|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
As I recall from some long ago post on UBI, the current instant explode terrain strike was chosen as the best compromise given the computer power of the day, and the limitations of the game engine itself. |
Any speculation about the source of the fire in these screen shots is just that, pure speculation. We have no idea what exactly has been hit, how many passes have been made, or even if the plane has been hit by flack and that Hurri is just flying by.
Still, I'll postulate that a .303 is easily capable of penetrating two or three thin sheets of aluminum at 200 or so yards (the skin and the fuel tank), and that eight 1200 rpm guns could be expected to put 20 or 30 of them in a couple square foot area given a good aim and a bit of luck. The only question is how many 3/8-1/2" holes spraying gasoline vapor do you really need to create a conflagration like we see in the screen shots, and if not how long would it take for the conflagration that does start to burn up enough of the shredded aluminum that there would be a big enough hole to support the one viewed. I speculate damn close on the first question, and not long on the second. And that's all I have to say about that. |
Quote:
I asked this question but never got an answer...It would be cool to land between two trees, the wings to absorb the energy of the crash...just like you are taught in flight school:grin: |
Quote:
|
Looking great!
|
Quote:
|
Very impressive shots. It's getting better by the minute.
...Please...Steam...the horror... As before, if you must stay connected to the internet for validation, it can be a problem for events held. |
The trees look very nice from down below. Some of these can be identified down to species (I saw a beech and a juniper in there). If they down look as good from the air is of little consequence. The only time I will have the chance to admire the vegetation will be when I am on the ground ayway.
Gents, about the fire: Planes were shot down in flames over Britain during BoB. While not every plane burned, a lot of them did. Clearly, a Hurricane has the ability to set a Ju 88 on fire every now an then. |
I hope the light blue interface is just for development
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Young_Canuck: "How do you ditch a high wing aircraft in the ocean?" Instructor: "Don't ditch the aircraft." "No seriously, how do you ditch a high wing aircraft in the ocean?" "Don't ditch the aircraft." |
Quote:
For people doing anything creative, 'time off' isn't a luxury, but a necessity - actually, it is for everyone else too, though the consequences are often less immediately apparent. |
Quote:
It's just more functional, but the instruments are a bit more important in those flight sims I guess. Splitter |
Quote:
|
Quote:
That is very funny, I can almost see the expression on the faces. I suppose that we will see just how well the damage model is done, when a wing strikes an object.:grin: |
Quote:
A cd-check, a serial, maybe even a one-time online activation (one that you can activate and deactivate at will, so that you can reinstall your game after a system upgrade or format) will be enough to dissuade casual piracy. This is the kind of piracy worth battling, because it's the preventable kind. Hardcore piracy can't be controlled and if they can't get it for free they'll simply bypass it altogether. So, why not focus on making money by keeping the real customers happy, spenting the time and funds on things they will want to buy, instead of on setting up DRM infrastructure or paying royalties to 3rd party publishing platforms? ;) On the topic of instruments now... Quote:
If you couple this with 6-DOF capability to zoom in/out (even without a trackIR) and the possibility of saving snap-views individually for each plane, you can keep track of everything just fine. The only question that remains is whether we will be able to save our own snap-views for each aircraft, a la RoF. Just like some FSX add-ons have separate cameras of the 3-d cockpit from different viewing angles (for example, a camera looking below the control yoke so you can see the electrical switches), in RoF you can move the camera where you want it and "memorize" its position by assigning it to a certain key. This is done individually for each aircraft. If this is implemented in SoW it will be a big help for people who lack head tracking software. For example, you could memorize a set of keypad commands and say that "ok, i want keypad 0 to always give me a view of the engine instruments, regardless of aircrat". Of course, the position of these instrments relative to the player's "head" camera center position are different for each plane. However, if SoW could "memorize" different snap-views for each aircraft it would be no problem. You would just have to look at the instruments once and assign a keypad key to that camera angle, to be pressed whenever you wanted a quick glance at your engine parameters. Judging from the in-cockpit shots we've seen of SoW, i think the resolution is high enough. Heck, there are 3rd party high resolution cockpits in IL2 that are perfectly legible from the wide angle view, so i have no doubt that official SoW cockpits will be even better. We also know it will have 6-DOF head panninng, so i guess we'll be able to manage just fine. Just look at that Blenheim cockpit shot posted in one of the previous updates, the instruments look so crisp and detailed that i got "cockpit and switch mania" and got a sudden urge to go fly something with clickable cockpits :grin: |
some great looking tree shots. Lets hope the Friends of the Virtual Tree Action Front find some satisfaction.
