S!

Nearmiss..100% agree with you. Graphics are just part of the game. The rest is what makes it good like you mentioned. I prefer playability over eyecandy :)

It is not that hard with reflector sight, but with iron sight it is. Rise of Flight combined with TrackIR gives good feeling how hard it is to align sights for precise shots while maneuvering and constantly looking around. However, this is true only if you don't use any "magic" button to center the camera. :)

Eyes (or brains) don't filter the movements in sense of image processing. Instead, they are stabilized on the point where you look. This is possible due to vestibular system, which allows us to feel rotation and linear acceleration. This system allows us to feel when we fall, are pushed, turned and etc. (it even helps us to walk in complete darkness). Also, it sends signals to eyes, so that eyes will compensate for head movement and turn towards the point we want to look at.

Magnitude of effect depends on individual, but in case of vertigo (i.e. too much spinning) stabilization of eyes might become less effective or completely off. So, after multiple barrel rolls you may temporary think that plane shakes much more than before. :)

Thanks for Friday updates and bonus vid :)
I knew it is SoW even before the confirmation post:cool:

Keep up the good work!!!!

Please dont put more vids. I feel embarrased when I see how I get wet :mrgreen:

+1 !

For the real success on the market should be both in modern time.
And if we are speaking about fligth sims - we should put even more than two these terms.

Like buildings and objects at 100% of their size relative to the aircraft :)

lets hope MuxaHuk hasnt been gulaged :) for posting that fantastic vid and we get to see a few more...because just look how that vid flew across the net and its affect on eveyone here.

You can add

1. Proper INGAME server browser/update system/chat/friends/Squadron tools to the list
2. Guid based keys for anticheat systems.
3. Dedicated Linux based server files with built in GUI server controller so that price of hosting is not as ridiculous as today

Oleg, you have to really push these, this time around.

Agree.

In this case i don´t know what you are referring to. It would be nice if you explain a little more this because honestly i got curious.


Even if this is something i don´t use, i think its a great idea, because it will allow to squadron lower their expenses on hosting servers.

S!

Thank you for the input Oleg, very much appreciated. Sure graphics are a selling factor, but when talking about Your & the team's sims people already know there is much more than just graphics ;) Graphics should not be the only point why people buy a sim, but how it perfroms, accuracy of modeling, mission environment(configuration & tools for making more), technical support, compatability issues etc. I am maybe "oldskool" here, but I do not mind lesser graphics at all. More a fan of balance between graphics and performance even my rig is frequently updated to meet today's requirements. Eagerly waiting for SoW, no doubt about that.:mrgreen:

Oleg your work so far is exellent!

graphics push gameplay and vice-versa, that is the evolution of gaming. Like was said, in this age there is expected to be both and in-fact you can't have one without the other, it's much more than "eye candy", it's turning a simulation into an experience. I for one stopped playing Il2 about a year and a half ago, it's simply too dated now compared to the quality if game I'm used to playing, but I am also a retro gamer so one day years from now I will pick it up again for some nostalgia.

How does that work?

I agree 100%!

Up to date graphics are very important, cause that's the first thing that pulls the player into the world / scenario the game presents. Of course once your "there" the gameplay has to be just as good for the imersion to be complete.

For the `There is to much shaking guys`

In my experience, I flew with Ju 52 and an An 2, the shaking is just right, if not too less. As far as I remember the was a lot of movement of the plane due to the engine.
Here is a short video of me as a passenger in the An 2, during the Hahnweide 2009. I think you can clearly see how the plane is shaking on the ground and in the air, alltough the pilot didnt nearly fly manoeuvres like shown in the SOW video.

http://vimeo.com/6454534

Ha ha, you must be fun up there...fear was too strong of a word to use, maybe "concerned" would fit better in my case. After all its a long way down, fast:grin:

A slow flying plane shake more than high speed flying plane. Also the plane typ is a factor (heavy or light) e.t.c.

Video was great!! :)

I would like to add a detail I noticed: in the spitfire video, one can see the SHADOWS of the BOLTS lining the inside of the canopy frame, being cast inside the cockpit. How hardcore is that? :) I feel the urge for SLI graphics cards more and more...

I agree the gameplay has to be improved, but just because we are seeing some great graphics doesn't mean that gameplay has been abandoned. Unfortunately screenshots can't show gameplay. Personally graphics are very important to me, as no matter how good the gameplay is, I never get into it, if the graphics are an immersion killer.

Sounds to me like you know exactly what needs to be done for SOW.

From the brief video clip shown of the Spitfire, the lighting effects are outstanding as is the interior modeling.

Looking outside of the cockpit, the flare off the sea looks fantastic, as do the clouds in the distance.

Regarding the clouds and atmospheric effects, do you expect there to be columns of smoke rising from burning cities that reach and extend through cloud level?

