effect, and maybe some aircraft exploding mid air when bomb stores or fuel containers are affected by fire. from other snippets oleg has provided in the past, he is taking account of that to some degree, so fires in aircraft in general look very good to me so far.

i agree with some of the other earlier posters in this thread, constantly over criticizing on minor aspects can become self defeating if we (as the fanbase) dont keep a sense of perspective and context, since oleg is currently focused on getting the project finished (and significant further delays could potentially put the whole project at risk). the most important thing is that the core subcomponents of the project are included, like dynamic campaign engine, flight models, new gfx engine with scalable high quality visual effect (which can be improved over time) etc..

Sutts 07-19-2010 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GHOST (Post 170578)
I do a lot of reading and not much posting, but i have noticed a lot of interesting talk about the fire. I came across this video and i thought all of you would be interested to see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc3In...ext=1&index=17

Great footage Ghost, thanks for posting. Interesting to see how the amount of smoke fluctuates. I guess the fire burns richer and more smokey (less efficiently) when larger quantities of fuel are dumped out and more intensely with less smoke when the fuel flow reduces. The intermittent bursts of fire in the smoke stream were also interesting.

It would be nice to see variations like this in the game.

philip.ed 07-19-2010 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GHOST (Post 170578)
I do a lot of reading and not much posting, but i have noticed a lot of interesting talk about the fire. I came across this video and i thought all of you would be interested to see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc3In...ext=1&index=17


This, paired with the colour ww2 footage I posted last-week shows that, whilst Olegs smoke may not be wrong, clearly it is a bit OTT using it in what we may feel is the norm when the A/C is on fire. I mean, the smoke here looks a lot like WoP to me, and WoP is an arcade sim that goes overkill on the damage. Whilst the fire here looks awesome, this smoke is still not good enough for 2010 I don't think. I am of the opinion that posting the same damage effects will just make us feel that this is the only type of smoke that will come out when an A/C catches fire. Whether this is true we can only guess, but I still would like to see all the different types of damage smoke to prove my current ideas wrong.

If anyone is interested, I can post the colour footage again for comparison.

zapatista 07-19-2010 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by furbs (Post 170373)
yep...those trees look much better...so i wonder why they dont look as good in the last few updates?

anyone have a idea?

i suspect, and hope i am wrong here, that oleg in the last months completely switched his tree modeling from his own creations he made previously in the last few years (seen in your post of old screenshots), to now using the new generic "speedtrees" (which some game manufacturers purchase as a 3e party element from a separate company, you can google it to find more info, there is webpages with all the tree models they make)

most likely oleg's only reason for this is that the scenery vegetation and trees he initially made (which look much better !) were to much of a cpu and gpu hog. when in the last 6 months oleg started integrating all the various sub components to put his modualr game design together, he might have found he couldnt get the frames per sec he hoped for. it would have been one of the most simple things to replace the trees/shrubs, while keeping all the other elements he made for the game which also drain cpu/gpu (dynamic campaign engine, weather modeling, flight physics for aircraft, etc..)

if that is the compromise needed to get the finished sim out the door this year, so be it imo. hopefully later oleg can replace the speedtrees with his own creation once they have the luxury of time to make further refinements for game efficiency later

all this is pure speculation on my part :)

Xilon_x 07-19-2010 11:04 AM

yes i loock the video and the center of flames is brilliant white light the intensity of brilliant light intensity 'depends precisely the presence of flammable liquid fuel. yes SOW brilliant effect is fac-simile.
But Explosion is different effect.depends of type army BOMBS, MISSILE,OR BULLETS if you loock sequence of explosion first loock the white ball brilliant and after this ball transform in red color whit black smoke.

