i interpreted that oleg statement as meaning BoB visuals would be good enough to be used by the movie industry for documentaries, for ex to illustrate specific aircraft or combat events. the computer programs and grafix used for this in the last few years has been rather rudimentary and looks somewhat primitive. i dont think oleg's BoB is intended for major hollywood movie productions :)

personally i dont like the whole CGI visual effect used in so many movies these days, it always looks very artificial and easy to spot. also gives the impression the producers were to cheap or hurried to "get the real thing". no substitute for creating the right atmosphere with vintage planes,vehicles and ships, and actually have it filmed in the real physical location it is intended to represent

Unfortunately, that ideal is made very difficult by the physical changes to the landscapes over which many of the war's air battles were fought; certainly in Europe at least. Modern buildings, telecommunications towers and, most especially, modern road systems (and reduced railway lines) would make the earthly background to aerial combat quite anachronistically unreal. There is just too much new 'stuff' to ignore.

B

Hi,

I dont wanna open a new thread because of one little question.

Is there a list out there which planes will definately be in SOW BoB?

Exactly. Gettin a minor flame every single time is just like getting the same colour of smoke or a huge flame every single time. It's not only boring, it's also unrealistic. Just look at the youtube video of the modified Corsair, that thing has a constant smoke stream which varies in colour depending on what's burning, plus an intermittent flame stream which turns into a permanent one, then cuts out again when the plane goes inverted and finally gets extinguished as it picks up speed in the dive after the pilot bails out.

That doesn't mean I expect the development team to include a load of painstaking and FPS-costly calculations to do this according to what material is burning on the release version. I'll be perfectly happy if they only have 5 different fire types and 5 smoke types that randomly change from one type to another or cut out under some simple triggers. For example, "if airspeed>400mph then flame=0", simple stuff like that.

Things like fluctuating instrument needles, engines that run on the same power settings and yet they develop different temperatures, fuel consumptions and problems, all it takes is randomizers and we'll get a much more believable experience. This doesn't have to be 100% real, unless we somehow get cray supercomputers to run this, it just has to feel real and make you feel like there's things working under the hood. Later on, when we get more powerful PCs, it's just a case of replacing the random functions with precisely detailed ones that take more things into account. Like i've said in the past, we didn't have water=3 and perfect mode when IL2 was first released but we got it eventually. Show the guys who are coding this a little bit of faith, they've earned it after all these years ;)

I like the screenshots in this update and i think they are good portrayals of "catastrophic damage, GTFO out of the plane" type of fires. Supposing that SoW will have a life as long as IL2 and the fact that it will be open to modding from the start, all we need is provision for certain effects and triggers. I can bet my right thumb that within a week of releasing the 3rd party tools there will be a few hundred modified flame textures for us to pick and choose from, let's not worry about things that will be easily fixed according to our taste. It's like buying a car and basing the decision entirely upon the color of the models that the dealer has in stock, without even considering what's under the hood. Just like this, it's the underlying structure of the game engine that matters most for long term updates and development. I can live with reduced detail in a few things while waiting for stronger PCs to come, as long as the important stuff is there (FM/DM, campaigns, AI, user-friendliness, moddability) and i know the engine has spare room for extra "modules" to be "plugged in" at a later date.

As for the comparison between IL2, SoW and WoP, correct me if i'm wrong but i think that WoP's maps are tiny compared to the ones used in IL2 and SoW. It's no wonder they can cram so much detail into it if they have a similar CPU/GPU to run it on that only has to render 50% the map sizes. When the 3rd party tools come out i bet we could see a BoP-level object density map, it would just probably be that tiny stretch of the channel between Calais and Dover in order to maintain acceptable framerates.

In retrospect, criticism and fancy ideas are always good to have for the long run, but when asking for things to be included on the release version let's at least try to keep it in perspective a bit. We need the dreamers with the wild ideas just as much as we need the totalitarian accuracy nazis and the guys who will compromise for less, so that the new sim will not only have the drive to evolve and improve, but also the revenue stream needed to fund this evolution. Just my friendly 2 cents as usual :cool:

Oleg, Ilya and co. have stated over and over (and over, and over, and over, and...) that they will NOT show the big picture until the final release, for the surprise effect.

