Stunning work, Foo'bar! I've always liked you skins, but those trains and buildings are work of art! Is all this for SoW:BoB? If so, just building virtual rail-roads with nice stations will be worth the prize of the game!

I meant this, in case you missed it (the first picture):

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/category/models/3d/ground/

Oleg, my only, humble advice for terrain is: desaturate. I'm quite sure most of the visual problems -at least a good portion of them- related to the looks of ground, are because colors are a bit too saturated. Textures have a neon-ish quality and vibrating brightness that detracts from realism. Just a little bit of desaturation would make miracles to both ground and skins.

If there are any issues with the colour saturation they're minor, maybe you need to calibrate your display?

Er ... no disrespect but one thing i have to remind to all is that .. the Head of the luftwaffe was on regular heroin dosage .... :P

Incredible shots!!

Can i have my game now please uncle Oleg? :)

...and submarines!!!
:-)

As you sit in your dinghy you can watch your plane slowly slipping into the murky waters of the channel...
...and watch transparent waves break the shore.

fantastic update!
i feel the time is very near, to fly north :grin:

I have a question. When the pilots bail over the channel will they have rubber rafts to float in or working life jackets. I notice in IL-2 that none of the German pilots ever had life jackets that worked, neither did the English or Russian pilots only American and Japanese.

All models on that site, beside some few exceptions, have been made exclusively for SoW. Not only BoB but for hole series. Even most of them for later theatres. The Kübelwagen has been made for Red Orchestra and has a internal model wich could be used for SoW - if MG wants to.

...

@Foo'bar

Will "Leopold" be part and operational in SoW game ? :grin:

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-conten...8/12/k5_01.jpg


http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Leo1.jpg
Batterie E.2/725 Calais, Frethun,
Stp. 113 “Uhu”: 2 x 28 cm. K5





Alles ist für die Reichsverteidigung vorbereitet ?


http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/flaktower_1.jpg


...

Interesting question, indeed...I have asked Oleg and his answer was non-committal...I guess that it will be ultimately related to the time left before release and two bottlenecks:

1) Foo'bar's model is I believe not yet complete (but close); everything related to firing platforms is still to be done (but FB will hopefully state his opinion)

2) The dedicated tracks and various firing platform locations have to be transferred to Oleg (I have the data, still need to make a kml file out of this). Note that these special tracks were apparently not used in Dunkerque and Ostende (never found any trace or mention), so because these two towns were important harbors with lot of properly curved industrial railway sidings the guns probably fired directly from the existing tracks and did not use firing platforms (educated guess only, unfortunately).

3) The Dom bunkers and tunnels sheltering the guns have to be located (this is part of the .kml) and modelized, for the bunkers (three of them, all identical).

4) Said tracks and locations must be integrated in the map and because they are not independent from the existing railway system, the latter has to be closely looked-after...and there, things become complicated, because they are marked differences between what is visible on Google earth in 2010 and what was there in 1940....VERY marked differences!
I also have the data, and I am working on the related .kml file as well...but the end result is a maze of tracks on the SoW area which would need to be integrated properly and I do not know what Oleg will do with that.

It is obvious that a proper transportation network (including large landmark steam depots, stations and the very much used - by Germans and population alike - 1 m narrow track network) will bring enormous additional quality to the map, but it would take time, and I suspect there is not a lot of it left! Oleg's call in any case...

Almost all of the BoB German bases were close and often connected to a part of the railway standard and narrow gauge network (in the case of Abbeville, the tracks run across one of the dispersal areas after the base was built in 1941).

Concerning Leopold, the K5 batteries (and more anecdotally the K12) have been a big concern for the RAF which has sent many bombers during BoB and after to try getting them out of use but succeeded (with US help) for two of them only in 1944 at Anzio! Even then the guns themselves were not really damaged but trapped in their hiding place by destroying utterly the tracks leading to them...