Or is the The Peoples Front of the Tree. Or the Tree Peoples Front? Anyway, that first pic is brilliant. looking forward to the finished product, seriously appreciate the updates. Merci beaucoup. |
blenheim and leaves shot....
wooooow need a new mobo and GC |
Quote:
|
You mean like a cursor that can be moved via TrackIR instead of mouse? That would be very nice.
Another thing i had in mind...having a cursor that is bound to the cockpit's 3d coordinates instead of the screen's coordinates. For example, that would enable us to place the cursor on the gunsight controls and it would stay there regardless of where we looked. The cursor might be out of view but unless the mouse (or mouse emulating hotas hat) moved, it would stay there. It would be like having a virtual hand instead of having to always look at what we want to manipulate, quite useful for setting up things in advance. For example, i might be looking over my shoulder but still adjusting my gunsight brightness or range by moving that mouse wheel. Or, i could be expecting one of my fuel tanks to run dry, so i could place the cursor on the fuel tank switch 5 minutes ahead of time...just as the engine begins to cough and sputter, a click of the mouse or roll of the mouse wheel and the next fuel tank is selected. I guess this would be more useful for twin engined aircraft or bombers, ie flyables with increased amount of controls. Clickable pits or not, i doubt anyone would want to click the gun triggers or other important controls like flaps, throttles, etc, but it works quite nicely for less important controls that are used less than often in the duration of the entire mission, as it minimizes the amount of needed keyboard shortcuts to map and memorize. I'll stop here, before we derail this from a "WiP discussion and screenshots" to "ideas about the interface of SoW" :grin: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLkfx6QxLfg He's using a Wii remote to activate switches by touching them on the screen. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I meant no disrespect. I wish they would add my suggested, but in no way unique, feature. TrackIR dev should add a hi-vis dot, enabled over the panel-like areas, to allow for blink triggered panel control..... ;) |
Certainly is looking really awesome; the tree effects close up are just amazing!
But I have one nit-pick about the trees. From flying over England on my holiday, I noticed that the tree trunks just can't be seen (apart from on the odd trees you see in gardens) and the trees look really dense. From the screens posted so far, the trees better match those that I've seen in warmer climates. It may sound really anal of me, but I think it makes a lot of difference to the overall effect. I also noticed how all the fields seem to be really boxed in, and I was amazed at how I could still see traffic from thosands of feet up...food for thought for the sim :D |
Quote:
it's much better then actually hitting the tree with the fuselage, LOL.:grin:;):cool: |
Quote:
My concerns are also about the implementation of some kind of drm... |
Quote:
Not the best solution for international games. A cursor that moves via a hat keyswitch on your hotas would be a much better option! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Before 'shoot' I spent a lot of time configuring my Saitek stick and throttle with modifiers keys etc. but couldn't always remember what button combo to press for a command. Shoot made it so much easier especially for the less commonly used commands. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
another beautiful update....thanks to the team
|
Quote:
In X-Plane, one can use the arrow keys (default) to move your "head position" in 3D. So the down arrow makes you "slouch" and the up arrow lets you sit up tall to see more landscape and less instrument panel. It is VERY helpful when flying on instruments such as in bad weather. The problem with these 3D feature is that they are resource hogs and can cost a major hit to fps. Many times people just use the 2D panels for that reason (amoug others). One of the current "problems" with IL-2 is an inability to move one's head around the the virtual world. You can look in any direction, but you really cannot lean to the side to see around the cowling a bit while taxiing. It's just me, but I am much more interested in such functional feature than I am in leaf sizes and whether tree trunks are visible from the air. Most people will have to tone down the really neat visual effects anyway to maintain 30fps or more. Ideally, I would like a sim that fulfills the dual roles of combat flight and flight sim. I know that is wanting too much but all I have to do is fly a vintage WWII aircraft in X-Plane and then in IL-2 to feel the difference in flight model and functionality. I'd rather have better functionality than visuals IF I had to choose. Splitter |
wow the change for colour of the bullet resistant glass and the rest of the cockpit is great attention to detail.