What we see on these updates are tiny details - the kind of details that show why this game will be 100 times cooler than anything ever put together before.

I'm pretty sure they've referred to this question of terrain and map specifically as well countless times.

They won't show anything in its full glory. They want you to use your imagination, just to make you think of something "good" and then blow you away with something a bit "HOLY SHIT! *jaw drops*"

If they show everything it won't be fun to wait for friday hitting F5 anymore...

No pressure then.....

Player controlled:

1. Spitfire Mark I
2. Hurricane Mark I
3. Blenheim IV
4. Gladiator II (maybe)
5. Tiger Moth
6. Bf109E-3
7. Bf110 (not sure which version)
8. Ju-88A-1
9. He-111H-2
10. Cr. 42
11. G. 50
12. Br. 20
13. Bonus Su-26 aerobatics plane
14. Ju87B

AI:

RAF

Vickers Wellington
Short Sunderland
Westland Lysander
Bristol Beaufighter
Supermarine Walrus
Avro Autogiro
Boulton Paul Defiant
Avro Anson
Bristol Blenheim IF

Luftwaffe

Do17Z
Do215
Ju52
Ju52 seaplane
Fw200C-1
He59
He115
Bf108B

Good thinking!
 

1C: Maddox Games,


That was a great decision to release images of the seagulls first. They are mostly white and easy to model. It is good to start small and develop more difficult things later.


Good thinking! :grin:

Thank you for considering my endless requests for birds!

"Remember: Birds are everywhere!", but there are some other things that are everywhere, too! :-)

Of course those birds would be a plus, it takes just about as much in math processing to provide flying birds as flying planes.

To those with the super fast (expensive) computer systems the birds probably won't make much difference.

Marginal or not so hot computer systems will have a tough enough time with the higher quality 16 poly graphics.

Then again if birds, sheep, humans or other critters moving all around are to be included there should be a switch to turn them off to save on FPS.

nearmiss,


Yeah, birds would be great, but I am sure that they could be done with little impact on Storm of War frames per second. Remember how the pilots in IL-2 could be reduced in quality with a graphics setting change? This made the pilots have less impact on IL-2.


In Storm of War, I trust that the Maddox Team will make many things available with variances of detail setting. How far this will go, we do not know at this time.

Like many things with all simulation or game developers, features tend to evolve with time. Perhaps a day will come when we can choose the number of extra features, such as setting the number of birds, leaves, dolphins, insects, dust, debris, and so forth generated in the simulation for customization. :mrgreen:

...Just a dreamer's thought.

Maddox Team: Have huge fantasies about your simulation! I hope that you really have fun in developing it. :grin:

Don't forget the flapping wings, aircraft have no flapping wings that are constantly being processed as when birds fly.

Again, I think if birds are in the package they should be switchable.

There are just so many things that would be more exceptional within the SOW.

Ah! Remember that birds are very small compared to aircraft with many features. :-P

Thank you for chatting with me. :)

"Although if we have time I might post something entirely unexpected here mid-week" - Luthier (last week).

I've got my fingers crossed!!

Birds are not eye candy, they are danger. :grin: Look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSqT-w-Zecc . Would be good to have something like this in SoW (no one is saying, that you need that blood on windshield).

Birds
 

Birds would add overhead for little additional realism, in all my time flying I have never seen a bird from an aircraft (except on the ground) They are so small and generally stay very close to the ground.
In real life its hard enough to see another aircraft let alone birds. It makes sense to have only seagulls because of their size.

Yes there is.
If you right click - open in new window - you get the full res. Zoom in on the shots and it is obvious to see.

No there isn't. :)

The birds in that video look really good. I'd love to see something like that in SoW.

I'd just like to see SoW.

Seriously, aren't a lot of us losing sight of the bigger picture? A next gen combat flight simulator with realistic flight models, modd/expandability and a good campaign?

I have to assume some of the requests, such as falling leaves and different bird types, are taking the piss. If you want to pay for fripperies such as these in an addon, fine. But if details like this are causing release delays, I wouldn't want to be an investor in 1C.

With birds and the mocking deer (seriously, they look at you and smile) in X-Plane, there is a bit of a performance hit. And they are a little too common as I took three bird strikes in 10 flights which is statistically REALLY bad luck lol.