Will it be possible to have smoke drifting over the landscape at ground level?

Lastly, can the weather effects simulate thick ground fog so that it is almost impossible to see the end of the runway?

Thanks, and really looking forward to this being released one day, cheers, MP.

I think it's great. "the Shadow"? Do you mean the underwater screw things of the boat? It looks nice.

The problem is not the shaking. It's the visual representation of shaking that we only feel with our bodies. Since it's a computer game, all our input is visual.

1) Keep the shaking as is to make up for the lack of tactile and inner-ear input.

2) Tone down the shaking to make the sim look visually accurate.

Totally agree. I would go for option 2, since (although it might incorrect in strictly visual sense) this provides important information that a pilot would otherwise receive by feeling the physics. I think the present compromise (shaking visual and yet still focused view of the recticle) actually quite balanced and well thought.

Please check your PM.

I went out flying again to see exactly how turbulence looks like from a light plane - hey anything for research :)

It's quite smooth flying in the winter so it took a while to find turbulent air. Wasn't too bumpy but I noticed that at times there was enough shaking to make reading the instrument panel difficult but at the same time if I looked outside, it wasn't difficult to focus on any particular spot.

Looking at the spitfire video again, it seems to be similar in the respect that the view outside isn't as bumpy as the interior. Of course that also has to do with the proximity of the cockpit to the pilot but I think it's closer to reality than I thought previously. I guess while flying I'm mostly looking out and don't notice the shaky interior except when I'm consciously trying to read the instruments.

cheers!

I think he meant the steering wheel's shadow.

I hope that shaking will be included in an improved force feedback engine

Well said, 100% agree.

The first SoW video ir really outstanding! Bravo!

You really don't feel much from the controls when its turbulent

In IL2 its enough how the turbulences feel with the G940

I just hope despite the turbulence flame war, 1C will still post another video next time.

Yea and people wonder why OM is reluctant to post wip stuff :)

On a side note I wonder if there will be a demo disc release for SoW as there was with Il2 Shturmovik

It's an interesting topic for discussion and just because a lot of people are participation in it doesn't make it a flame war. It wouldn't be an interesting discussion group if everyone agreed with everything. I do agree discussions and critiques should be done in a civil manner and I think that's been (mostly) the case so far.

cheers

You think so ?

Do you really think Oleg comes here to hear how great you think he is ?

I mean really ???


He wants FEEDBACK. Good feedback .... even if sometimes he doesn't like it/ or in my case the person giving it.

Oleg or Ilya, could you possibly tell us yet whether you have any inkling of the specifications for the engine regarding 3rd party 3D objects (polycounts, texture size, formats, etc.)? I imagine that would be useful information to bear in mind for a number of people. Will there be import/export tools released with the game or will that be postponed until a while afterwards? Will you provide a guide at some point for the guidelines to creating 3D objects or will you leave the process to trial and error like many game developers do? I realise these are questions that aren't particularly important at the moment, but I'm just curious to be honest, since this is your first foray into making an openly moddable game. :) I very much appreciated your earlier explanations about 3rd party content being outside the officially sanctioned "locked set" of objects and the ability of users to edit FMs etc. without compromising online play and was just wondering whether you'd care to expand upon them slightly with some ballpark figures.

It appears that I have been misunderstood. Evidently my prose needs improvement.

I wrote:

That is; the total movement is too small, I've occasionally bumped my head on the canopy due to not tightening the harness sufficiently.

The shaking shown is too rapid, it should be spaced out more.

I also agree with some of the statements made here, for instance:

Very true, the most you will get from the stick is some pre-stall vibration and the tightening of the controls as speed increases. Turbulence is felt through your backside (or your head, in my case).

In regard to FFB I'd be more interested in the real characteristics of the aircraft, like the spitfire's reversal of stick force gradient as one approaches the stall, the heavy force needed on the rudder to keep the 109 in balance at cruise speed.

Have to reply to this though:

100% wrong as it happens, though I'll admit that I haven't done it in a Spitfire yet.

W.

The shaking I see in the video clip seem accurate, but only if you where holding the camera in your hand as you filmed. Usually the personal experience (and memories) of the cameraman is very different from what we later see on the film. In times of stress the mind & body compensate for things that might impede our performance. Human vision doesn't work the same as what we see on film...in real life our eyes dart back and forth, and we focus our attention on a small details (like a temp gauge), we blink and scan the horizon. The mind filters out distracting information as best it can.

Just as "IL2's" field of vision is an approximation of a humans "field of view", we need to approximately represent the shaking of the aeroplane and its occupant. When we drive the human eye darts back and forth focusing on many small details (all the time adjusting for changes in "depth of field" and posture), but the brain puts all this information together into a single big picture. The in-game image is equally rich in detail from the center of the screen to the edge...also the "depth of field" sharp from up-close to far away. The game represents the world in this way so that "we" as the player can immerse ourselves in the world of the game.