Any word on possible solid release date yet? , I've heard they are aiming for Sep 2010 to coincide with Battle of Britain day, but from how they are speaking about the screens mentioning place holders and things it doesn't seem quite ready for that date. |
Quote:
Although I must say that it would be quite useful if you could enable/disable this head movement. In other words, you could change head position to some place, then press a key to "lock" it and after that head would stay in place. You could still turn the head up/down and left/right. If you wanted to move head position, press a key to "unlock" it and you'd have 6DOF head movement again. |
Quote:
|
In TrackIR SW you can toggle the whole head tracking on/off. This can be useful for example when you're approaching ground target and want to concentrate on that. Just switch off trackIR. Then you don't have to think about head movements. Similar situation when you're aiming an enemy plane. Switching off TrackIR for a moment can make aiming easier.
So my wish to lock head position is similar to this. |
For some reason I prefer to aim with TrackIR on, just to deal with the extra difficulty of mantaining my head steady like a real pilot would.
|
Thanks Oleg, another great update. That first shot is truly amazing. Trees look great up close too. I'm so looking forward to seeing the aircrew animations....they'll really highlight the human dimension of combat and could quite possibly stir the emotions. No longer are we shooting at just a simple lump of metal.
In terms of the map, will it be possible in SoW to zoom smoothly in and out of the map instead of the fixed zoom levels we have in IL2? I never really liked the interface in IL2 where you have to cycle through the zoom levels with the mouse click. Just a minor detail though. Cheers:grin: |
Quote:
Wow, happy to hear that you were untouched. That must have been a very violent experience, good that you used your wits. Care to share the details that lead to the forced ditch?:grin: |
Quote:
I prefer a hotas system anytime over shoot. You can record loads of keystrokes under a button. In real world situations it also doesn't work with voice command. Maybe some ultra modern airplanes might have it, but not the ones used in wow: BOB.;):cool: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Being entirely optional, you don't have to use it if it doesn't work for you. |
Quote:
Quote:
1) for your idea of having a "pure" civilian flightsim using the SoW-BoB engine i think is probably already possible at release time. "all you need" is for 3e party to build some civilian aircraft for you to fly, turn off all hostile aircraft and AA etc.., and you can VFR fly around peacefully at your hearts content. and as long as the 3e party civilian planes dont use instruments more complex then ww2 era (or the single russian modern day test plane we get included with BoB), then any civilian plane can be built for BoB imo. 2) what i am hoping/wanting more of however is to have many non-combat elements and other war related features possible in BoB, and have included many more other aviation elements that were part of ww2 aviation in a "wartime environment". eg: - be able to fly supply missions (and ask for fighter escorts if required), do parachutists drops, fly photo reconnaissance missions, fly VIP's to certain locations (mission being to get them safely to their destination with hostile elements posibly being encountered), - fly in supplies and replacement aircraft parts to airbases and troops under siege to keep that airbase or troop formation functional, - be able to use real life tactics to reduce fighting ability of the enemy by damaging their supply convoys and bridges and fuel storage etc. - have non combat missions like lying new replacement aircraft from the factories to specific airfields using VFR, maybe even fly some civilian liners or transport mission (inside the same active combat zone that is taking place on the dynamic server), fly red cross evac missions in and out of combat area's, rescue downed pilots from behind enemy lines (having to land for ex in a specific field at a partic rendezvous time, rescue pilots from the sea, etc.. none of those aspects would require much time or programing to add, all work with the already existing elements and just need a few different minor elements added. it would open up the sim to a whole additional series of potential customers, and adds a new area of interest for current il2 users. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
In Il-2 they are a little large. In fact, there are two types of pilots in Il-2: One who sits in the plane, and one who falls through the sky and opens a chute. They happen to be different sizes (and wear different colored uniforms) for some reason, but the latter is more to scale. As for collision bugs: Oleg stated that this was regarding crew animations. You cannot make the same animation for a Ju-87 pilot who uses a stick, and a Ju-88 pilot who has a yoke. |
S!