I wouldn't want the performance hit that comes with tracking bird's positions and then the graphical representation of flapping wings. I guess it would be cool to be able to switch birds on though.

Also, as good as X-Plane's flight model is, it isn't perfect. Better than any combat sim I have played for sure, but not perfect. Graphics for X-Plane 9 would be TERRIBLY disappointing to what the folks are expecting with SoW. Lakes with sharp corners, no real ground detail, randomized buildings in cities, etc.. Of course, X-Plane covers the whole world (and Mars lol) while SoW will have MUCH smaller maps.

Having said all of that, the only thing that X-Plane is really missing is combat. The flight model is so good that I could live with the graphics if they incorporated a good combat sim. The good news with all of that for companies like 1C is that the owner of X-Plane has no interest, apparently, in producing a combat sim.

So if you want a really good flight sim with a tremendous flight model, check out X-Plane. If you want a really good combat sim...like I do...well, here we are waiting anxiously for SoW. While I enjoy and have learned a lot from flight sims, there is nothing like a good air combat sim :).

I guess my prejudice toward gameplay, damage models, and flight models over graphics comes from my interest in flight sims.

Maybe Laminar and 1C should merge just to make me happy? lol

Splitter

At last, someone with a ton of sense, and these are the members that keep moaning about release dates. Good on yer tagTaken2.

Don’t get your knickers in a twist!
 

Oleg is the man to have both the vision of the next gen flight sim as well as the ability to make a sound economical decision when to quit and publish.
He’s been around long enough.

Keep this tread clean for update discussion only please.
Regards

Viking

Regarding birds, I think modelling them could be simple. They can be placed in an area on the map, and have a small radius in which they fly in. When A/C are flying, the birds will take flight, but when all is calm they just settl on a fixed location in that area. In this way, the game won't be focusing on their moments, and they will only be disturbed when in visual distance of the player ;)

I think it is a possible workaround. I mean, in Bob2 there are birds, but you will never see them really because their size is realistic and their numbers are limited IIRC.

The screenshots are overall decent, I love the burning planes. ++

However, the specular affect on the planes is severely dissappointing, having the same flat-"plastic" look as in IL2, instead of metallic.

With the new technology, and computers moving to the 64bit bandwidth platform, 1c should not be afraid to move to bump-mapping + environment mapping (reflective) for a more authentically "metal" look.

Notice the minute details of the highlights in the planes construction, the shine on the underside of the wing and on the lowered flap. (Even the orange paint on the tail has a good shine to it!)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3128/...52d8927fb5.jpg

Now notice how the plane basically looks flat IL2:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1262/...458c8921ff.jpg

Now look in SoW how well still have the same basic flat look, with what looks like a failed attempt to bump-mapping or a poor version of a bump mapped plane:

(image was too big to leave in a post..)

SoW Screenshot

Producing a properly skinned plane with bump-mapping and environment mapping (even realtime) is not a difficult task these days. You could even generate an environment map for all planes using one render of the environment, say from the players plane position, to a texture, since any plane that will have this reflectivness will need to be within some distance to be noticeable anyway, much too close to notice the lackof diffierence in environment mapping. Even in non-commercial 3D engines such as Irrlicht, this is possible in as few lines as 20, I believe. And second-rendering the environment (not other planes, no ground objects, just ground, water, sky..) should not be a big performance hit either. This second render could then also be used for other things like reflectiveness of the environment off the water.. Not that the water looks bad at all.

However there is probably just too much for these guys to fix to even bother attempting to reproduce that wonderful realistic look that planes have at this point in development. I am just sorely dissappointed they could not address this major peice of the sim as it has plagued the realism in il2 and sorely hampered my willingness to make skins for planes, especially those like the p51 who have had polished metal panels instead of paint.

@Constant. A while a go I saw a SOW Spitfire that looked metalic in one of the older updates. I think reflective bump mapping is supported. Not that it would be usable in the BoB.

What planet are you on mate?? Most early WWII aircraft were supposed to have a flat look. They used non-reflective flat paint containing light scattering particles just for that purpose. I remember reading that the engine will support reflective finishes but there isn't much use for that in the BoB period is there?