One gun was reconstituted in the US out of the two in Italy (sabotaged by the evacuating troops) and still visible in Aberdeen, Maryland. The Germans were later forced to abandon other K5 guns in France of which one is now at the TODT battery museum in northern France very close to their operational positions of 1940...

JV

It's not my part to answer this question ;)

JVM is totally right. K5 model hasn't been finished completely due to other more important models and lack of proper internal mechanic references. Beside K5 cannon there are many things required like turntabele, dome bunker, railroad infra structure etc.

Foobar, do you have a copy of the game?! ;)

If you have one, can you please send me a copy of it, I wont tell anyone I promise;):grin:

Here are a few questions that aren't related to what type of grass will be present or what brand of cigarettes that the pilots will be smoking whilst waiting for the perfectly modeled air alarm to go off. Please bare (?) in mind that I haven't read every single SoW article/interview allthough I have followed the Il-2 series since Oleg and team did updates on that non-ubi forum back in 2000. I'm not the slightest bit worried about DM and physics, Oleg & Co, you've got it nailed for sure. I'd like to focus on the game part of the sim, namely the campaigns. For me -personally- a textbox repeating the same dull, generic missions (realistic as dull missions may be) are real immersion breakers no matter how realistic everything else is.

1. Will there be some kind of RPG elements (no, not leveling up or anything like that), like fatigue, injuries, morale for your pilot(s)?

2. Can you re-arm/fuel during missions?

3. Will you be able to fly the same plane from mission to mission, absorbing damage, get killmarks, repair etc?

4. Is there any form of strategic elements incorporated, like if I bomb a certain factory it won't be able to continue production.

I have a feeling that these questions won't be answered because most of above mentioned features won't be in the final product. It's not a deal breaker but for me realism is just as important as having fun :grin:

Love your Darkest Hour stuff too. Some of the maps I have seen, some not.
I play allot of Darkest Hour too, which just had a release.

Sh*t! Again!

Could you please specify this statement.

I think it's a repercussion of being off nappies too soon. Alien, wear them for another month, and then maybe this won't happen :-P

I mean my question from 21. site was ignored AGAIN

...


I guess so ! Great job anyway Foo'bar. 8-)




JV, Thanks for the details about the E5 Eisenbahngeschutze.



The turntable;
Vögele Drehscheibe in modell.

http://www.joefix-studio.be/voorbeelden/301.jpg


http://www.jadar.com.pl/5star/72009/...rntable_06.jpg


And the Dombunker.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ch%C3%BCtz.jpg

...

If you mean the question you asked about 'metal bending', no Oleg Maddox hasn't answered it. There have been many questions asked about SoW:BoB. Some he chooses to answer, some he doesn't. Most games developers don't disclose anything like the amount of detail about projects they are working on as he does. Personally I'm grateful to see what he does tell us.

Nice models!

For your curiosity, Rodolphe, have a look there: 50.945894 N 1.795834 E

This is the last one still identifiable...

JV

I think it is an impossible question to answer, that is why he didn't answer it.

If you want a piece of metal to bend, then I think it has to be modelled as bent
(or if you wanted to see it gradually bend - you would have to model each individual degree of the bend).

The propellers are bent in damage WiPs, but they are modelled that way.

I think it is impossible to make a 3D model that will bend, but I'm not an expert, nor even an amateur 3D modeller;
just an amateur forum contributor.
Maybe someone who does 3D modelling can tell you - Foo'bar? Saxon?

Bent propellers and flaps:

http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/Vel...n_damage06.jpg

Never seen any software that did actual real time object deformation in that way. Virtually all games use tricks to change out one object for another that shows damage.

It is possible to bent objects visually in real time, no problem. One would need to create so called "bones", each bone - is unbendable virtual object, to which vertexes from visual 3D object are assigned. Each vertex may be assigned to several different bones. While bones may be connected to each other under certain law. Move a bone - and attached to that bone vertexes will shift, visually bending the surface. Theoretically, one may create a set of bones for each structural element of airframe and bent it in any way he wants. The more bones - the more resources they eat, offcourse.