Nice update. |
Quote:
Quote:
instead maybe perceive it as "whatever the crew/pilot figure is doing in the sim, is physically represented by an animated articulated skeletal figure" afaik the main problem right now is that with full sized pilots in very small confined spaces (like a 109 pit), the pilot "normal" movements are causing his limbs to poke out through the aircraft structure, and there is no limitation in his movements caused by colliding with the modeled aircraft skin. one short term interim solution for this is to shrink the figure down and hence give him more room to move in edit: one oddity in all this "crew size" debate is that when viewed from inside an aircraft, the front most crew member in the brittish bomber we saw last week (inside cockpit view) showed his head almost touching the ceiling. so that crew member was roughly the correct size. maybe the "collision bug" is only present on outside views ? (oleg already confirmed the temporary use of smaller crew figures doesnt affect the 1e person views) |
I wonder if we'll be able to give a wave in the cockpit like here..4:30 on the time slide
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wpcHlDWHNU |
Quote:
Crew is 175 cm. |
Quote:
Thx for clearing up. We were just a bit confused about what Luthier told us about pilot size. Two things I want to ask: 1. Will different cockpit sizes effect on the movement ability of the pilot, for exemple in bf 109 cockpit you can't move as much as in other planes? 2. (Watched some older screens and realised that the cockpit skins show outwarn textures.) Will there also be the planes with "out-of-the-factory" cockpit skins? |
Quote:
I see no reason why not, given the sophistication of what Oleg is trying to do and the beautiful CURVED Earth that we saw in the WIP pictures a couple of weeks ago. I was a little surprised noone seemed to comment on them from that perspective then. Indeed, I'd be quite certain that Oleg is building in a SOW equivalent of FSUIPC or simconnect. My own dream would be for MSFS developers (or similar) to step in very quickly to perhaps offer a payware (or even better freeware!) fully functioning Biggin, say, or (my Squadron's heart:) Tangmere, with ground vehicles, textures, triggers, surrounding structures,etc, even for the original (Vanilla) BOB map, in much the same way as FSDT or Flytampa or Aerosoft publish airports and expansions for FSX/98. This is apart from offering new aircraft, new areas of the world, new eras... (Personally, I'd love a set of early airliners, the DH Comet, the Caravel, the Constellation... These might appear in a SOW-engine-equipped addon, perhaps even able to use the same maps, perhaps not... Possibilities, possibililities...) |
Unexpected events
Beautiful screen shots. Very nice, indeed and I applaud your work. Genius.
Some time ago, a question of what could be suggested to make the simulation more realistic in terms of events. You clearly have the image quality in hand. I was wondering if having the mission scrubbed and called back due to weather changes would add to the realism. Engine issues could come up for the player and/or his wingman. Losing elements of a flight due to engine problems or your AI wingmen becoming too scared to fly could make missions more precarious if a player decided to carry on with the mission without all the flight's units. |
Oleg, any input into the trees? I ask as the trees shown recently look excellent, but in England these trees look more like garden ones. The main types of trees are a lot rounder and denser foliage wise. ;) excellent work
|
^^ Either you are a master troll or incredibly stupid. Could be both, mind.