I think Oleg and team have done an incredible job with the new aircraft - the flat paint looks better than any sim I've seen and the details are all there, right down to the subtle quilting effect of the rivet lines. I fail to see why you are comparing a fighter featuring glossy paint and areas of bare alloy to early war aircraft covered in flat matt paint?? And then you have the cheek to slag off the teams efforts based on that!

I'm tired of hearing this endless stream of drivel from the self proclaimed "experts". If you can do better then why don't you write your own sim?

Rant over:evil:

Your right, except that spitfires, hurris and other planes at this time had matte finishes for camouflage. The bare metal polished planes you speak of came around after air superiority had been largely achieved over Europe in late 1944. This was when the the Allies became the hunters instead of the hunted, and camouflage was less necessary (but more so for german aircraft!). In 1940 the Luftwaffe was the most dangerous air force in the world, and had control over the skies in Europe. The British/allies camouflaged their aircraft to avoid detection by prowling Luftwaffe aircraft. BTW there was a screenshot of a bare metal/reflective spitfire a few months back just to demonstrate that this was possible in the sim.

No no, this is the bad cop in Terminator 2, morphed into a Spitfire?

Ditto. Planes look fantastic...

This was a real downer for me in X-Plane for when I first tried it. Birds everywhere flying irradically and hitting ground and environment randomly without much bird-like behaviour. Even a bigger setback were the 'airportdeers' running around around the planet finding the green grass of the airfields. One would assume that if a deer hears roaring engines it'd run 10 miles non-stop instead of enjoying the sight of airplanes operaring while having a snack in the middle of all that.

I assume you can set them off etc so it's not that big of a deal overall, but the overall takeaway is that if you don't plan to do it properly in par with all the aspects of the sim don't do it at all. But knowing the quality of work so far with Maddox releases I have no fear of that.

+1 Or is it 2,3...er4? arg, me too..... Edit: and I'm even one post to far down.

Ooh, shiney!

http://www.edupics.com/spitfire-figh...ane-t12812.jpg

...erm, not. Have to agree with everyone here, although the engine can clearly cope with shiney planes, it's just not necessary.

I also like the idea of including birds around airfields and "other" low altitude scenarios (like strafing "targets" on a beach covered in sea gulls_lol). I dont remember what Oleg said about birds and such...I think he said it was possible but not planned for initial release (?). I "think" that different birds (and other flying creatures like bats) fly differently, in different situations...so the animators would have to do their homework (lol)...

Imagine this scenario...your sitting in your aeroplane waiting for flight instructions and bombs start falling around you. As you watch the explosions around you, you an see flocks of startled birds taking flight from the trees around the edges of the grass field.

Seeing that there are forest wardens who keep birds and other animals away from todays airports, I wonder if that would not have been the case during the 30s and 40s as well.

Bird strikes were a threat that the aircrews were aware of and why increase the risk by allowing birds to hang around the airfields?

Yea, of course they did...but no system is perfect. Bird strikes was still an issue, maybe "more" common on improvised airfields...but their are other situations where birds become an obstacle. Low altitude chases, is one example...

You're blowing that way out of porportion and really shouldn't go to insults to make your point, if you're mad, keep it to yourself mate, this is a forum for discussion of the game, not your thoughts on me. Why your post even still exists boggles me. But you have me so wrong. have to say I appreciate everything Oleg and his team are doing and have yet to do. I love IL2 and can't play anything else without feeling like I'm downgrading. But I should be able to freely discuss what I think of these updates, shouldn't I?

If you read the whole post you would read that I wrote I know matte-like paints were used for planes in WW2, it only makes sense. However, not all planes are matte painted, and beside that minor detail, matte paint STILL does not give off a flat-plastic look. airplane metal, painted or not, has a texture, unless polished. You are focusing on the paint which is not the whole focus of my post.

Anyway, if Oleg came to me and said "Implement this.." I would say: "I've been dreaming to!"

Aaannnnd, its okay. :)

It was a bit of knee jerk post and for that I apologise but it did rather sound like you were on the attack yourself. I'll try to stick to the facts this time.

The paints used at this time of the war were called non-specular and were specifically designed so as not to reflect light. You'll be hard pressed to find an example of a BoB era aircraft that doesn't use non reflective finishes I think.
The paint contains angular particles which scatter light and this produces quite a rough surface which attracts dirt. I've used the same stuff on my jeep and can testify that it has no sheen at all but is a complete pain to keep clean. The only way you'll get a sheen from it is when something is rubbed against the flat finish or oil/grease is applied and wiped away.

