Diesels are much less sensitive to knocking, although it is also an undesired effect.

Knocking in Diesel engines occurs when there are either low temperatures inside a cylinder, there is a low load on the engine (I think this is a proper translation) or with fuel that has very low cetane number. Cetane number is a measure of a fuel's ignition delay - the time period between the start of injection and start of combustion (ignition) of the fuel. If the delay is too long, the fuel will ignite when there is already too much fuel inside a cylinder - resulting in a sudden reaction accompanied with strong pressure waves and a very loud noise.

The air in Diesel engines has to be compressed below the minimum level (when compressing air its temperature rises) in order for the fuel to ignite when entering a cylinder. Before modern fuel injection, early Diesels had a combustion chamber inside a cylinder where Diesel fuel would first ignite and spread across the rest of the cylinder - this is the reason why they were so loud (very high pressures inside the cylinder and overall unbalanced/unequal burning process). In early '90-s fuel injector pumps capable of rapid dual injection in one process were introduced. This lowered the noise, and improved the burning process significantly.

Nowadays with Common rail systems (which compress the fuel up to 2000 bar) the fuel gets injected up to 5 times when the piston is at/or close to the TDC, further improving the burning process inside the cylinder. This is one of the reasons why they are so quiet and even more efficient today.

Well, Manifold Pressure (MP) should depend on throttle and mixture. As you rise in altitude, you have to play with the mixture to get the best MP...unless the aircraft is set up to handle mixture automatically somehow. (I know you know this so we are probably just in the middle of a language thing here)

It would be tremendous if Oleg modeled the characteristics of different engines for MP though. There are ramifications for running lean or rich at a given altitude.

Just think of trying to follow your opponent in a dogfight, changing altitudes, and having to also get your mixture right for maximum MP as you go through a 10,000 dive or climb.

Splitter

Nice pictures.

Exhausts only visible for starting and at night to make irt realistic.

KG26_Alpha - does 'Alfa' have something to do with your call-sign? :)


I see your point now. And you're exactly right - having different Manifold intakes affecting engine performance (MP or engine vacuum) simulated, not emulated would be simply awesome. I don't doubt that we will have different MP's for each engine, IL2 already had that.

A bullet hole rupturing your intake manifold and affecting engine performance, imagine that... But we're probably asking for too much here since programs that model this today are very complex (i.e. AVL BOOST).

Most people don't know this, but engine block in a sports car is (usually) the same as the one found in a road car. The design of intake and exhaust manifolds make all the difference (i.e. BMW). ;)

The flames are too bright, Oleg.

Well done Oleg,

Looking forward to a big christmas present from you. :)

Really nice detail, quality. Thank you.

I think Oleg is just having a little joke at the expense of the nit pickers.

No WW2 aircraft that I have ever seen fly, and I've seen a lot of them, ever had visible exhaust flames while in flight in daylight.

Not one, ever.

Oleg is an engineer and pilot, and he knows this as well.

Or, this is just an NKVD psy-ops mission to keep the competition distracted.

You are OT :D ... and you probably ignore that the Common Rail was developed originally by Fiat-Magneti Marelli, and first introduced an Alfa Romeo 156 2.4 JTD in 1990 ... a great car and an innovative diesel engine. An incredible piece of engineering, my friend.

Back to topic:

Dear Oleg,

Flames look great now. I'm slightly tired of minor details. Please give us a bigger bone to gnaw at ... a Bf.109 video with the latest gun smoke and muzzle flash, or damage model, or ... you know waht I mean ...

Cheers,
Insuber

LOL, you may have a point there ElAurens. :D

I believe that this over exaggerated effects have been posted for a different reason - to show the effects what different mixture/throttle/RPM/etc. has on the exhaust. I agree, with a proper mixture setting their visibility in broad daylight should be minimum/non existent - unless when starting an engine (as shown on various videos - well documented). And this can be fine tuned after the process in the engine/cylinder has been properly modeled into the game.

superb illustration...awsome car, good find


OFF TOPIC

Ok wait, before people start criticizing Oleg because we can see the flames in daylight.....