|
Quote:
Even though I was unclear, your points are well taken. Some sort of head tracking software adds something to a sim. I just recently downloaded Facetracknoir which uses face tracking software to achieve a similar effect to TrackIR (except it is free lol). I have only tried it with IL-2 and only in "free flight" training missions while working out the kinks. But WOW, what a difference in experience. While it does not (as far as I can tell) let you tilt your head or move along the X,Y,or Z axis for a change in perspective, it does track your face as a substitute for the HAT switch...you can look up, down, left or right "automatically". Now I have to try it while shooting down enemies :). I do know one key turns it on or off while flying so that probably helps for people that want to get stable for shooting. I do hope Oleg and Crew look at some of the other functionality items listed recently in this thread. "Volunteering" for specialized missions such as recon, rescue, and such would add a lot to the game. I love me some marksmanship practice, but dodging 109's by ducking into clouds while on a recon mission has appeal. I wish (there is that word again) that we could get functionality updates like we get graphics updates, but that information is probably too sensitive from the competitive perspective. Splitter |
Very nice looking indeed.
|
Splitter, there was a large debate about this a few months ago, when some of us were asking about clickable cockpits. The reason people were interested was simple: there are not enough keyboard shortcuts to properly simulate the amount of controls a real pilot operates, or more accurately, we just can't remember them all :grin:
Imagine for example, if you wanted to finetune your intercoolers to control your carburetor temperature and you had to remember keybindings like ctrl+shift+H+[ to lower it and ctrl+shift+H+] to raise it. Naturally, this brought about the question of wheter so much realism was needed in a combat sim, with good points made either way, but no official word on the matter. Sometime later however, the guys from the French check-six simulation community arranged a visit to Moscow to interview Mr. Maddox and see some of the work done. That's where the answers came from. If you read the interview, you'll notice that a lot of these things did in fact make it in the feature list. If i remember correctly, in one case a Ju87 was climbing and as it went higher the canopy fogged up, until the person flying turned on the defoggers and it cleared again, insanely realistic stuff like that. As for photo recon missions, agent drops and the like, it's a matter of mission building triggers. I think that even if they are not included upon release, the engine will still be capable of them. If the IL-2 mission builder can be upgraded to use triggers by team daidalos, i doubt that the next generation sim will lack them. In case you missed it, here's the interview from the check-six website: http://www.checksix-fr.com/articles/...g_foxy_EN.html |
Quote:
Bingo - if you want total immersion: build a cockpit. It's fairly easy to build, only problem could be space - and the fact that everybody who knows about it thinks your're nuts. |
I think one of the nicest updates we have seen. There was a hard edge on some of the explosion/fire textures earlier. It has totally disappeared now. Well done dev' team!
Before: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...9&d=1279883030 After: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...12_095500b.jpg Also - it is nice to see the (subtle) reflections from the sky on the wings/airframe. It was slightly overdone previously, but now it looks perfectly natural. Really very good!! The same goes for the reflections from below. The earlier screenshot of a group of Heinkels looks perfect to me...here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...5&d=1280475978 And also it is nice to see that the light reflections from matt surfaces aren't as strong as before...and that panel lines etc. don't reflect light. Everything has improved a lot in just a couple of weeks!! |
I use VAC (Voice Activated Command) for IL2 and find it to be very reliable. I use it only for controlling the AI however, and I use a trigger switch to avoid mistaken commands. I should think If something like this could be built into the game it would be able to interface with the AI much better, nearly to the point where you can have a conversation with your flight/crew.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Clickable cockpits should be a given seeing as this is 2010. Touch screen would be nice. As long as this game has been in development it should read your mind and know what you want to do. |
Quote:
It is difficult enough keeping the screen clean enough to see those tiny little blips that will be shooting at you in about 10 seconds, much less having your grubby fingerprints all over the screen. |
Quote:
Don't talk out of your arse; I'm not a troll, I just wrote a comment. :-P |
'The main types of trees are a lot rounder and denser foliage wise'