So...on well used aircraft you may see a slight sheen around panels which are handled regularly and in engine areas where oil spills etc. are rubbed away but most of the airframe should be very flat and non reflective.

I think part of the problem is that the vast majority of warbirds that are operating at airshows today use non-original finishes. These aircraft are investments and the correct non-specular paint attracts dirt and is more porous than the satin and gloss varieties so it doesn't protect the metal as effectively.

I'm not a great fan of the BoB Memorial Flight's Lancaster finish as it looks quite different to the dull/stained look of the wartime birds but at least the aircraft is well protected.

Sorry for my rant but I do feel strongly that Oleg has got the look of the non-specular early war finishes pretty much bang on.

A quote from a site discussing wartime finishes:
"Non-specular or flat finishes were desirable to the glossy, and matte finishes of the pre-war era aircraft."

A quote from a wartime specification:
"All paint used should be non-specular in nature. All parts and fittings should be dulled down, so as not to reflect light"

I recall a number of strips in western NSW where we had to do a low flypast to get the sheep off the runway before attempting to land :D Admittedly they got off the strip pretty quick when a 172 came roaring past.

I was landing on a grass strip one time in a 172 when I noticed something on the runway.

"Is that an animal of some sort?" I asked my girlfriend in the co-pilot seat
"I don't know" she replies.

As we get closer, I see none other than a large tractor mowing the runway.

Just thought I'd share and contribute to the potential realism of this sim :-P

You have to mow it sometimes haha!

I'm wondering if the new game engine will be able to produce water falls? It would be a really detail for some locations. Maybe this would be done through animation?

Anyway...I know this subject "might" be a little OT for this thread, but i have never heard anyone comment on this topic. Realistic waterfalls would be a great "immersion" feature for some future maps...are their many waterfalls in the UK?

In the UK, a few that you could see from the air, under ideal conditions... maybe.

In the parts of the UK likely to feature on the BoB map? I doubt it.

Still, never mind proton45, I'm sure you can think of another idiotic suggestion for something to incorporate into the new sim. Bee hives? Molehills (on the airfields they would clearly be of military significance :rolleyes:)? Piles of aluminium saucepans gathered to help the war effort (an obvious hazard to low flying aircraft...)?

This is intended to be a WW II air combat sim, not a reproduction of the entire 1940 universe.

This thread will be old news in a few more hours with a new update thread.

One week is just about the limit on keeping anything close to the topic.

It's about 9 am in Moscow now, so that probably means the update should be up within the next 6 or 7 hours.

Idiotic suggestion? I dont thinks so (in fact my comment, was a question about the game engine)...in fact their are places on this planet where the waterfall is an iconic symbols of the landscape.

I find your comment to be less relevant then my own...AND I find your use of the word "idiotic" to be idiotic.

Yup, that is true...its the perfect time for an OT question about the capabilities of the new game engine. And I think you will find that its a question that has never been asked.

There are lots of questions about the capabilities of the SoW game engine that haven't been asked. Most of them shouldn't be...

Do you really think that Oleg Maddox is going to suddenly divert resources to 'waterfall simulation?'. If not, why do you think your 'OT question' was of any relevance at all?

Jesus, some people woke up on the wrong side of the bed :grin:

It's true that we see a lot of nitpicking in these threads. On the other hand, not all "what if" questions are irrelevant. Seems like on one side we have some really outlandish requests (some even sound more like demands) and on the other one there's people who will dismiss anything that doesn't have a direct application in combat, wether that is complex aircraft systems management or a couple of graphical gimmicks sprinkled here and there for the occasional surprise factor.

I still don't see why these two groups can't exercise some self moderation and start combining their ideas for the long term future. In short, one group needs to stop asking about the modelling of the local grasshopper strains and maybe ask about things that will be, well, visible from the air while moving at 300mph, while the other one has to get their combat myopia fixed because it prevents them from appreciating whatever cool stuff may be lying a few feet beyond their gunsight. There's enough of a middle ground to be reached here. It might be a lot of science making a good flight sim, but it doesn't take science to know what are important features for one: user friendly and customizable, an engine with expansion and modding potential, get the technical stuff right like FM/DM/campaigns/AI/historical accuracy/etc, have adequate graphics and sounds for the time of release, sprinkle some "this world is alive" sauce and that's it. Getting obsessed with any one of those means you are going to lose points on the rest, as simple as that.