So the real question is NOT whether or not the shaking in the video clip is technically accurate, BUT the question is how do we want the shaking of airplane and pilot to be represented in the game...


p.s Its 4 AM here and I'm getting a bit blurry (lol)...I hope my ideas are easy to read.

Back in the old days their where many interesting discussions at the "ubi zoo" about the "field of view" and the "depth of field" issues. I assume that Oleg still has the same opinions. :)

Someone should maybe take one of these up with them when they fly. :)

That device helps only to decrease unintentional camera movements induced by operator. In other words it is for people with shaking hands and not for environments in which whole operator (or just camera) is shaken by some other external force.

Hmmm, for some reason that very sensible observation escaped me when I posted that. :oops: Oh well, good website anyway.

Good post Proton.

I thought I might add a comment or two about the shaking in the video which seems to be creating a bit of controversy.

I think both sides of the argument have valid points.

There is bound to be a lot of shaking and vibration in any warbird with those massive brutes of engines along with aerobatic maneuvers in turbulent air ( although sadly I've not been lucky enough to experience that for real ) .

On the other hand the human brain does an amazing job at filtering out and editing what we see from what our eyes actually see.

The point I noticed though, was that in the video even when there was quite a bit of shaking going on, the gunsight didn't seem to be shaking all that much. I reckon I could still have been able to line up the sight on a target even through all that buffeting . I'm not saying I would've been able to hit anything LOL, but the sight wasn't bouncing about that much that you couldn't look though it.
Run the video again but concentrate on the crosshairs to see what I mean. The sight does disappear a few times but that seems to be more like the pilots head moving due to pulling G's than due to shaking.

Another point is that right at the end of the video the engine rpm drops. Has the engine shut down ? Was a lot of the vibration coming from the ( rough running ? ) engine rather than turbulence ?

Just adding my tuppence worth.

You know that the cross hairs are a reflected image right? Here's a German Revi site

http://s158.photobucket.com/albums/t...Revi-Bf109.flv

Hello Oleg and your team.

Today we are Friday..so I suppose we will get soon a new video :))

Today we are still Thursday. I suppose you will soon get accurate calendar :))

I don't think there are any timezones that run at GMT - 20 or so, but if I'm wrong, I apologise...

Its Thursday
8:37 (GMT +1)

Turn off your speed hack :)

Come on guys! It was worth the shot! I can't wait either!!! :grin:

But seriously, I'm really curious what the update is going to be tomorrow. Assuming they keep up the weekly friday updates (Not tryin' to push the devs here!)

My calendar always shows Friday :grin:

A video with sound or low level flight maybe!

Then "Friday 2010-01-29 Screenshots AND Discussion Thread" will go over 50 pages!!

Maybe a hundred :grin:

I'd keep it as it is. It gives a nice feeling. Just notice, that it's not shaking at the beginning, just after he Split-Ses, the turbulences come visible. And that weather does look bad, so I excpect quite some turbulences. Still one should notice that the reticle does barely shake, so the plane is not jerking around.

The best thing would be if people could change the intensity of head shaking on a scale from 0 to 1 in conf.ini. 0 is no shake, 1 = like video. It shouldn't be in difficulty settings, as it's a matter of personal preference. No shaking wouldn't make it easier, rather harder (no stall buffeting etc).

I think you're right - this should definitely be an option that is not tied to difficulty settings - I am not one of those people, but many people experience really bad feelings of nausea in games where head-bob is modeled too strongly, for example. I've heard of people being completely unable to play games they were really anticipating because of it.
I do remember feeling a bit queasy at first when I played S.T.A.L.K.E.R. with head-bob enabled.

I think so, too.

I hope they just keep those options, like they were/are in Il-2. As far as I remember, there were difficulty settings and the game applied the realism settings accordingly, but the player was still able to customize every single setting individually.

For example I liked the flight model to be set as realistic as possible, but I didn't care for the complex engine management, so I disabled that. I'm pretty sure there was also a switch for the headshake, which I had disabled as well.

So, I'm confident Oleg will keep those options available to the player, like they were in Il-2. Would work for me!

Well, if it was like that it would mean that people who aren't too hot on camera-bobbing would find it a bit uncomfortable to join online games where it was set on in the difficulty options. I think having it as an option in the graphics settings would be the best bet. :)

I didn't think about online gaming! You're absolutely right!

You guys realize you're nit picking a very early version of the game right?

Tomorrow's update?

Announcement and roll out of BoB's website. ;) A photo gallery of aircraft in battle, the white cliffs of Dover, and a few pics of London.


Hey. If you're gonna be a bear. Be a grizzly. It would be nice to get one of these. A web site announcement would be very welcome to me.

Well today is friday :lol: , waiting for the update ^.^

OM posted some new screenshots today!

http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/spitfire-IIA.jpg

Just look at the detail!

