Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Friday 2010-09-03 Dev. update and Discussions

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)

- - Friday 2010-09-03 Dev. update and Discussions (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=16217)

~S~

Thankyou for the updates. pics look great and damage model improvements are fantastic :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frantishek (Post 179342)

Looks fantastic!

But major factual errors(!!):
1. Nose gunner never sat like that. I have never seen a seat mounted there, plus physically there is no space to put the feet like that!

2. The Top Gunner, gun is not fixed on the bar but pivots on it, so it would be loose and point straight up (due to weight of back end).
*if* the bar position was to rear, then the barrel would be pushed aft by the wind.

3. The DG radio antenna, the reddish object just in front of top gunner, is completely wrong shape.

1. I do recall seeing pictures with a gun mounted on that location.

2. Apart from the gun swinging back because of the wind I don't see a problem or an error there. The gunner might still be alive... Actually:

Quote:

Screen 1 - pilot dead, bombardier dying. Top and waist gunners alive.

I suggest that you look at picture no. 3 where the gunner is dead. ;)

3. I'll leave that for someone else to reply. :)

Incredibly nice grass - I like the unevenness. Plane shine is perfected.
Nice to see trains implemented at last, I'm sure this is what we are bieng shown, so great news.

Though I agree with others that the width of the road shouldn't equal the length of the train carriage, it does cross the road at an angel (so isn't as bad as I first thought), and there may be room left at the side of the road for a footpath..still, it does look odd.

Thanks for the update, its great news that the trains are running!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romanator21 (Post 179313)

I appreciate your concern, but I already have a prescription.

You have to take into account that pilot helmets are not rubber swimming hats. In the first photo however, the proportions on the pilot's head are more apparent because his forehead is so exposed. The comparison is easier to make to the screenshot this way.

But let me show you what I am seeing and maybe we can come to terms in some way. Rather than compare the pilot to a random object like the plane's wheel, let's compare to the canopy frame which is much closer and thus less likely to be distorted due to FOV.

One thing to take into account is that while the canopy is fixed in place, the camera is in a different position. In one photo it looks slanted, and longer, while in the other it looks straight and shorter because it is slanting away from the viewer rather than across. So, we have to assess the vertical height of the slanted frame.

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/a...stephenfox.jpg

So, I've come to the conclusion that the virtual pilot is the correct size.

But maybe I just need a new pair of glasses. ;)

lets use a time tested unit of measurement for the human body, which is the head and use perspective:

http://i835.photobucket.com/albums/z...g?t=1283761628
as you see there is a total of about 1 head of space from front and back of canopy edge, while barely a chin from top of head to canopy.

again:
http://i835.photobucket.com/albums/z...g?t=1283761749
^now you will notice in this photo (original full size too, ALL the pilots are slightly hunched over - not exactly sure what puts them in this position, chute, seat position, but it also seems their heads are hunched over a bit too , maybe for optimal view of panel/sight. Still you see there is only about a quarter head in front and a head and a half in the rear, the top of the canopy looks like it would nearly graze the helmet

now look at the screenies:
http://i835.photobucket.com/albums/z...g?t=1283762002
2 1/2 heads front to back, 3/4 of a head to canopy top.

Yes helmets aren't swimcaps but the aren't so big the enlarge the pilots head by double or more

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 179240)

... In stock IL2 you will have a fat red 100ft of fireball coming out of the back of the aircraft and I have some small concern that this will be repeated according to the pictures i've seen so far. When you use the effects pack fires are radically different.

There's quite a few fires in this video
...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La3qJ4sptuE

Now there are many instances of fire in this video that match the effects shown in your clip, but it can be more spectacular. Check out 3:42, 3:59, 4:16 and 4:25.

All these locations in the video show 100+ foot plumes of flame that match up with the screenshots posted by Oleg and Co.

We need to remember that SOW is not IL2 (stock, modded or otherwise) and it would sad if we missed out on a historical portrail of air combat because they were labeled too 'Holywood'.

Cheers!

ahhhhh.. i cant wait.. i cant wait.. i cant wait

Hello Skoshi Tiger ,
the problem with this video is that those are very few aircrafts with more dramatic smokes that are in existence available on YouTube , zillion gun camera videos have these included , how many planes are going down like this with black thick smoke in available huge WWII archival footage ? maybe 10 , 20 ? plus you don't see the whole story , many of these black thick burst will run out in about 5 seconds which is not shown in the rest of the youtube footage and you won't find the whole footage on youtube to compare.
After few seconds black thick smoke is most of the time gone leaving very transparent grayish color and little smoke .
We're talking about hundreds of shut down planes you won't see on youtube , which shows 90% of the time little or no smoke regardless of planes which also caught fire .
Black thick smoke was not sustainable to continue for extended period of time with majority of planes shot down including Japanese aircrafts .
Available huge WWII air combat archive mostly U.S. and Italy's Luce is not always some poor grainy videos , it's almost like in HD quality and footage speaks for itself .

Back on topic , I believe that pilot head size must be correct , this is my picture I took just recently and it looks like I should be ready for Hurricane aircraft :lol:

http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/a...3-56-06404.jpg

As for the Heinkel cockpit: he is sitting on a bench. (not a seat) -- here is the SoW BoB Heinkel from inside:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny59blbRplA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jumo211 (Post 179420)

I'm sure your right. What I'm looking forward to is a more detailed damage model and associated visual effects in SOW.

Untill we get a video of what SOW is actually going to provide in terms of fire effects I'm fairly happy with what has been shown to us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jumo211 (Post 179420)

Back on topic , I believe that pilot head size must be correct , this is my picture I took just recently and it looks like I should be ready for Hurricane aircraft :lol:

http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/a...3-56-06404.jpg

LoL! Of course, a smaller head would mean a smaller chance of being PK'ed! and that has to be good?

Cheers!

I hope Oleg's getting a chuckle out of this thread.

Here's my contribution:

http://i53.tinypic.com/125neir.jpg

original:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...kemble_arp.jpg