But from physical point of view (i.e. FM-wise), it hardly would have any sense. Or, to make it have sense, one would split physical model to the same number of fragments, as the number of bones in visual model and calculate all physics (aerodynamics, strength, etc.) for each of them. Which again quickly consumes calculation power of the computer. So, basically, such fidelity is far more then redundant for a game.

It is enough to have physical model split to a several dozens of fragments, for which the DM/FM calculated and respective to them visual parts with several state of "pre-modeled" damage, like you see on screenshot.

In any case the propeller will bend only on contact with ground/water, and it happens very fast (I saw it myself, more than once in real time), so fast that a two state modelling will simulate it well enough.
Fine tuning would be to add a model with only one blade bent, and a model with two blades bent (if 3 blades or more) to account for landings with a stopped engine.
Also the bent shape will not be the same for a fully solid propeller and a hollow core propeller; to finish wooden blade propeller and plastic propeller blades disintegrate but do not bend (no surprise there!)...

JV

This is true for an explossion, or brake apart damage.

What for? It is enough to make each blade a separate damageable object and change state for only damaged blades (damaged in physical model), leaving the other ones intact.

Since visual damage is pre-modeled by designers, it's up to them, to learn what the blades (or any other AC parts) were made of and model damage according to the material and damage conditions.

You should understand, that visual damage and physical damage are like two different worlds, with the later being actually invisible to a player, while the first one serves as visual representation of it.

Oh, I understand...but visibly some modellers were not completely aware of the finer details of the structure of what they were modelling...and Damage Modelling is an art which goes far beyond 3D modelling...a bit closer to aeronautical engineer, maybe?

To my knowledge, on all SoW:BoB models visual damage is modeled respectively to the materials the damaged parts were made of in RL and to their physical properties. Besides, some of the 1C modelers are former aviation industry engineers with experience in airframe design and material strength. So, they know very well, how materials in general and airframes of different design in particular behave/look like under damage.

So, here I wouldn't worry. Within the general game limitations the visual damage will be modeled as close, as possible to the RL and, certainly, will depict the physical damage modeling with the highest possible fidelity.

Several very nice improvements

Trees are placed next to the edges of the roads and streams.

This is so much an improvement over Il2.

Will ground vehicles be able to travel over countryside, passing around obstructions?

Can boats travel up and down waterways?

Is artillery now able to shoot over hills and obstructions?

Is artillery shooting distance comparable to actual distance?

Remember the antennas of the armored vehicles Oleg has shown us recently. They bend actually.

Doesn't RoF incorporate some bending features....?

Yep, but thats actually a reasonably simple calculation. It's not the same thing as actually calculating what happens to metal part which has some force applied to it until it is permanently deformed. This is done in engineering using FEA (finite element analysis). Even a relatively simple part with a single force applied cannot be done in real time.
A propeller turning and having repeated dynamic forces applied to it as it turns and hits the ground is something I would imagine taking hours if not days to calculate with any realism.
There is no way the bending is calculated in real time.
I would guess there are a number of pre-defined deformed models which are selected based on the speed and angle of collision.

I have to laugh.

ROF doesn't even get crashes modeled correctly, in the least.

And now with neoqb being forced out in favor of takeover by 777 Studios, I believe that ROF is in it's last days.

Why would you say that, ElAurens?

I understand 777 Studios is quite dedicated to the aerial simulation world (didn't they have one of their own in development?) and maybe it was Neoqb which was unable to pursue the development for some reason and in this case that a chance for RoF to continue?
I am just asking, I do not know the answer...

JV

Fair enough, sorry my ignorance annoys you.

stunning! :-)

Dont worry .ed , its not your fault your not in the elitest nobhead club , I think they go by the code name "senior member" , Im thinking of talking down to somone next week , that should be enough to get me in dont you think...?:rolleyes:

Ps , Whats happend to your avatar on the forums with no names , I was enjoying chopping the fingers off Mr Winstoned.

Haha, needed that mate :cool:

I'll do it this afternoon! :grin:

It´s just your own opinion.
To me, the crashes are accurate enough for a light wooden and canvas aircraft.
I don´t expect that such aircraft explode in a million of parts crashing and the photos I have seen shows more intact aircraft
( if it doesn´t catch fire,of course ) after crashes that more modern, metal built aircraft.
ROF is in good hands with 777 studios.

I agree! And the machine-gun shot cannot bend a wooden longeron. :)

not really, in most crashes there is just a very simplified "canned" damage model implemented that doesnt take the actual physical forces into account working on the airframe.

a good example of this is flying an aircraft from 4000 m altitude straight into the ground at maximum speed (or plummeting to earth after having its wings shot off at that same altitude). in RoF the aircraft will hit the ground, bounce a couple of times, and come to rest with a wing or few other things broken. it looks no different then an aircraft that crashed from 20 meters, yet it should completely disintegrate with its engine half buried into the ground when it plunges down from 4000 meters at full speed.


many historical pictures from crashed aircraft in ww-1 with the aircraft being fairly intact would have been lower speed crashes and from lower altitudes, there are plenty of pictures showing disintegrated aircraft when the crash was more severe.

other then a low speed crash in RoF, crashes and physical forces working on the aircraft frame are fairly poorly modeled. enough for some eye candy, just not very realistic

some of those things oleg has commented on in the past, iirc ....

pilot fatigue, and pilot "experience" will be modeled (one squad will have pilots of different skill level for ex)

yes, after repeated requests over the years this has now been implemented. hopefully also this will include some minor repairs to (no specific info on that yet afaik)

yes, same aircraft can be used, and it will get "weathered" and worn in the process (partic engine wear and external airplane cosmetic weathering afaik), so if you treat your engine badly in some flights it can have effects later (not sure if this will be "repaired" if your aircraft stays on the ground, but for quick refueling and rearming flights this does come into it).

re killmarks, oleg mentioned "working on it" but i think there was some minor issues to be resolved, might not be implemented by game release time. might also have been to complex to implement right now for some specific technical reason.

there might be, oleg has been asked repeated questions on that same topic. for ex, if bombing roads and bridges leading to an airbase or forward troops, will it affect their fighting ability after a while ? or if you keep bombing the fuel supply and repair hangers of an airfield does it prevent that airfield from being active in resupplying aircraft that land there ? no certain answer yet.... but...

from olegs mixed and guarded answers about this he obviously is thinking in that direction (again maybe not fully implemented by release time ?). for ex he has already stated that the AA installations in BoB work by integrating various sub-components, like spot lights, radar towers, and the AA gun itself (and even using different munition types, with munition boxes emptying when firing). if you destroy one element of the whole installation, for ex a spot light it makes the AA gun less efficient, and if you destroy the radar device the AA gun will only fire on visible targets but not anymore as part of a coordinated AA screens etc

i am just going by general memory on this, hopefully oleg or saqson can comment more specifically on how it will work

i fully agree that some of those elements are some of the most interesting developments, and it is what will get people hooked in a big way since their individual actions can have specific effects. (but not enough to affect the outcome of the war in a dynamic campaign server, according to oleg)

Big thanks zapatista!:) Didn't think I would get any anwsers since most posts are about how well modeled the seagulls cloac will be. Wow! Nice to see those features being implemented, now I'm out of questions and eagerly await the release date ;)

did you play ROF ? I don't say physical forces are calculated to affect the damage model accordingly... but it's not as bad as you say

from 4000m straight into the ground isn't possible without loosing your wings, so yes, you don't "burry your engine in the ground", but i'm pretty sure we are years away from a sim where impacts will realistically deform the ground...

so you hit the ground at maximum speed ? you know its around 250km/h for the fastest planes right ? even an I-16 can go almost twice that speed ! some WW2 planes can land at the max speed of a late WW1 plane... so why should it instantly be desintegrated ?