If Oleg had showed these pics at night, we couldn't see the plane. Since we can see flames in daylight in these pictures, it seems obvious (at least to me) that he has turned something "up" so that we can see the planes AND the flames at the same time.

Just a guess of course.

Splitter

Waste your money at today's diesel prices! (at least here in the states)

OFF TOPIC

not find the Video, the "Brutus" car is from the Technik Museum Sinsheim, my Town i live, so i see the Brutus live :)

OFF TOPIC

Hi,

it looks amazingly nice and in late phase, and i'm glad there's a miniature engine control, it will really help engine mgmt !

i'm wondering about "flight safety": what will happen if you fly within the gasoline trail of a damaged plane with all those nice flames coming out of exhaust pipes ? " FSHHHHHHH " ??? :o)

Alex

OFF TOPIC

...so, Oleg has started a flame fest then???

where is the moderation? invisible in daylight I suppose....

Ilya - please cancel the project

OFF TOPIC

A 109 E up quite close in flight in day light no flames

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RdRVIm8VHQ


At 2:02 you have your head right up to the stacks for a couple of seconds..no flames.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nMc_HJO0RU

I'm pretty sure COMP or CO stands for Compressor i.e. the Supercharger gear setting - Hi, Lo or Neutral I suppose...but I think the early Spits had single speed, single stage superchargers.

Awesome screens again. It's comming really nicely together now.

I think Oleg and team deserve a nice christmas holliday!:cool::!:

The only thing is that "COMP" was on the Ju-88 screen. I have to agree, Compressor indeed sounds as it may be what it stands for.

Sory fo my english...
Maybe explosion wos wrong word, "ekspanzija" in my languge, if it is expazion in english, well, it is not my profesion to talk about it...
http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eksplozija

On race cars and motorbikes we can see it during day, also whan you squezze the engine in way it is not ment to be used, flames are normal...

So my post about the main wheel of the 109 not being flush with the wing was deleted because it was out of context?
Really? A comment on the picture posted by the dev is not in context
What kind of "moderation" is that?

In my opinion it was due to the angle of view; to my brain it looked flush, but I admit that the perspective was weird.

effects of those flames on gas fumes is set to "off topic" ?
wierd !

A.

Otherwise we will get about 50 pages of people complaining about the fire, fumes, whatever...
It's never good enough for some...It's just a game, it doesn't need to be ultra realistic.

So buy a CFS3 and let us this one ;) :P
We're not complaining, just trying to answer the Oleg's questions in order to help a bit the building of the best WW2 Air Simulation ever. If Oleg and co need hundreds of hours to upgrade a bit something wich can be considered as not the most important, they will analyse that by themselves, and skip this work. But if we reasonably can upgrade something, why not ? It's Oleg's philosophy. And our too. And finally, it's not just a game. If you want "just a game", buy those which allready exist, it will be sufficient. What we want is a part of the human history, and this a really important part...

As a simulator it does have to go ultraralistic.

And therefore the flames a re to bright at daylight.

Yep, that actually makes more sense. Good catch,
Sutts. I still hope that manifold pressure it accurately modeled as part of the better complex engine management....which effects exhaust color too I guess :).

Splitter

Thanks
 

To Oleg and Co.
Amazing level of detail that you and your team are bringing to this new sim.
Fantastic effort - greatly appreciated

Have a happy Christmas and an even better New Year for 2011

it was not a request, but a simple question...

for realism, i would never have thought by myself about the exhaust flammes for a flight sim !

Merry Christmas Oleg, develommental team and the forum

A quick summary after watching all the videos posted here, and following the discussion.

Precisely that. Like someone already stated that these flames are deliberately overdone.

There are few factors we should consider when talking about (visible) engine exhaust flames:

1. All videos show planes standing or taxiing on the ground.
2. Although visible on many videos, most of us will agree that they are barely visible - or invisible during daylight.

Thus I will point out to three videos which IMHO more accurately represent what should (can) be seen in real life and thus in the game.