In my opinion, today's update:

- downloadable SoW demo
- SoW's final release date
- patch 4.10 for 1946 with flyable Dornier Do17 & Do217, He177 Greif, FW200 Condor, Reggiane Re.2001 & Re.2005, Fiat G.55, Piaggio P108, Cant Z.1007, Lancaster, Short Stirling, Wellington and a couple of others as a bonus

Am I raising too much the bar ??? :D

Ins

Like I said - Be a GRIZZLY!

TGI Friday's :)

Looks a bit 'grainy', the aircraft is too shiny, and the clouds are rubbish. Sub-il2 quality really.

:grin: ;)

If people manage to choose less head-bobbing then that option should also limit the view backwards, because it would mean that the pilot was more tightly strapped down... hehe.

Yeah, those clouds are too fuzzy and indistinct! ...and there's no light penetration around the edges! What have they been working on all this time?? :evil:

:cool:

I just watched the clip from the spit's cockpit and that is just WICKED SICK!!! but i am worried about something, the recticle seemed abit pale are we going to have the option to change the contrast during flight?

The nasty compression of the Youtube codec has a tendency to merge any details of low contrast together. This is absolutely part of the reason of why the clouds look like they do.

This video was originally leaked, so it was put it out there for everyone to see.

Doesn't do much good to change a lock when everyone has a key.

All releases are critiqued very close by this community. Why should Oleg release anything and get all the heat over something that isn't finished.

We are fortunate when Oleg makes a release. I'm sure he doesn't like to read all the negative jibe that accompanies every release. :rolleyes:

Constructive criticism is valuable, but whines and complaints are just like sewage water.. who needs it?

That may be true, but I was kind of making a joke about that real photo of the Spitfire, and not the SoW vid...

Think I got a little lost in translation there... ahem. :grin:

Ok guys,

I'm new to this forum, although I have played IL-2 quite a while now. And I just CAN'T WAIT until SOW:BOB is finished!! :grin: Keep up the good work, Oleg!!

Something that sprung in my Eye while reading this forum:
I would like to mention my opinion about the shaking of the head in the Video.
As I'm a real-life pilot (admitting I have never flown something similar to a spitfire ;)) I can understand the point, that the human brain is capable of "smoothening" the picture of the eyes, so that the pilot doesn't really "see" any shakings (except for the instruments, very well done!)

BUT: such vibrations are quite normal. You don't see them - But you definately feel them!! The air is in a permanent movement, and thermals, crosswinds, etc. always shakes your plane a bit. When not constructed carefully, the plane might also show some very unpleasant answers to high speeds or stalls.

Besides, I think a lot of people don't quite get what it feels like flying harsh manouvers with 1200 hp motorized machines in front of them, and having bullets swirring all around them. Imagine the terror of death grisping the pilot's mind, the shaking hands and hysterical movements while only trying to survive!

So, the question is: How can you simulate this?? Because, we still sit in a very comfortable chair in front of a 21' Screen, drinking our coffee.
If you don't visualize such feelings, then the Simulator gets dull and boring. Then it's something like Combat Flight Simulator, only with better graphics, for which we already have WoP.

My suggestion: Leave those shakings as they are, they bring the Sim to life!! In my opinion, they are very well done! And as for all such problems, I strongly suggest putting a slider somewhere under the Options-menu, where the strength of the shaking can be set to individual likes!

I must admit, I haven't read the whole thread, but I saw some contrary oppinions, and I just wanted to add my own oppinion to it... Maybe it all has been said already, then I apologize.

Greetz
Fliegenpilz

IL2 has had longevity partly because of its excellent game play....I hope that SOW has the same...I'd honestly be quite happy if the game was exactly the same just with the new graphic engine....

This gets a bit involved and is off the main topic, but I think this thread has just about ran its course, so I'll post anyway

Drafting was actually responding to this post:

and my response:

where I was trying to 'send up' (caricature) some of the (what I saw as) over the top, nit-picking unreasonableness of some of Oleg's SOW critics, by applying the same nit-picking, unreasonableness to a photo of a REAL Spitfire and real clouds.

The comments were directed at this Spitfire photo and not at Oleg's video.

So, nearmiss, we're both on your side. :)

I haven't been posting that long on these forums, but I've found it's almost comical at times how a quickly 'fired off' post that is meant in a very innocent way is misinterpreted by someone somewhere into something you never actually intended to say (by the way, that's not a dig at those involved in this, more a comment on the general perils of posting)

Guess its because we're such a diverse bunch from different countries, etc. Misunderstandings are bound to happen.

Still, planning to have my next few posts checked out first by a team of international lawyers to ensure no inadvertent offense is caused. :):)

...


http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...2&d=1264172217


Luthier do you mean :


...

Edit: my bad. wrong button! :oops: