:D I LOL'd. It's quite funny sitting pack and watching people make fools of themselves. :cool:

It's not a combat sim though so it's largely irrelevant.

any 3d object can "bend", water, cloth, hair. etc are 3d objects just like any other model but other than props and major damage there aren't many parts on a aircraft that would bend to the extent that would be worth using physics on. Small dents and dings can be modeled using normal maps. Bullet holes, for example, probably contain a normal map (to lazy to look right now).

Major damage would/should of course be modeled from polys and should also be physics based

If you can find some pictures/video of a WWI stringbag striking the ground at 140km/h, then please present it/them.

Again, the developers probably didn't consider that we would be flying these kites straigt into the ground intentionally from any altitude in order to see just how extensive the DM was. Shame on them.

Let's not forget also that Oleg's Il-2 was developed for a single engine, low altitude, ground attack aircraft which had a top speed of around 350 km/h. It's too bad that he and his team didn't create a game engine which modeled compression, supersonic flight, high-altitude flight, or dynamics of multi-engine aircraft which, I'll bet, he never imagined would become part of the game. Shame on him too. ;)

Are we here for SoW or RoF?

RoW. At least someone.

I'm here, because like you, I have nothing better to do.

I came here for an argument


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

If you watch the Spitfire cockpit video that was posted some time ago...it looks like the reflections are "dynamic"...

a predictable RoF-fan type statement that ignores any rational logic whenever some criticism is raised. because you like the game, it doesnt mean you have to abandon all common sense and any recognition about some of its obvious flaws. yet this seems a traumatic concept for the RoF fanbase (to the point their north american distributor has to turn up here and try to brush away its flaws)

i would sugest instead that if their game indeed uses accurate physics modeling of forces and objects interacting (like their fanbase is deliberately misled to believe in the marketing hype), then no matter at what speed, one of their aircraft interacting with other solid objects it encounters in the game world should have an accurate and realistic outcome, and it simply doesnt. for lower speed crashes it looks reasonably nice (for a 2009 sim), but thats about the limit of what they created. and they use this same type of "standard crash" sequence for all events, no matter what the circumstances.

my point simply has been that for RoF, no matter what its eye candy might delude you to believe, that accurate physics modeling is simply not present, and you can illustrate this VERY obvious flaw by flying an aircraft at high speed into a solid object (like terra firma), having it go bouncy-bouncy and then crumple like a 30 km/hr plane crash is just not realistic

still, all of this was simply raised by some posters here (in a BoB forum discussing a BoB development update) in the hope/belief that BoB will be able to model this more correctly. the damage model of some of the BoB aircraft we have seen so far would provide high hopes for this (individual components of the airplane frames are modeled in 3D for ex, and the damage from individual shells being factored in)

add to that some of the recent statements like:

and ....

so i have high hopes SoW-BoB will model these crashes much more realistically, and that the extent of damage to the aircraft in various crashes will more correctly reflect speed and the forces involved :)