Because here's what happens to a steel car, which crashes into a wall at 100 km/h:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukq-UUQAcZs

So, why a wood&fabric plane would bounce off the ground after hitting it with the same speed? :roll:

Thank you SaQSoN, my point entirely. As I recall even Oleg commented on the poor DM in RoF.

There is a lot more to an air combat simulation than pretty 3D models and a small cadre of blinkerd fan boys who are so desperate for anything that they will overlook basic, and show stopping, problems.

Now, let's get back on SoW matters, shall we?

OK, so that's one wrong thing about the DM in RoF, but in many respects it has aspects I've seen that trump anything on the market at the moment. ;)

hey i didn't say the DM in ROF was perfect... just that it wasn't as bad as zapatista said
and i've never seen a plane "bounce" in ROF, except if you arrive on your landing gears, and in that case its pretty normal to bounce

with a frontal shock like in your vid, i agree the plane isn't damaged enough in ROF... but imho i like the way it's done you don't bounce, the plane is still damaged beyond repair, and it explodes half the time...
(plus your steel half-truck must have had more kinetic force then a wood and fabric plane (i think... maybe :rolleyes:))

I don't understand why anyone would take a WWI stringbag and fly it into the ground at max speed from 4000 meters. I guess the developers didn't have that in mind when creating the damage model. A WWI era biplane hitting the ground at 100 km/h is not going to react in the same way as a truck hitting the ground at the same speed.

Otherwise, their system is really not bad, and seems at least as good as Il-2's. 99% of the time, wood and fabric planes will crumple, rather than disintegrate.

http://www.maxair2air.com/WEB%20MEDI...ne-crash-5.jpg

http://www.maxair2air.com/WEB%20MEDI...ne-crash-2.jpg

http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/diaries/images/crash1.jpg

http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/diaries/images/crash2.jpg

http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/diaries/images/crash4.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqfom...aynext_from=QL

This shows fatal accident so beware:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuXMX...eature=related

God you know I hope so. I can finally get some sleep. :grin: No one was taken over and no one was forced out. Just a friendly merger. Development continues as planned. Thanks for the vote of confidence El Aurens.

Jason

There is no way to model every part breaking exactly as it would in real life as that would crush your processor. Otherwise you'd have a damage simulator. ROF's damage model is very good and it is progressive in nature and it does a great job of makes shootdowns interesting, fun and pretty convincing.

People predicting doom for ROF is nothing new. We've learned to live with it. :-(

SOW will be awesome I am sure.

Jason

I have to laugh at your spiteful hate campaign against ROF, El. :) Just to make it clear, ROF is a Flight Simulator, maybe you are looking for another title. 'Rise of the Crash Test Dummies', perhaps? Show us your vast library of photographs with WWI aircraft buried nose first 4ft in the ground please? Most photographs you will find they are a crumpled heap, some more disintegration is in evidence.

This of course is a real 'deal breaker' in a combat sim, as we all immediately switch to an external view to watch our foe crash when in the middle of a furball don't we? Does wonders for SA. There are actually some very impressive ROF crashes if one bothers to look for them on youtube, not saying they are perfect as they should be, but its a very minor, tertiary and inconsequential 'gripe', if you can even call it that. We don't see planes disintegrate into a million pieces. Lawks, the sim is doomed.

As to the comments about diving full speed from 4000 metres, err the plane will disintegrate well before that when exceeding its Vne, as in real life........so a wee bit irrelevant.