"Seafire night ground run" - watch how high RPM affects engine exhaust:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs_qt4GCj4A
The thing everyone forgot to mention is a very fast stream of air which is blowing over the exhaust stacks (with higher RPM) - undoubtedly much faster and colder once the plane is airborne => further reducing the exhaust flames length because of the fast air stream and also a small portion due to forced convection (cold air cooling the exhaust pipes).

Just like Oleg said:



"Spitfire MH 434 - Part 3/5" - this, I believe is how the flames should be represented in the game, starting from 5:30 (fast forward) first the engine start is shown and then camera shows directly into the exhaust stacks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDZmq2VrcNQ
After slightly over primed start the only visible flames are during engine start (due to some fuel left from previous unsuccessful attempts). Once the engine has been started watch how there are no flames exiting the exhaust pipes, even when RPM is increased - although they are visible under the right angle (when looking directly into the exhaust pipes like shown in the video).


And last, the most important video IMO... "Bf 109 Stack Flaming" - posted by Richie, which although doesn't feature exhaust flames, it shows exhaust smoke when changing throttle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48uziQoniI0
If I would have to choose between the right colored exhaust flames and correctly represented puffs of smoke when changing throttle => I would without a doubt choose the latter because it impacts gameplay and is overall more important feature.

A picture of a 109 G-4 low on a darker day with no flames.

(quote)T}{OR
If I would have to choose between the right colored exhaust flames and correctly represented puffs of smoke when changing throttle => I would without a doubt choose the latter because it impacts gameplay and is overall more important feature.


I agree, there's something about turbo's that causes a dark smoke after a quick throttle increase...even in todays world with on road vehicles and their modern engines. So I like the idea of the 109 having that behavior:grin:

Pressure-charging might indeed have a bit increased effect on the smoke puffs during throttle changes. Unless I am mistaken, WW2 planes had only superchargers, not turbochargers.

Combustion during constant RPM is totally different than one during variable RPM. The reason for this is rapidly changing and unequal ratio of fuel and air in the cylinder (variable mixture) - accompanied with black puffs of smoke coming out of the exhaust manifold. Once you set on an desired RPM it takes the engine few seconds to 'stabilize'. Fuel consumption is also much higher during these frequent throttle changes, when compared to running at constant RPM (i.e. just like city / highway driving).

Just like you said - the best example are trucks, when the driver adds power it is always accompanied with thick black smoke coming out of the exhaust. Once it is driving with a constant speed, there is barely any smoke coming out of the exhaust. As far as turbos and truck engines... sometimes it takes up to 2-3 minutes for the exhaust gases to 'stabilize' and spin the turbo for it to have a desired effect.

(quote)
WW2 planes had only superchargers, not turbochargers.



They are the same, the difference being the power source:grin:

In basic terms, yes. :)

For a supercharger to work you have to use some of the energy produced on the crankshaft, while turbo uses energy off the exhaust gases which is "free". :)

The downside is that turbo works best on higher RPM ("turbo lag"), while superchargers can follow and adjust to engine RPM much more rapidly.


IIRC the development of turbochargers and the reason why they are so available todays happened after WW2. => See post 141.


EDIT: As a result, the latest developments led to a process called 'downsizing' where in todays engines you now have a supercharger for low RPM which disengages (usually via magnetic clutch) around 2500 RPM and then turbo takes over.

Yes, you are correct:grin:

Not sure if I understand you correctly. Turbochargers were most definitely used during WWII but on aircraft such as the P-47 and P-38 and bombers such as B-17 and B-24. I don't think any BoB aircraft used them.

The function of both is the same - i.e. to compress the air before it enters a cylinder. Either to produce the same atmosphere as if you were flying on sea level or to increase engine power. The difference is how they are driven. Supercharger is linked to the crankshaft usually with a belt pulley or set of gears. Turbocharger is driven by exhaust gases and thus for it to operate efficiently requires certain speed out of those gases - i.e. works best when on mid or high RPM. Early turbochargers were massive in comparison what we have today.

Although they were available before WW2, rapid development of turbochargers started after WW2, IIRC when F1 started using them (they were banned in F1 shortly afterwards due to excessive power these engines produced).



EDIT: You are correct:

So says Wikipedia.