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

Tree_UK 07-19-2010 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zapatista (Post 170630)
i suspect, and hope i am wrong here, that oleg in the last months completely switched his tree modeling from his own creations he made previously in the last few years (seen in your post of old screenshots), to now using the new generic "speedtrees" (which some game manufacturers purchase as a 3e party element from a separate company, you can google it to find more info, there is webpages with all the tree models they make)

most likely oleg's only reason for this is that the scenery vegetation and trees he initially made (which look much better !) were to much of a cpu and gpu hog. when in the last 6 months oleg started integrating all the various sub components to put his modualr game design together, he might have found he couldnt get the frames per sec he hoped for. it would have been one of the most simple things to replace the trees/shrubs, while keeping all the other elements he made for the game which also drain cpu/gpu (dynamic campaign engine, weather modeling, flight physics for aircraft, etc..)

if that is the compromise needed to get the finished sim out the door this year, so be it imo. hopefully later oleg can replace the speedtrees with his own creation once they have the luxury of time to make further refinements for game efficiency later

all this is pure speculation on my part :)

Surely if that is the case though he could simply get his tree's back from WOP, they seem to look better at the moment and the fps is fine, obviously some have issues with the colour of WOP terrain but on the whole it still looks better than the WIPs we are seeing from SOW.

Sturm_Williger 07-19-2010 02:04 PM

To be honest, as long as we have moved on from the Side-on-Invisible-trees(tm) of IL2, I'll accept pretty much any compromise regarding trees.

I'm happier with FM, DM & AI hogging my cpu/gpu cycles.

AndyJWest 07-19-2010 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sturm_Williger (Post 170656)
To be honest, as long as we have moved on from the Side-on-Invisible-trees(tm) of IL2, I'll accept pretty much any compromise regarding trees.

I'm happier with FM, DM & AI hogging my cpu/gpu cycles.

Exactly. +1 to that.

The obsession with eye-candy shown by some on this forum could be counter-productive if Oleg and co were to take it too seriously. Yes, I want SoW:BoB to look good (and from what I've seen it will), but that isn't what is going to determine its long-term viability.

lbuchele 07-19-2010 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 170659)
Exactly. +1 to that.

The obsession with eye-candy shown by some on this forum could be counter-productive if Oleg and co were to take it too seriously. Yes, I want SoW:BoB to look good (and from what I've seen it will), but that isn't what is going to determine its long-term viability.

That´s why I said in another post that is easy to sims like WoP to do the best eye-candy possible.They don´t have to compromise anything.
I drop it in less then a week as a result and I believe that most of people here eventually do the same with arcade games like that.
All we want here is to be challenged , the most, the better and doing a sim capable of challenge us is something that Oleg, Ilya and team are masters.
I truly believe that this will be a masterpiece, my real concern is about my real life ...

Tree_UK 07-19-2010 03:38 PM

But hang on a minute, when people on here were getting excited about the terrain in 'WOP' Oleg stated that we could be sure that the terrain in SOW would be a whole lot better, at this moment in time I am not seeing that, ok maybe in 2 months time when SOW is released it will look a whole lot better.

zapatista 07-19-2010 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tree_UK (Post 170643)
Surely if that is the case though he could simply get his tree's back from WOP, they seem to look better at the moment and the fps is fine, obviously some have issues with the colour of WOP terrain but on the whole it still looks better than the WIPs we are seeing from SOW.

iirc oleg only provided the code for the flight modeling to WoP, nothing else. the scenery and all other parts are of their own creation

having looked at video's of WoP gaming (but not played it), i'd say that sim has significant problems of its own in the way it represents scenery. from a few specific distances/altitudes the scenery looks very good, other times it doesnt, and at times it even looks very cartoonish. overall visually (to me) it very much gives the impression of a console game from 5 yrs ago.

Chivas 07-19-2010 04:45 PM

The SOW engine has been developed not only for a combat flight sim but possibly for CGI generated movies. Hence Olegs attempts to make the SOW graphics cinematic. I like the graphics we've seen so far, but it isn't cinematic YET, and it may not be cinematic in the initial release of BOB. That said, I have no doubt that the graphic engine will be capable of becoming cinematic at some point during the series.

Hopefully Oleg will be able to generate much greater funds with the SOW engine, other than the relatively small flight sim community. It could bode well for all of us.

Romanator21 07-19-2010 05:34 PM

I would say some screen-shots are photographic, so I wonder if some of the videos presented later will be cinematic. :) The little gif with the Stuka comes to mind.

I would also venture to say that SoW terrain is already far better than WoP's. It really just needs fine tuning of colors, shapes, etc.

Antoninus 07-19-2010 05:50 PM

Indeed. The WOP terrain looks impressive but artifical, just like the overdone modern CGI movies. Certain aspects of SOW might not (yet) look as good as in WOP, but for me the overall impression is much closer to reality.

Hecke 07-19-2010 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tree_UK (Post 170676)
But hang on a minute, when people on here were getting excited about the terrain in 'WOP' Oleg stated that we could be sure that the terrain in SOW would be a whole lot better, at this moment in time I am not seeing that, ok maybe in 2 months time when SOW is released it will look a whole lot better.


Yes he "promised" that so I expect a bit more. Hope the ground graphics at the moment ar far away from the final look.

KOM.Nausicaa 07-19-2010 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chivas (Post 170685)
The SOW engine has been developed not only for a combat flight sim but possibly for CGI generated movies.

Well, I know something about 'CGI generated movies' as you call it, and it won't look like that. You can't match a rendering time of 24-48 hours for a single frame, and you don't want that. ;-) SoW terrain looks just fine to me. This is not the small maps of BoP. It looks just fine, if the rest is a real combat flight sim and calculations that go with it, IMO.

Chivas 07-19-2010 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KOM.Nausicaa (Post 170704)
Well, I know something about 'CGI generated movies' as you call it, and it won't look like that. You can't match a rendering time of 24-48 hours for a single frame, and you don't want that. ;-) SoW terrain looks just fine to me. This is not the small maps of BoP. It looks just fine, if the rest is a real combat flight sim and calculations that go with it, IMO.

Well I don't know anything on how CGI works, but Oleg has mentioned that he hopes to have cinematic graphics and use the SOW engine in the movie business.

Friendly_flyer 07-19-2010 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philip.ed (Post 170618)
I am of the opinion that posting the same damage effects will just make us feel that this is the only type of smoke that will come out when an A/C catches fire. Whether this is true we can only guess, but I still would like to see all the different types of damage smoke to prove my current ideas wrong.

We have different smokes for different types of damage in IL2. I would be _extremely_ surprised if the same is not true in SoW:BoB.

Urufu_Shinjiro 07-19-2010 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chivas (Post 170367)
The SOW developer has stated many times he must release the sim as soon as possible for financial reasons. He has also stated in the Russian forums he would have liked to delay the release until 2011 to add some features but it won't be possible.

Can anyone get me a link for this statement?

Insuber 07-19-2010 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urufu_Shinjiro (Post 170723)
Can anyone get me a link for this statement?

Here you go:

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...3049614/5.html

Link to the original interview:

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthrea...52383&page=234


Cheers,
Insuber

Richie 07-19-2010 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cpt_Farrel (Post 170159)
This is great! I remember the good old days when we were getting teasers about IL-2 and then the Forgotten Battles addon... The excitement of waiting for something as cool is not all bad, I kinda like it sometimes. :)

I too reacted to the scary look of the flames inside the bomber. It's really an inferno in there.

This is just getting better and better. Also, I think it's great that we get to see other things than the usual BoB planes I.E. Blenheims, Wellingtons and so on.

Big thanks for the update!


I sure remember those days too Cpt. I even remember that droning music they played along with some of the IL-2 2001 previews. The same music that's with the video intro if you have it checked while the game loads.

Richie 07-19-2010 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tree_UK (Post 170676)
But hang on a minute, when people on here were getting excited about the terrain in 'WOP' Oleg stated that we could be sure that the terrain in SOW would be a whole lot better, at this moment in time I am not seeing that, ok maybe in 2 months time when SOW is released it will look a whole lot better.

Just wait ...you'll see


aka Hackl

Urufu_Shinjiro 07-19-2010 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insuber (Post 170728)

Thanks!

philip.ed 07-20-2010 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Friendly_flyer (Post 170714)
We have different smokes for different types of damage in IL2. I would be _extremely_ surprised if the same is not true in SoW:BoB.

I know, but there is only one type of black-smoke in Il-2 (currently anyway). In SoW, it'd be great if the smoke would fluctuate.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.