El has been saying that 'Rise of Flight' is 'in its last days' since roughly, lets say......3 days into its release? 1 year on it is unrecognisable from its earlier (lets face it Beta) state and vastly improved. I would take what he says with a pinch of salt, as he actually knows very little about WWI aircraft (not that I'm a world authority myself mind, still learning), as evidenced by his slightly less than illuminating contributions over on SimHq.

Yes, Oleg criticised elements of the DM on initial release (as did I in the same thread, before Oleg did. He also praised its simulation of physics and was overall positive about it. It is much better a little over a year on.

El, you don't like ROF, its not for you. Ok, we get it and you are of course entitled to your opinion. Fine and dandy, but I don't understand what you 'get' from constantly and spitefully bashing it? Call yourself a flight sim fan? Yeah, right......try to bury the only WWI sim there is likely to be for some time.

There are sims I don't like, but I don't go around bashing them constantly, what purpose would it serve? Why would I want to do that? Maybe El should ask himself that same question. If he says 'I care about standards' I will fall of my chair laughing, because his constructive criticism of ROF was negligible if not non existent.

Get over it El, nothing personal but it is beyond me why you do this. ROF is in my opinion now an excellent (not perfect) sim.....I would recommend it to anyone interested in WWI aviation. The 'feel' of flight surpasses anything out there by a country mile. Still a ways to go......(2 seaters coming up and revamped career mode amongst other things).

Had some great fun playing it and yes still very much looking forward to SOW, room for both in the world.....they are not in competition.

Oh and I fly as 'Biggles07' if anyone wants to shoot me down in flames online, I wont take it personally. :D

Peace be with you all. :grin:

Well .ed , I think the nobs have been nabed , dont you:!:

Nice images Oleg,
at the end,if we compose them all together and play them like a film we might have a demo of the game at last...:)))

S!

I play RoF for different reasons than IL-2. RoF makes you FEEL you are there, graphics are very nice, the FM is convincing, DM is nice and the sim has evolved a lot with patches. And it is the damn best WW1 sim out there at the moment, hands down. And with an engine that could be used for a lot more ;)

IL-2 DM is old, riddled with bugs and simplified in many ways. Our crashes in it are an effect and frankly, if you crash = game over and press refly. SoW will have more fidelity in many ways so maybe we can see more different crashes than just a fireball and flying pieces.

Oh dear.

People having competitions flying bombers inverted under bridges in IL2 was bad enough.

Flying upside down through railway tunnels is going to get silly :D

The reason he is bashing RoF in this perticullar case, i think, is because people uses RoF as an example of how to do things, wich in manys opinion is, a bad example.

A year into RoF release iv learned NOT to say anything bad about it, because u WILL be hunted down, wherever u are. (A main reason why i stay as far away as possible from RoF at this point)
In my opinion RoF is a broken sim, granted, if u like just flying arround doing pretty much nothing ist ok but concidering its 5-10 years newer than any competition it doesnt surpasses anything, it fairs well (mainly in the grphics department ) nothing more.

And im quite sure Oleg WONT be looking at RoF for pointers in how to create SoW.

There are many things i dont like about RoF, a development team comming from IL2 succesully missing to implement even 1 good thing from theire experiance (empty SP/MP, Team Death Mach, Capture The Flag.....wth??) is one and a development team not beeing financially backed up from the get go just doesnt instill confidance, is one, beeing told on variouse forums that there is nothing wrong with RoF, youre the one whose broken, is another.

Could we just agree not to bring RoF into the SoW debate, RoF has nothing SoW wants. (That is really not an attempt at an insult, its just the way it is)

I can understand that many who like RoF think it gets treated unfair, but so what, just leave it be and enjoy your game. Exept the fact that there are many who wholhartedly dissagrees with u. ;)


P.S. The giddyness of getting a windstock implemented in the game, whats up with that?


Edit: As for bending on impact, im not an expert either but a solid object (what ever its made of) doesnt stay in on piece and bounce (RoF) if plowed strait into the ground a 200 mph, it just doesnt.