I presume that you could only mount them in larger (e.g. radial engines), because even in 70's they were massive compared to today. And it makes sense - especially with P-38 which has those long pylons behind engines.

edit: cleaned this thread and removed my OT posts

EDIT: same as swiss

The P38 was powered by a pair of V12 Allisons that were turbocharged.

And that is why its exhaust is different than the one found on planes equipped with Merlin engines (single engined fighters).


Back to the flames etc. Here is a nice example of modification done to prevent visible exhaust flames during night fighting:

http://www.military-aircraft.org.uk/...0g-fighter.jpg

Re turbochargers: According to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Merlin)

In 1940 Rolls-Royce considered adapting the Merlin to use an exhaust-driven turbocharger to increase the power of the Merlin. Although a lower fuel consumption was an advantage, the turbocharger was rejected in favour of a two-stage supercharger.
[Lovesey 1946, p. 220]

Most of the Merlin's technical improvements resulted from more efficient superchargers, designed by Stanley Hooker, and the introduction of aviation spirits with increased octane ratings. Numerous detail changes were made internally and externally to the engine to withstand increased power ratings and to incorporate advances in engineering practices.
[Lovesey 1946, pp. 224-226]


On the subject of Ejector Exhausts: I’m surprised that no one has commented on what today we would probably call a “Value Added” feature of Ejector Exhausts. The following is an extract from the same Wiki article:

The Merlin consumed an enormous volume of air at full power (equivalent to the volume of a single-decker bus per minute), and with the exhaust gases exiting at 1,300 mph (2,100 km/h) it was realised that useful thrust could be gained simply by angling the gases backwards instead of venting sideways.

During tests, 70 pounds-force (310 N; 32 kgf) thrust at 300 miles per hour (480 km/h), or roughly 70 horsepower (52 kW) was obtained which increased the level maximum speed of the Spitfire by 10 mph (16 km/h) to 360 mph (580 km/h). The first versions of the ejector exhausts featured round outlets, while subsequent versions of the system used "fishtail" style outlets which marginally increased thrust and reduced exhaust glare for night flying.

In September 1937 the Spitfire prototype, K5054, was fitted with ejector type exhausts. Later marks of the Spitfire used a variation of this exhaust system fitted with forward-facing intake ducts to distribute hot air out to the wing-mounted guns to prevent freezing and stoppages at high altitudes, replacing an earlier system that used heated air from the engine coolant radiator. The latter system had become ineffective due to improvements to the Merlin itself which allowed higher operating altitudes where air temperatures are lower.[23] Ejector exhausts were also fitted to other Merlin-powered aircraft.
[Price 1982, p. 51]

Hope I haven’t wandered too far OT.

Pete

The FW190 Turbo

http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/fw190v18.htm


http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/v18.jpg

Very nice link, thank you for posting.

Please correct me if I am wrong:

...but to me, the spiral thing next to the engine looks more like a turbocharger. "The strange protuberance" looks more like an inter-cooler or a radiator. In any case, a heat exchanger.

- - -

EDIT:

Discussion moved to a new thread, here:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=17720

Strictly OT posts were deleted/edited.

Small remark on the gasses that drive the turbo: the driving force is pressure, not speed. Turbo's work due to a pressure differential with the outside air, while a turbo-compound uses the kinetic energy of the exhaust gasses. That's why the P47's critical altitude is a function of turbocompressor speed (roughly 20K rpm) because due to the lower pressure outside, the turbine was spinning faster, until it's constructional limit was reached (and the pilot warned).

Turbo-compounds use a "blow-down" turbine and as a result do not produce parasitical back pressure on the engine. In theory a blow-down turbine can be added sequentially to a turbocompressor, adding even more efficiency to a system, maybe by driving a generator or coolant pump or as in case of the Wright R-3350 the crankshaft via hydraulic clutches.

