dali wrote: actualy lift is created by air being forced to flow over two different distances. since all things in nature which were disturbed in their original flow try to restore order and harmony, this is also valid for air > thus air from lower part of the wing, which has higher pressure wants to balance with air on the upper surface which has lower pressure > and so creating lift force. since the wing is not indefinite, but very finite plane, air from bellow and above do meet in one point, and this point is of course the wingtip. The drag produced is called induced drag, and there are some vortices, but their force depends on weight. In airplane of such relatively small size the vortice is so weak, that it is almost non existant.

Yep.
I know how this works. My daytime job is designing these damned things. The end result of the process you describe is air being pushed down.
Where I disagree with you is with regards to Vortice strength. Vortice strength is dependent on airspeed, wing loading (weight per area), aspect ratio (wingspan squared over wing area) and the shape of your span-wise lift distribution (preferred to be elliptical). A WW2 fighter has small and stubby wings, is relatively heavy (especially the german designs), and would pull substantial g loads. The vortex trail could be substantial.
on the other hand, a spit with no more ammo and empty tanks flying at full speed in a parabola (zero g) heading for terra firma would indeed have a "vortice is so weak, that it is almost non existent"

Flutter

PS: since Oleg and team are actually calculating the traces of single bullets, it would actually surprise me if every aircraft will NOT leave a mathematical wake containing wingtip vortices and propwash

I do read here, I just haven't posted before. I don't think you need HD footage to be able to see the effect of fire - you can see it's fire and you can see how big it is. In stock IL2 you will have a fat red 100ft of fireball coming out of the back of the aircraft and I have some small concern that this will be repeated according to the pictures i've seen so far. When you use the effects pack fires are radically different.

There's quite a few fires in this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVoYVm1BlKQ

I have a lot of faith in the quality of Oleg and his team, I think it'll be a cracking product, but I want to see realistic visuals as well as the awesome flying realism they will give us. And of course I don't want porked .50cals this time, we can all see what fatal damage those APIT round do - I can't face another 7 years whining lol

very well done vid...thats the mod i use and its very very good...esp smoke, flame and tracers :)

AWESOME video Osprey!

Having been on the receiving end online of un-modded, but well-aimed .50 cals, I assure you that they have never been porked.

Perhaps the original dispersion didn't suit many, but on target they hurt ... just like the rl guncam footage we see. ( and most of the times I've had my FW190 sawn in half was from a high-speed bounce, not a several-seconds-of-firing effect. )

IMHO, the key is and always has been, the "well-aimed" aspect of firing .50 cals.

Osprey that vid is superb, and those mods are wonderful I use these to. :grin:

All of the effects mods (that I've tried) have really over-the-top explosions. The fact is that most people have only seen slow motion scale model explosions in old movies, gasoline fires and CGI fireballs. Even with gun camera footage - the published/surviving examples tend to show ammunition explosions etc. (rather than the less dramatic strafing runs).

The appearance of explosions in real life is quite a bit different from movies (or even from real explosions captured by cameras instead of the human eye).

When you people said you were going to bring us a new version of the game , I never expected any thing this detailed.

Thank you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry Romanator, but even to the naked eye the relative head sizes in the two pictures are vastly different. Your crude attempt at measurement comparison is totally flawed.
Without attempting to use measuring sticks, compare the lower panel of the sliding canopy in each picture with the head in that picture, (the angular error and FOV mismatches are then as good as eliminated), and it is obvious that the pilot's head in the lower picture is almost half the size of that in the upper.
In the BoB era most US fighter aircraft were bult with very large cockpits, the same was not the case with European and British fighters.
Perhaps you should sue your optician, lol.

Your pictures are wrong. The canopy lines you've put into the second pic should run parallel to the line of the canopy. You've put them in the same perspective as the top photograph so it's not at all accurate. The line should meet the frame work line of the open canopy, if you do that, the head is then smaller.

This is turning into the thread for "normalized human head and body sizes".

It would be nice to make everyone happy. So... normalized body and head sizes have got to be the way it's done in SOW.

That means we should start by researching human body and head sizes that were common during the time periods the war was fought. We have to ignore the men that were smaller or larger than the norm, because of the way the non-normalized humans will look in the SOW.

I sure don't want to be shooting down some AI enemy that is too short, or has a little head.

Is there anything other part of the plane you would like me to compare this to?