I's good to have a well rounded product that can be expanded on and improved from a solid starting foundation, rather than a one-trick pony that scores excellent marks on one field and neglects all the rest. It's like buying a new PC, spending all your money on a monster motherboard and the most expensive i7 6-core CPU you can find and then getting a 15 inch monitor with a 2 year old GPU and 1 GB of RAM because you have no more money. Meanwhile, someone else gets an entry level i7 920 that's less than half the price of the 6-core and uses the spare money on an up-to-date GPU, 4GB of RAM and generally builds a well-rounded system that, what a surprise, squarely kicks the butt of the previous "asymmetric" system in every way imaginable except maybe dedicated multi-core CPU benchmarks.

In this case here, it's not like the guy said "i demand waterfalls", he's just asking if the engine can do waterfalls and the question is anything but irrelevant (ie, he's not debating the accuracy of the horn shape on the cows grazing the fields).
If SoW aims to be the mother of all things simulator during the next decade and have some success with engine licensing fees to 3rd parties, people will want to know if the engine can do such things.

Some might think far fetched like a direct Crimson Skies remake, where the developer wants to stage some missions around the Niagara falls and Grand Canyon. Some might think something simpler but equally possible, user-made stunt and racing maps for SoW that feature custom landscape formations as obstacles, like waterfalls and rock tunnels. In any case, they will be interested to know if the engine can model such things and if they can design them in the map editor.

Just because some feature is not high priority for release in the specified theater doesn't mean it might not be a good feature to make in the future. As i usually like to say, it's just like perfect settings and water=3 switches in IL2, we didn't have them in the original version ten years ago but we're all glad we have them today ;)

You have no imagination at all...and I feel sorry for you.


;)

The airfield I fly out of here in Queensland has a number of kangaroos. Usually they stay off the runways but I've heard of people having to go around because of them. A roo jumped in front of a landing RV7 once. It barely missed the prop, hit the leading edge of the wing with it's head and got knocked down. As it went down it's tail came up and hit the trailing edge of the flap damaging it considerably. The pilot had powered up to go around when he saw the roo jump in front and decided to continue. Fortunately the controllability of the plane didn't suffer and he was able to make a uneventful landing after a circuit. The roo? Got up and bounced away!

Here's a video I shot a couple of weeks ago at the airfield. Has some kangaroos too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cagwLyG4eA

I know a guy who hit (and chopped up) a deer twice in his 200-odd hours of flying :). The plane was repairable the first time, totaled the second time. I guess he was unlucky. I had near misses with birds 4-5 times (once the bird actually swooped on my C-150 :)).

have I listened "birds"?
LOL to make this is soo fun. Turn up volume

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

Thanks all of you guys/girls for the inspiration, the visual is done, now it´s turn for a programer builds the colision file for this :D

Hi,

Will the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 be flyable in SoW BoB?

Thx,

Hecke

The Battle of Britain took place in the summer and autumn of 1940. The Fw 190 didn't come into service until mid 1941.

Thx for info, but very bad for me.

Will the Me 262 be flyable in SoW BoB?

No, I don't think so...it might not have even reached the dreaming/drawing board yet during Bob:grin:

Will an x-wing fighter be flyable in SW I mean SoW.

...



Strange though it may seem, no anachronism here. :cool:

Hecke if the "Luftbahnhof Bremen" could be included on the future BoB map :grin: :grin: then I could see you take the controls of this Versuchsmuster Fw 190V1.

As did Flugkapitän Hans Sander for her mainden flight on June 1st, 1939.


http://www.focke-wulf190.com/images/v1_3.jpg




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKMijv00Amg

...

Well, if someone wants to fly an unarmed prototype with a faulty engine cooling system, that's fine by me.:-P

Seriously, though, the plane set needs to be restricted to aircraft actually in service during the BoB, or it would get silly...:rolleyes:

No doubt Fw 190s will appear later in the series - hopefully with a decent view forward this time...