When you have aircraft that tip over if you have a 15mph crosswind component and no differential braking to turn and no ground handlers to hold your wing tips and tails, knowning the wind direction for ground handling purposes is quite important.


I own Rise of flight, and I think there is a lot to like about it. But I haven't quite got into it as much as IL-2, and I'm still learning the ropes. Unfortunately there is only so much time and I'm still enjoying IL-2 too much too spend the time in ROF to get good at it.

Cheers!

Hi Baron.

im quite sure Oleg WONT be looking at RoF for pointers in how to create SoW.

Couldn't agree more. When did I say he would, or should? I think he knows what he is doing. :)

Could we just agree not to bring RoF into the SoW debate,

Yes we can, and I didn't. I was responding to someone who did.

The giddyness of getting a windstock implemented in the game, whats up with that?

The windsocks work in game. Maybe time to look again. They blow whichever way the cold wind a' blows. They wiggle like wee little stripey worms. :grin: There may be a bug when they sometimes don't work in career mode or something, don't recall. But they are now functional for sure.

Baron, its not your thing and I can dig that lol.....Its ok. Not your cup of tea and no harm done. It is most certainly not broken however, sorry. Things to do yes, broken no.

The only reason I'll be 'hunting you down' is if you're the b*stard who sold me that Ford Mondeo 6 years ago. You probably aren't......so fear not. :grin:

Now, back to SOW! :)

Agree, broken is the wrong wording, incomplete is better (in my case)


Didnt mean to bring further critiques to RoF, it was my opinion and really didnt surve a purpose in this threadh.( exept for the impact thingy)


And rgr on the windstock, couldnt gett the "woha" over it since i never had problems landing without it in the first place. :)


Like u said, back to SoW :)


P.S. Wasnt me, but i do have a Ford Curier that wont let me use the 5:th gear :( :)

KaHzMod, it makes me think you are a bit dazzled by the eye candy in RoF (and for a 2009 sim it indeed looks good at first glance), but from what you have said so far i doubt you have done much critical observations in RoF to compare it to how in real life you expect physical forces to work on an airframe of very limited strenght.

just try it, take your favored ride in RoF up to say 1500m (since taking it to 4000 m seems a traumatic concept to the RoF cheersquad here), then point the nose to the ground and keep max power on, dont get distracted if a few bits fall of your aircraft on the way down and just keep going in a vertical accelerated dive. under best circumstances with a ww1 aircraft you should be able to reach almost 100 mph.

then watch on external cam what happens to your aircraft in RoF when you plough straight into the ground, you will observe it will hit its nose to the ground, then the aircraft will bounce a couple of times, and some bits will fall of and it will break a wing or even crack the fuselage somewhere. in fact it looks little different from the crash sequence modelled by a RoF plane crashing from 20 or 30 m altitude. that is simply NOT realistic, with the high speed crash from a great height from 1000m + it should go SPLAT and disintegrate into a tangled mess, and yes some bits might still resemble an aircraft component (like part of the tail section maybe, some wing sections or the engine block itself), but the rest should be a barely recognizable mangled mess with lots of broken bits lying around and the engine half buried into the ground.

that limited realism might be fine for a sim from 1990, but not very realistic for a sim in 2009/2010 that makes claims of being uber real (and as it turns out following its long anticipated release, once people looked closer at it RoF does not use pure physics modeling of forces working on the airframe, be this air currents or the structural aircraft encountering another physical object like tree, ground, or other aircraft)

i do have much higher hopes for BoB ! given the extensive structural damage being modeled in some of the recent screen shots, i suspect crashes will be much more realistic to.

afaik the pictures you posted there are from low altitude or lower speed crashes, and yes under those circumstances the aircraft will crumple a bit, bend, break a wing or so and thats about all the excitement you get. other then finding the RoF modeling of this a bit simplistic, it doesnt look to bad and keeps the crowd happy.