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/a...ephenfox-1.jpg

Huh ?
 

And of course I don't want porked .50cals this time, we can all see what fatal damage those APIT round do - I can't face another 7 years whining lol[/QUOTE]



Eh sorry pal, I dont know what guns you are using but if you set your convergence two 200 m and aim well you can shred a 109 in half in less than 2 seconds using any aircraft with 6 puny 50 cals.

Nice vid by the way.

Regards
Hunger

Suggest a good book on perspective and paralax would be a good place to start.

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/a...tephenfox3.jpg

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/a...tephenfox2.jpg

I hope you've read one yourself.

I can do this all day...

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/a...on-wingLG1.jpg

I think we won't know for sure until we see a clear side-on view where the pilot's head isn't obscured with the fur collar. For me, as long as the head is at least as big as the panels in the sliding canopy then we're OK. Here's a couple of ground crew shots where heads are close enough to the canopy for accurate comparison.

The last picture I include is a nice side shot from an earlier update and to me the helmeted head looks pretty darn good. As mentioned before, I'm sure seat position does play a factor in wartime shots where the head is up against the top of the canopy.

Poor Oleg and Luthier, we must drive them to drink:evil:. I do know Oleg will have the last laugh when the final product is delivered though. He's got stuff in store that will blow us away..I'm sure of it.:grin:

With respect, you have some crazy ideas with regards to taking scale references. Your lines mean absolutely nothing.

http://www.spitfiresite.com/photos/h...-ix-715192.jpg

And just in case you missed this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj7nEL1ekzM

Tiny head? 1/2 as small as it should be? What anatomy course did you take?

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-conten...minusobves.jpg

Looks fantastic!

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

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

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

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...8&d=1283522637

Just to clarify, I'm taking a measurement of each head, and comparing it between two arbitrary points on the plane. Yellow and orange lines are to show what I am measuring from to show there are no tricks. I am not trying to show a comparison between yellow lines on the same plane.

I think it should be obvious no matter what I draw, that the pilot is perfectly scaled, and his proportions are correct.

You should have done it like this. make your own mind up.

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/z...canecomp-1.jpg

That's a Spitfire by the way. Our references regard the Hurricane.

There is no doubt that the pilot figure is perfectly proportioned. That doesn't mean his head can't be too small in comparison to specific items on a Hurricane.

Imagine I took a full body picture of you in order to create a pilot figure. But once we create the model there's a problem....you're over 6ft and we want to create a smaller pilot that will cause fewer clipping problems when moving in the cockpit. Now instead of shortening your legs a bit and maybe squeezing your shoulders in a touch (leaving your head the same size) say we choose to shrink the entire model by 15%....

Hey, we still have a perfectly proportioned pilot model BUT everything including the head is now 15% smaller than it was. Now, when the head is compared to a Hurricane canopy panel it appears smaller than it should be because the head IS 15% smaller than the average adult head (assuming your head is normal that is).

Hope that makes sense!

I'm not saying this is what happened but it's a possibility.
We still need a clear unobstructed side-on shot without helmet to be sure though.

Oleg said that this was not the case and that the pilot figures are exactly 175 cm. That's close to 5'9''. There were NO reductions in scale.

You will notice I posted a pic of a spitfire, and the video of a spitfire. I shifted gears, but I'm still comparing apples to apples and pears to pears.

@ winny - I have, thanks. BTW, you should not have clipped the top of the SOW head by 3 inches while not doing the same for our other pilot.

This is a little more appropriate:

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/z...canecomp-1.jpg

http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/213330-1/Finnish++Hurricane

woohoo!

Keeps looking better and better :)

I wonder how much they are sandbagging us :D

Keep up the great work Oleg and Team!

Cheers!

Guys, look at the pictures posted by Sutts. Specifically the third picture, which is a SoW screenshot from a previous update. In that one it seems pretty accurate.

I find it hard to believe that pilot models are out of scale when

a) they appear correct in bombers and

b) they appear correct in hurricanes as well, when viewed from different cameras/FOV settings/angles.

I mean, what could possibly have happened? Are they growing and shrinking randomly in mid-flight?

Scale is always an issue in games with a 3d/action component, from FPS to simulators, but let's keep it in perspective too (no pun intended). The only way that the same pilots would appear different in different aircraft and from different viewpoints is if, well, they weren't really the same...say that the development team was playing a prank on everyone and using different sizes in each update to troll people...which i wouldn't blame them one bit if they did, now that i think of it. :-P

Is this the new "cockpit bar in the FW190" argument or the new ".50cals are porked" argument? :)

lmao!

~S~

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Cheers!

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

Here's my contribution:

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

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

sow
 

I'll have to get a new computer to play this, but god do I look forward to it.

S!

Airmalik..that pic! TOUCHÉ!!! :-P

That's a much better base unit of comparison, but the execution is inaccurate without having photos that show the aircraft from the exact same angle.

All of the comparisons done thus far have failed to account for view angle (or aspect angle if we want to put it in aviation terms).

The fact is that unless we view all the Hurricanes in the photos from the same angle (for example, with us sitting 90 degrees to the left of the plane), comparisons will be inaccurate because of the different angles skewing perspective.

For example, let's say we have a Hurricane with a non-moving pilot dummy in the cockpit. If i view the plane from 7 o'clock, the distance between the pilot's head and the windshield will appear bigger than the distance between the pilot's head and the headrest, but if i view it from 10 o'clock it will be the other way around. Add difference of perception due to distance and the fact that we totally discount the 3rd axis in this example and it's obvious we can't make an accurate comparison.

In your comparison, the real-life black Hurricane is viewed from 10 o'clock low, while the SoW Hurricane in the pictures is viewed from 8 o'clock level. So, even with a perfectly scaled pilot the SoW screenshot would exhibit more distance between pilot's head and windshield than the photo of the real one, simply due to perspective (part of the reason you measured 2,5 heads worth of space). Differences in perspective can be explained with trigonometry and such calculations have played a big part in observational astronomy before computers, when people had to measure the real dimensions of objects that are million of miles away based only on the characteristics of the telescopes and the angular data of the viewing. I'm not in the mood to bust out the crayons and start drawing in MSpaint, but a quick google search on stuff like parallax angles and apparent/angular distances will explain a lot.

I agree that in some screenshots the pilots in the fighters look somewhat small and this week's Hurricane is among them. What i can't explain is why the same pilots appear fine in bombers, or even in fighters shown in previous updates. Up till now, it seems that nobody else can explain this either, otherwise someone would have answered this question. Until someone can prove that different pilot models have been used in different screenshots, i'll just chalk it up to being used to the IL-2 oversized pilots and needing some time to get accustomed to the new ones.

In any case, your idea of using the head as a unit of measurement is solid. What would lay the debate to rest and give a positive verdict is if we could take a real photo and replicate its viewing angle and distance in SoW, then accurate comparisons could be made. However, this demands the use of an object viewer or track recording/playback, which i guess wont be available until the release of the simulator.

[QUOTE=airmalik;179432]I hope Oleg's getting a chuckle out of this thread.

Here's my contribution:

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

You can tell just by eyeballing that the pilot's head is a bit small but on the other hand: what could ever make me think Oleg and crew can't figure the right proportions... they of course use decent reference materials as templates. Weird issue here. :rolleyes:

Anyway, they'll get it right, I'm sure.

Have a nice day all :mrgreen:


Real good contribution btw airmalik, it makes perfect sense

Excellent topic ! also a lot of fun going on because that's about all we have right now :cool:

@ Skoshi Tiger :)

here is what I meant by initial outburst footage with aircraft going all the way to the ground ( or water in this case ) .
These two aircrafts are about the biggest black thick outburst I have seen from tons of WWII archive footage ,
it's rare to find as there is not much of such outburst recorded by gun cameras or by the cameraman on the ground .
These are pretty violent blasts but then again each thick smoke is running out in few seconds .

Here beginning @ 3:24
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9txeXJE0zL0

[QUOTE=McHilt;179444]

[QUOTE=airmalik;179432]I hope Oleg's getting a chuckle out of this thread.

Here's my contribution:


Head too small and canopy too big. I already concluded that.

"..... That pilot was made prisioner by some shrinking head african tribe,that's a possible explanation......."


That wasn't me :?

Ok this is getting ridiculous. Clearly they are going to have to exhume the bones of the pilot of L1833, remodel his head with plasticene, then place him in a reconstructed Hurricane and do a full 3d scan.

Seriously guys this is such a pointless debate. I am confident that it is to scale, but even if it wasn't you'd have to be Rainman to see it in flight.

If something is wrong ,it is wrong and better to get it right now than after being released,nothing wrong in constructive criticism.
Oleg ought to appreciate the amount of hours and research being provided on his behalf and for our end product and enjoyment.:)

Feedback is essential to get a more objective view on details like... a head of a pilot, which is just as essential as the left wheel of the landing gear f.e.
Ok, maybe a bit farfetched but as long as the sim is not out we have to occupy our time other than flying BoB, but as closely related as possible which means:
giving feedback, no matter what the subject is.;)

Well, in this case they already said that the pilot was at the right scale, as well as the plane. I don't think that long debates with such trace-lines-on-a-picture proofs will really help them. They have the 3D models and can measure real distances on it.

Given the complete lack of responses from Luthier & Oleg, I'm afraid that they're not overly interested in this kind of debate on pilot's size.

I guess that Flight Model, Damage Model, lighting and shadows, 3D modeling, landscape, clouds, campaign and online modes, testing and refining etc., have a slightly higher priority at the moment.

Cheers,
Insuber

im pretty sure they model both planes and pilots on scale...its not very difficult to do that right. sizes of the planes are widely available so are average sizes for males in the 1930tees.
isnt there something else to talk about? ...like that we need more gore? :)

Omg another nitpicking discussion seriously...
If they'd actually listen to all your thoughts they'd never be close to releasing this thing within a decade.. but hey Duke Nukem Forever just got a release date so maybe this will also come out soon enough.

Good pics, airmalik!

Your picture (above) takes me again to this picture of Stanford Tuck in his Hurri, which I posted earlier...the scale of 'pilot in cockpit' looks very similar to me.

Click on the thumbnail and in the enlarged picture his gunsight and line-of-sight are more evident. Other pictures and historic film indicate that the pilot would often lean forward a bit, putting their eyes lower and more in line with the gunsight when firing.

I'm getting really angry beacuse people post such stupid posts like' oh i think the guy is 0.5mm too high or too small'. Shut up!The guys know what are they doing and they're doing it wright!

And I'm getting angry because instead of polite constructive observations or criticism, people like this have to denigrate others with juvenile expressions of anger! (wright?)!

There is obviously reasons as to why the pilots view isn't as high in the game, Jesus you'd seriously wanna be sitting like that ? Even if its a simulator its yet a game , some things you're just gonna have to live with. How about IL2? Worked just fine as it is.. I don't see any benefit with sitting like that but ok... better view of ground and less view of the crosshair huh.?

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

I hope you notice that he's wearing an OVER-SIZED CRASH-HELMET. I'ts not a SKULL CAP!!!!! @#$^@#B.

Are you all that thick!?!?!?!


Those helmets really are that big!!!!! Look it even makes a normal man's head 2x as BIG!!!!!!!

http://www.salimbeti.com/aviation/im...p/a10pilot.jpg

http://www.salimbeti.com/aviation/im...ip/f35test.jpg

Earth to Dipsh*t:

http://i835.photobucket.com/albums/z...g?t=1283762002

http://i835.photobucket.com/albums/z...g?t=1283761628

1) You can't do a top to bottom measurement because the viewing angle is different, changing how high he appears to sit in the cockpit, and thus relationship to canopy frames. You can only make horizontal measurements, or compare to the outside of the plane. You're also using the guy's headset as the top of his head. IT IS NOT THE TOP OF HIS HEAD. I have a set of David Clark Headsets, and they add 2 inches to the top of my head!

2) Canopy in the screenshot is open all the way, while in the first, is open only part way. USE YOUR EYES.

I've had it with this, I'm done!

Goodbye!

There are lots of people in the world that are not happy unless they are complaining about something.

Unfortunately, most of them seem to congregate in flight sim forums.

These are the same folks that will tell a pilot who has actually flown a WW2 aircraft that their impressions and observations of the real thing are wrong. (I've seen that happen at an airshow once).

Bone-Domes were not used in the BoB! The flying helmet does not make ones head look that big; although the b-type flying helmet does make one look like they have big ears! :D

Gentleman, I have found something!
 

If we look at historical picture of a man in to the Hurricane cockpit, while the aircraft is on the ground, and he seems small, thats because this person is NOT wearing parachute! When the pilot is siting over parachute he seems higher!!!


This is illusion - in flight the pilots look higher because they sit up on their parachute!!!

Oleg, please make some bigger parachutes...and may be some bigger pilots...

Cheers!

Are you seriously telling me that you think that YOUR view of the gunsight (and MINE) are going to change because of the positon of the virtual pilot figure in the cockpit?

What on earth does one have to do with the other?

The view that you see when looking out of the cockpit is determined by the sim configuration parameters as far as I know, not by what the virtual pilot's head position is.

And if I'm wrong, then someone please correct me! (politely!)

I like this picture... (isn't that one straight from the naval-history and heritage site (iirc?), there's a whole bunch of those pictures with captions there depicting US carriers and destroyers...:rolleyes: ok, that's OT but I was just curious :cool:)

yep, hurri pilot seems a bit too small...

Can we stop the talk on the pilot size now...? I think that Oleg and Luthier have got the point, and clearly will choose to change it if they really want.
Their lack of invoice on this hopefully means that they're hard at work, but I presume their not interested in delving into this discussion further.

If Oleg's hopes for October are still on the table, then they must be working really hard now to get the game out soon.

Philip.Ed: I totally agree...
Let's quit the pilotsize issue

Goodnight gentlemen!

What most people "complaining" about pilot size fail to relize is:

1# That Oleg and team have a accuratly moddeld Hurri ( down to an inch) where they place a pilot in the seat (wich is at the exact same spot as the real thing) whos 175 cm tall, and thats where thee pilot ends up, period.

2# As far as i know adjusteble seat isnt modelled (at least not visually) wich would explain why he is sitting so low even when on the ground.


There has been a number of pics posted showing hurris on takeoff and in flight and it clearly shows that a pilot taking off is sitting way higher than he is during flight....i wonder why, hmmmm.


Now, move along, nothing more to see here..before Oleg shuts this site down completly.

I'm sure the developers stopped monitoring this insanity quite awhile ago. :) I'm sure the aircraft are built to scale and the pilots to 175cm. or 5' 9", they've noted our complaints, but are complaints are based on very poor data, other than what we feel looks right.

Trees look fantastic close up!

Is there a thumbs up icon in here.

The developers are probably following this thread on the first day only.

The thread goes off on tangents after the first day. People just quit paying attention and it goes into the wild blue yonders.

I recommend you take some trips out in the Pony and then come back telling us how many FW you de-winged before you start telling us about firepower. Most FW get away with damage because they roll or dive before the burst can be sustained in the same place for long enough, that's the 'well aimed part. That's the reality of it. 4x20mm? You shouldn't even be commenting mate.

Eh sorry pal, I dont know what guns you are using but if you set your convergence two 200 m and aim well you can shred a 109 in half in less than 2 seconds using any aircraft with 6 puny 50 cals.

Nice vid by the way.

Regards
Hunger[/QUOTE]

Dude, I use 100m, and before 2 secs is up the bugger has dived. Then it's RTB and 100pts in 10 minutes.

109's fall apart way better than FW too.

Nice video. This is PTO so it makes me wonder if fire like this is a Japanese non-sealing tank problem.




Now I'd really like to see these effects, where the fuel blows, then is all burned off so there is little trailing smoke 3:35

Hi Osprey ,
and these are indeed Japanese aircrafts , it's much harder to find archival footage showing such blast in European Theater of Operations with German , U.S. , Italy , GB and other countries aircrafts .
That's why I will keep saying that there was not much going on with black thick smokes and huge fire blaze especially in ETO . :cool:
If you look at that third Japanese plane going down , it's also on small fire with little smoke exactly as many ETO aircrafts shows .
Lets wait for the first BoB:SoW video to see what's going on :)

oh so they wore these in WW2??
http://www.salimbeti.com/aviation/im...ip/f35test.jpg

lmfao

people also conveniently ignore that last week there was a shot of the pilot's feet not reaching the pedals

yes I know viewing angle is hard to compensate for, but there is no way perspective is making his head look that small

British pilots are just very small.


here is a photo of some Aussie pilots with a Spitfire ....


http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/3.jpg

yeah, but you know this is a semi-scale replica right? 7/8 scale?

Relax Flanker. No need to get so worked up. You'll live longer. Same goes to other's complaining about people nitpicking.

You've gotta realise people are here just shooting the shit, passing time commenting on the updates until the game's released. Think of it as mates with a common interest at a pub.

I personally don't think my five minutes of googling is sufficient to challenge work done by a team who breathe this stuff day in and out. However, it is possible for them to make mistakes or overlook things on occasion and in the case of the midget pilot, something doesn't look right. It could be a number of things but the bottom line is that there's something odd about that screenshot.

I doubt Oleg posts these updates to get feedback or criticism. They're posted here to keep us happy. Give us something to discuss and the confidence that the game is being actively worked on and isn't vapourware. Occasionally our discussions have actually resulted in changes (trim tab, pitot).

We're all fans of the game. Every single one of us on this forum will buy the game when it's released and every single update afterwards regardless of pilot size, grass colour etc. People may get passionate about little things but it's just because there's not much else to talk about these days.

And if these 'discussions' really bother you so much, just don't read the thread when it ventures into territory you find annoying or boring.

Exactly Airmalik, and well said!

A few 'scraps' are thrown to the wolves each week, and we snap them up! We are all waiting for this sim to be released, and if we choose to discuss, argue, debate various issues according to what we see in the weekly updates...so what? Just as you stated, we are passionate about flight sims... and that's going to lead to discussions and disagreements. I don't think that Oleg and team are losing sleep over criticisms any more than they are over accolades. They must be well used to this 'game' by now! Hopefully though, it gives them a sense of what the community likes and doesn't like.

These kinds of conversations are pretty typical of what I've seen on flight sim forums over the last 15 years or more. The only time I get annoyed is when members start to denigrate others, particularly with very mean and derogatory comments. Unfortunately, I've seen more of that on this forum than on others that I've participated in.

Ha ha, I think its the "spitfire" that is small in this photo, not the pilots.

Absolutely correct. The view inside the cockpit and the 3d representation of the pilot outside the cockpit are two entirely different things.

Just found this vid on youtube, real time smoke calculation done by the GPU:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56kt1...ure=grec_index
If such a thing could be introduced in SOW (as an option), but optimised and with a reduced quality so as not to kill the framerate, it would be really cool :grin: (however, I don't think it's capable of creating vortices, as there's probably no 'air')

Regarding this Hurricane pilot and all of these pictures. There's tall men and short men 5'5" 6'5" etc. Ones with really long backs who are very tall..me. I can see a good foot difference in some peoples heights.

And so useful if Galland's cigar is implemented...

HEY! Is it just me or is that Hurri pilots head a bit small?

lol :)

Eh ? I never claimed that I was a good shot, I'm saying that other pilots are/were - and I can be confident in the truth of my assertion because I was on the receiving end when they tore me apart in the generally-regarded-as-tough-FW.

Those trees in 4 just look too incredible ...:grin:

Indeed, maybe we could talk about the trees for a change...
just look at how dense they are, the diversity of the leaves is also great... and they seem to be fully 3D...
Close up they're also great to look at so I'd love to take a walk across some of those fields if possible any time soon... :smile:
Really good job on the trees if I may say so. 5*

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e3...Untitled-1.jpg

In an aircraft, seeing trees so near means often that a big problem is coming !

Frankly, I don't care if the trees in BoB look good just near them, I want them looking good and realistic from the air (as BoB is supposed to be an aviation sim, not a mushrooms hunting sim).

Chris i agree with you but the game should be balanced.

Quite perfect looking planes and quite bad trees is not good.
And as SoW is supposed to feature also ground objects controllable by player, the trees have to look good from below, too.

I agree on the mushroom hunting thing Chris... :mrgreen:, but many times when I did a countryroad landing in IL2 the trees killed the immersion for me while taxiing around to park my machine. A flightsim is not only happening 4 miles up but also the take-off/landingpart is important... well to me at least. Coming home seeing realistic trees near the field I prefer over coming home and seeing just 2 polygons with a texture at lowresolution applied to it (just to illustrate my point, I know... they were a little more advanced in IL2 ;)). Just my 2 cents though. :)

No matter what , these new trees are a huge milestone forward comparing to IL-2/1946 trees :cool:

You forget that the seat was adjustable, and with a seat-parachute would make a huge difference to how tall the pilot looked. I have no reason to doubt that everything is to scale, but for a take-off, this pilot must be pretty stupid to sit this low. Even if he landed he's clearly a bit of an idiot :P

True, but moddeling (visually) the pilot going up and down in his adjusteble seat just so it LOOKS right is a complet waste of time and resources imo.

But hey, maby they allredy did that and just forgot to raize the seat after landing, kind of hard to tell from a SCREENSHOT...;)