Interesting document by Curtiss-Wright Co. on the Wright R-3350 Turbo-Compound:
http://www.enginehistory.org/Wright/TC%20Facts.pdf

If you look carefully you'll see thin lines, a pipe, attached the exhaust pipes, running through the fuselage, into that thing behind the intercooler. That's the turbocharger. You'll see a pipe go through the intercooler and from the intercooler back to the engine. It seems they had it right to keep the supercharger attached to the engine, since the turbo takes load of from it, decreasing the load on the engine to drive the supercharger, and being able to boost even more. It was probably even coupled with the barometric device that regulated the variable hydraulic clutch. Anyway I would've chosen that spot due to the CoG.

I wish Flugwerk would build a 190C, just to see how it performs.

Absolutely correct.

The detail put in to this is amazing and will make Storm of War a great game, thank you for all the effort.

A couple of things I do know about the 109 supercharger is that it is run by a clutch system not gearing to save energy. Also when an axillary fuel tank is carried it is pressurized by the supercharger. All of the fuel is sent into the main tank as fuel is used, no fuel line goes into the axillary tank. You can tell when the tank is empty by that glass tube next to your right forearm. When the tank is empty the tube will be clear.

Oleg,

the colors of the flames look much better now, but they shouldnt be so visible during the daytime !! (much to visible right now in the most recent daytime screenshots posted)

on certain engine start conditions during the daytime they might be visible (and some significant flames/smoke maybe) , but not in flight like that unless something is seriously wrong with the engine. normally you should only be able to see them so clearly at night.

for night flying the current visual effects are great, and historically some pilots would even use the color of exhaust flames to fine tune their engines and trim the mixture

It's a game, if you want realism, fly the real thing.:cool:

By the way, every fryday there is something new to whine about, i am quite sure Oleg and team will do their best to make it as realistic as possible but not losing to much fps ingame. You want to be able to fly the darn thing, are you? Ultrarealistic will also mean huge hit on pc!
Oleg allready said that ultrarealistic is not for the moment, otherwise no current pc is able to run this game!

I would like so ! Maybe you can, me no.. ;) And i couldn't defend the England against the luftwaffe, it seems... :confused: :!:

Oh yes ! We know that it will be very hard about fps, but we know that since 5 or 6 years (for me)

Looking at the work done, and what we're sure to get with, i believe Oleg became a bit more optimistic on this subject (for instance, SSD wasn't expected at the time..) : He said that the whole realism would be shared in one part that the PC could looking for (upgrading the options, like we upgraded IL-2 with conf.ini) and the rest later, when the technology has improved. But i think, now, he really wants to give us the best potential since the start of the series. And it's a normal thing as like any applications, it needs to think all we want for the future before or at least during the developpement of the thing.

I wish you lot would stop referring to SoW as a simple game...it's not. It's a simulation of a very important piece of history (certainly to us British). Many of us grew up on wartime stories and the accounts of our grandparents of this particular period. I for one have always longed to experience what it must have been like to be there (from the ground and the air).

Historical accuracy is really important to many of us and fictional effects however well intentioned will spoil the overall impact of the title.

As i said yet, i totally agree with this. I'm french and my father and his family were on the road from the north to the south-west of the country in June 40. He was almost 11 and saw the Stukas' machine gunning. He almost became a fighter pilot at the end of the war, as he was near 16. Hopefully he just became civilian pilot.
... Not just a game ... :rolleyes:

Think they will not be so clearly visible during action. they can be visible only in screenshot state. They flashes in a short time moment and disappears in smoke puffs... so in action we will not see anything. maybe only in night time the overall glow.

Good points

When you are sitting in cockpit are you going to see little fire and smoke?

When you engage the enemy are you going to see little fire and smoke?

You will see little fire and smoke when you do outside closeup views.

That is fine with me, because I do enjoy flicking around seeing the aircraft during missions and such. Often I just turn on autopilot and use my mouse to enjoy the action.

So there is value

BoB is just a game and not a simulator (in a real flight simulator, the complexity of dynamics would make BoB look like a mario bros on PS1 ...

Difference between a game and a flight simulator:

Real Flight Simulator – How Realistic Is It?

http://www.realflightsimulator.net/

- So just how realistic is a real flight simulator? Here are 5 examples of how the lines between a real flight simulator and a real aircraft have become blurred thanks to modern computer software technology:
- The flight instrument panel in a typical flight simulator program is programmed to look and operate exactly like the instrumentation panel in the flight simulation’s real world aircraft counterpart. Every button, every dial, every knob, every instrument looks, behaves, and responds exactly the same way as its real world counterpart does.
- The simulated aircraft’s control surfaces can be manipulated in exactly the same way that a real aircraft’s control surfaces can be manipulated by using the control yoke, wing flaps, rudder pedals, throttle, and trim controls.
- The aircraft in a real flight simulator responds to simulated weather phenomena such as winds, precipitation, temperature variations, and icing, in exactly the same way that its real life aircraft counterpart would.
- In a real flight simulator, the aircraft is also programmed to respond to and be subject to external and internal forces, such as weight and balance considerations, center of gravity, and G-forces.
- Anything that could damage the aircraft in real life can also “damage” the virtual aircraft in a real flight simulator.
- The computer software engineering technology behind the development of simulation programs has evolved, and continues to evolve, over the years to become more and more real. Flight simulator technology is widely used as a means to supplement real-world flight training.

From most I've read in the site that you've provided... yes, SoW will be a simulator, not a game.

Exactly! There is a reason why actual flight simulators (military and commercial) use what are essentially supercomputers (20 core+ systems).

One reason is rendering the sim onto a few displays (sometimes almost 360 degrees) and another is the colossal number crunching dedicated to ultra-realistic flight modeling, flight systems, damage modeling, and a host of other things that you don't have the time or resources to put into a game, which is what SOW is.

They might call this a flight sim, but no matter which way you cut it, it's sill a game meant to generate sales and revenue. Real sims are designed to do neither, they are commissioned by a government body or a commercial sector and made with little thought put towards hardware requirement, money, or fun-factor. The only thing they really have in common with SOW and other flight sims with regards to development might be "development time" but in a lot of cases they're being made at the same time the actual aircraft is being developed so it's not that much of a race.

You realize that you're linking to a poor rip-off that repackages FlightGear, which in itself is a nice open-source project but hardly the pinnacle of professional flight sim development, spiced up with some shallow marketing hogwash to make people spend money on something they could download for free? Not sure that's such a good source for information on "real flight simulation" :-)

Most professional flight simulators anyway focus on specific aspects and are pretty poor in others, depending on the type of training they're meant for. They rarely require the combined level of detail in graphics, flight/ballistics/damage modeling, AI or WAN network connectivity that a PC flight sim like SoW needs.

>>Originally Posted by Redwan View Post
>>BoB is just a game and not a simulator (in a real flight simulator, the complexity of dynamics would make BoB look like a mario bros on PS1 ...


I think we're all agreed that compromises in fidelity have to be made to allow SoW to run on current home PCs and allow for the extra environmental modelling that military sims generally lack.

However, in no way does this make SoW default automatically to game status. In my opinion saying that is an insult to the skills and vision of Oleg and team. This is as close to real as Oleg is able to get us based on current hardware limitations. Knowing how Oleg operates, if PCs were more capable we would have proper airflow dynamics modelled by now. It just isn't possible yet on a home PC.

SoW will give us a pretty accurate flight experience. It may lack some of the subtle control inputs and response to airflow that a military simulator can offer but a comparison to mario bros on PS1 is way out of order.

Seeing as you can download it for free I can't see how you can even think of comparing it to SoW:BoB.
The screenshots are terrible.
That list of requirements looks like just sales garb, and as far as I can tell SoW will fulfil most of them, if not all.

Screenhots from Real Flight Simulator

http://www.flightprosim.com/screenshots1/SNAG-0009.jpg

http://flightprosim.com/images/diff_view.jpg

User endorsement: "This is indeed a wonderful game that has the extreme quality that a expensive flight simulator would have. Trust me, I have played it for hours and hours a day, and I never get tired of it! Its kid friendly and great for any age."

nudge to back on topic
i would think that the flames should not be visible in bright conditions

My guess is that Oleg turned up the visibility of the flames in the screen shots so we could see the flames and the planes at the same time.