pretending the same result happens with a ww-1 aircraft going into the ground at 140 km/hr is just delusional, and shows how irrational its fanbase is in ignoring some major problems in that sim

you'd hope so wouldnt you :) RoF is a 2009 sim and you are comparing it to a ten year old il2 sim, of course RoF should look better. my point is simply that RoF models physical force interacting in a crash only in a very limited way, and that the bouncing aircraft hitting the dirt at 140 km/hr is a good example of this.

the 2 video clips you posted are a good example, both are relatively low speed low altitude crashes, and thats what they all look like in RoF, no matter how great the altitude or speed the crashing aircraft has

Wow, what are all these ladies arguing about? Damage to WWI planes and the like, in a forum not even devoted to that game? Anyway who cares about the damage on crashing - I'm more concerned about the next plane I'm going to shoot down or the next guy who's going to get me.

Get over it ladies as all games are WIP until they are no longer supported.

I guess the update is nice but I'm sure looking forward to better footage of in-game action. The most exciting video trailer for a game I've ever seen was the La attacking a Ju88 (or He111?) for the original IL2. Class.

Hood

Damage model is a huge component of a flight sim. The wrong damage model will quickly have flight simmers removing the game from their hard drives. That said, I'm sure SOW's damage model will be the most comprehensive in combat flight simming today.

Seeing damaged aircraft staying in the fight will be almost a thing of the past. They will be bailing or immediately looking for an escape route.

Great update this week. Still wondering if the reflections in the flight instruments are dynamic or frozen. When ditching, will it be lights out like Il2 or will you be able to come to a halt and float while you are still in the cockpit?

About the physics expectations. Unless we all start running Crays, it'll always be a compromise between eyecandy and playabillity. Watching a beautifull slightshow gets old quickly.

Even after almost 10 years of Il2 I still think it's pretty close to the real thing. This makes me pretty confident that when SoW comes out it'll be as good as Oleg can make it without bringing the fastest computers on their knees. Come in for landing with too much speed or flare too high and you'll bounce. Relax a bit on the stick and you can still save it. Good enough physics for me.

I got the same feeling when playing the demo for RoF a few months back. So what if they had tone the physics effects down in order to keep the game playable? I did not buy it but that was because of the DRM measures and lack of flyable aircraft. They changed their bussiness model, upped the content and no more online requirements. My preorder for RoF Iron cross is in.
Even if they stop supporting the game I feel that there's enough in the box to make it worth the asking price.

There are so few good combat flightsims out there that I think we should all support them instead of all this negativity.

When in flight that is certainly true. When a plane crashes, it cease to be important. If you are in your plane, the only relevant parameter is whether you survive or not. If your virtual you is killed, it doesn't matter much if it is the left or the right wing that comes off or whether it is the fuel tank or coolant that catches fire.

I am (as you) sure that the flight- and damage models of SOW will be impressive. I am equally sure crashes will be spectacularly animated with dirt and loose bits spraying.

The damage model on FS X seems quite basic, but that sim is fairly popular. You have a point, though.
The most important thing to me is playability, and I'm pretty sure that will be good taken care of by Oleg & team.

Skarphol

: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 :)

S!

Zapatista, if you are believing SoW will have a truly fully dynamic DM in both the forces, materials and the visual department then do not be here whining when it is not. Just a matter of the computing power needed for it and not a single rig any us users here has can model that. Plain and simple. It will model DM for sure but do not expect every crash to be different if the plane comes in at different angles how the parts rip off and how a spar bends etc. A flight sim is not about modelling the crash but the flight ;)

Regarding RoF. Make a better game if it bothers you ;) RoF is the best WW1 sim, did I say World War ONE sim, out there at the moment. It offers fun for me and many others..and no need to be a fanboi ;)

Thanks for posting exactly what I think about this matter Flanker.
Clear,short and precise.
Let's move to another subject.

And that subject being a brand new update :)