Look, at some point a concession must be made. No singular aspect of this software - or any other title, for that matter - is going to be perfect, regardless of the development time expended on the perfecting of any graphical representation therein concerning vegetation. Simply put: Oleg could put SoW back another year and fully concentrate on developing your trees. Nevertheless, you would still be able to nitpick faults if you tried hard enough or felt inclined to do so. And to what end? Just how important are these trees to the big picture? This obsession with finding faults and loudly proclaiming them is extremely tiresome and I've already proposed bans for unconstructive criticism. 'fly over blighty and the trees look nothing like what's been shown recently': you don't even understand that this is both very rude and completely unhelpful. If it were up to me I'd ban you. You admit to nitpicking. A definition of which follows: When used as a verb: 1. to be excessively concerned with or critical of inconsequential details, or 2. to criticize by focusing on inconsequential details. When used as a noun, refers to: 3. a carping, petty criticism. Why not just leave it? |
Honestly, I thought the whole idea of discussion is to post your opinions? I have lived in England all my life, and this aspect is so easy to get right that I wonder why it couldn't be? early shots from last year show trees looking like how I describe, which shows that it is possible. Rise of Flight did it, so I am sure that SoW can too. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with what has been shown recently, these trees can easily be found in England, but then again from an aerial viewpoint the perspectives look different here. It's hard to explain. I'm not some tree nut :-P But it's just something I noticed from flying over the country that I thought made a world of difference to how the terrain looks ;)
|
Quote:
I live in England also and I have no problems with the trees for this flight Sim, but if you want perfection of graphics then I suggest you buy yourself a spitfire and fly around in the real world pretending your there. |
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK6uNQoBAGY oh yeah.... |
Meusi, I agree with what you say. By no means do these trees not look like any in this country, but when I was in Egypt and flying over, the trees looked a lot like these do from above. Using this software which you mention gives hope to the fact that multiple tree types can appear which'd be great :D
|
|
Quote:
What interview is it where the German sound guys mouth is hanging open when he hears what the game sounds like? |
Swastika's????
Quote:
I'm not asking for them in the game, or want to start that discussion again. Yust wondering. |
Only in certain countries is it banned (germany for example)
|
Quote:
Much better to pretend that the pretend trees are real, that the luminous fluffy clouds are genuine, and to accept that the sim may have a few reservations regarding the flight model and visuals. Otherwise you are stuck in reality: a reality where you command full control of your situation but where there is no escape; and escape is the name of the game...and after all it is mostly that - just a game. :-) Mostly. |
man this game looks so amazing. I can not wait.. Orginal IL2 is still so great.. I just cant imagine the new Il2...
"re-packs the bowl"... |
Quote:
This is clearly a low res SOW video, I will retain comment until we can see a high res version with real sound (This appears to be from the origional IL2) </IRONY> On a slightly more serious note, I noticed the exhaust line in this video, it has never ocured to me that we have been missing it all this time. In the screenie of the Hurricane underflying, there appeared to be fuel leaking, but was it actually exhaust? Hmm we shall have to see. If it is not in, it will not affect me at all. I will be flying this as a game/sim with friends and it will blow our socks off when it arrives. |
Quote:
The aircraft in the video is probably smoking because low altitude airshow display aircraft are sometimes run full rich for safety. |
|
...
Nice video of Lausanne (Ouchy) and the Chillon Castel. Need some Swiss conifers essences in South of the "U" Kingdom forest ? :grin: http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Chillon2.jpg Blink and you really do miss it. ... |
Will BOB/SOW devicelink be udated/improved?
I know that Oleg takes a lot of pride in his work and IL2 in its time was above and beyond all other flight sims especially in the graphics department. By looking at the screen shots as of late I would say that BOB/SOW will continue to be above and beyond all current flight simulation software that is out there when it comes to graphics!
But what about devicelink when it comes to third parties linking their hardware devices? IL2's devicelink has fallen behind other flight simulators in this category. Formula One uses thousands of sensors on their racing cars and the data is raw, real world, data. Also, X-Plane spits out better and more data than does IL2. Has Oleg addressed this issue? Is it possible for a third party programmer to be linked with Oleg or someone on his team to discuss the known short comings of the old devicelink? Is there a way for a third party programmer currently writing software to communicate with Olegs team without having to post on a public forum? I am thinking that Oleg takes a lot of pride in his simulation and that he will want to have it above and beyond in every catagory? |
I couldn't tell you where it is, but I'm quite sure that Oleg has already said that there will be a much improved devicelink (or whatever it will be called). His original concern was that devicelink might be used to cheat online, but the problem never materialized.
|
its looking good and I'm itch to get my hands on the game, keep up the good work
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.