Splitter

The last time I was at FlightSafety for recurrent training, I spent some time with the sim techs, asking questions and looking at the hardware. I was surprised to learn that today's multi-core desktops have more than enough computing and graphics power to run a Level D full motion simulator. What the desktop can't do is properly synchronize everything so that everything that's supposed to happen NOW happens NOW. Thus you need a multi-board/multi-processor thing that lives in a server rack. But, relatively speaking, powerful it ain't.

:) You also don't get the physical effects,the g forces,the positive and negative,the being thrown around,the force of acceleration and deceleration.
I have to go on a simulator at work [not a pilot one, a train driving one every year ] and the biggest complaint we have is the lack of movement [the seat of the pants driving].You can see the simulated scenery going past but there's no "feeling" of moving.

Another thing you don't get in a commercial sim is the rendering of every little subsystem that an aircraft has. Throttle, Pitch, Mixture, compression, etc are pretty good for a flight sim game, but the ones they use for the big Boeings, Airbusses, and the military jets and choppers simulate the hydraulic and electrical systems, the in-cabin PA system, the backups, the bypass circuits, and a thousand other things. Plus most of them require outside operators to input different variables and such that the pilot and copilot are going to have to deal with. We're probably 10 years away from flight sim games simulating airframe expansion, how icing affects airflow over the wings. . . . and all those other things you find in real Simulators.

I'm not Knocking SOW, but it's not possible given time, money, and hardware constraints. The fact that we are being given variable flames from the exhaust is a milestone, and I'm sure there are other milestones Oleg's keeping for release and future patches.

Makes sense. The days of the 8 and 16 core processors aren't too far away. Once we get to that point we'll be able to do the same sorts of things on a home PC that they do with server racks. Of course it just means that there will be server racks with the equivalent multi core CPU's to match :)

And we may see the development of interchangeable modules like A2A has with Accusim, at least that's what they claim, that in the future their modules will be able to interface with a number of 3D flight engines. Imagine SoW becoming hugely successful, and top of the line third part developers joining forces thereby increasing the level of technology. Who knows, maybe russo-american cooperation might even lower the threshold for products from a certain american defense corporation. I'm dreaming again.

:) The sim should always be overdeveloped as computers in time will catch up and you need to keep the sim on the front edge able to use the technology as it comes in.

I was talking to some CAE engineers (by far the largest company in the field) and they said the difference is you are in a real cockpit that moves, with real instruments, a true panoramic view, and that costs millions all by itself.

The cockpit is bought from the manufacturer of the aircraft...a cousin of mine is an engineer there and he went to buy a A380 cockpit in Toulouse for CAE's A380 simulator...

The computing power is less than some workstations since they don't upgrade everything all the time. And the software is still mostly 'cheat sheet', table based...no real inertial calculations...To be fair that was 5 years ago, but still the differences are less than you might think, other than the physical cockpit of course. The graphics, while updated all the time are not that great but they are full surround !

Louisv

PS: "Real Flight Simulator" is a repackaging of a free software: by today's standard it's a piece of crap. Enough said.

I think Oleg has been working with that philosophy in mind since it too years for IL-2 to be playable at MAX settings on a mid-range system. (although IL-2 was very scalable as well)

Louisv I just wanted to concur. I'm not sure I'd ever mention "FlightProSim" as a credible source for anything! Flightgear(.org) might not be the hottest peice of software out there, but somone slapping their logo on a GNU (freeware) release and marketing it with a "money back guarrantee" is pretty sick. I feel sorry for anybody that fell for their scam.

Well, "powerful it ain't" may be true at the single board/processor level but combined into that multi-board multi-processor supercomputer it is a fair bit more powerful than the new i7 multicore PC about to arrive on my doorstep. But it's true that things have moved enormously over the 20+ years I spent in the flight simulation business. The Visual computers for a certain VSTOL aircraft back in 1987 occupied a portacabin-like structure about 30 feet by 30 feet, completely full up, unique PC boards about 2 feet square and generating enough heat to warm a factory. All to enable low level graphics rendering at high speed. It was later replaced by a system in a cabinet about the size of a small single wardrobe. The later ones were about half that size and some are now down to super PC/rack size.

We've come a long way and we haven't finished yet.