it is a beaufighter

Goggles - AFAIK some fighter pilots wore goggles etc. in combat at any altitude (and gloves) because of fear of cockpit fire.

RedToo.

Maybe the pilots just took the masks off for the 'camera'... so we can see them smiling!

(maybe not)

No question about it. It was down to personal choice.
Geoffrey Wellum had his ground-screw make him up a blast-shield (to act as goggles) out of celluloid which looked like a modern-day visor for a bone-dome helmet. The idea was clear; it would provide a clear view and serve to protect the pilot.
Alas, this was not so. The celluloid was used for the lenses of the mark III and IIIa goggles. It scratched easily, was prone to distortion and, in the word's of Wellum, 'burned brilliantly' when he was shot down in flames in the battle. He always wore goggles after this event, but made sure they weren't made from celluloid. Luckily he never had cause to use them, as he kept them on top oh his helmet as most pilots did.
I am writing this from memory, but I am sure that what I have written is correct. It's very interesting to me, so I'm sorry if my interests are lost on anyone ;)
By all means, a pilot might choose to wear his goggles down on his helmet, but I can't see the merits as although the goggles modelled currently in SoW don't have celluloid lenses, I have a pair of these goggles in my collection (they are mark Iv's by the way) and they are the most cumbersome goggles ever designed. They're heavy and extremely awkward. I have just tested my pair to make sure I am writing this from experience, and wearing it over my b-type helmet it is a) difficult to get into place and b) provides very poor visibility. It really does make one feel quite hemmed-in. If my plane was hit, I would (of course) wear the goggles, but in a combat situation and in a pre-combat situation, I'd much rather rely on my own eyesight.

Going back to this pilot, maybe he is smiling for the camera! (:D) and if so then kudos to Oleg for showing the excellent pilot-animations, but I can't see why he has no R/T accessibility at the very least.

Thanks, again, Oleg for an excellent update. I can see we are very close now. Don't let my view here get in the way of release.

The point seems trivial to me, but what do I know about it...when all I want is just to take a flight:grin:

Yeah, on release we will have the new WW view and cockpit view that is certain. The new WW view is a quantum leap ahead as far as looks and
customization goes... Although... It is still Wonderview... Albeit a fantastic version. The thinking was to have a third option to go with full cockpit and wonderview. The inbetween view...
Oleg very kindly responded to my post and explained that it is very possible to
create a semi transparent cockpit view, but it'd have to be created as a 2D rendering and wouldn't look good (To Olegs high standards) he reckons it would look like a sim from the late 80's or early 90's... And that's a fair comment...
He also said that they couldn't render a semi transparent cockpit with the fully 3D system in which they created the planes, cause we'd see everything else as well... engine, struts, fuel tanks, etc etc...
So that option is clearly a 'CANT DO' area... Which is also fair enough...

He sadly didn't comment on Xnomad's suggestion of keeping the cockpit fully on
and having the enemy/friendly iD markers and direction indicators visible in cockpit... This was the one I was really hoping he'd have a look at cause it addressed all concerns about Lower FPS and not being able to make the beautiful 3D cockpits semi transparent...

I personally don't need a view like the I'm suggesting... It is more for new
flyers to help with lead shooting and combat maneuver training...
eg. You're descending fast on a fighter... your first shots miss... the fighter sees you and banks hard left, you perform a high yoyo to reduce your speed and get a little height - This is where this view comes in - when you exit your high yoyo you'd want to train to exit the maneuver so you're again in the perfect firing position... (so not pulling out too soon and also not loosing too much altitude.)
It will help to get timing, control input and correct positioning of maneuvers without being forced to use external views...
There are literally dozens pf examples where an inbetween view could help...
Carrier landings, straffing, cross-wind landings, formation flying as well as the aforementioned combat maneuvering etc.


All these are easy to do with WW view and external cameras, but the aim is to get pilots to appreciate being in cockpit and having the immersive feeling if flying in a beautifully rendered fighter, without having to sacrifice on dynamic gameplay (WW View) for the sake of realism.

For those of you who don't know what we're talking about I'll include the mock-up from pg 3. This feature could be disabled outside of a predefined view distance (maybe 500m or 1km) so as not to disrupt... It could be a "strictly within kill distance" feature... or something like that.

And guys, please don't slate me for making this suggestion now... I know it won't be made for release or anytime soon, I am just putting it out there and
hoping for some insightful, relevant input from my fellow airheads.


This above point is also a very important thing to have for new pilot training,
its a real bastard to land any plane never mind a 40's fighter / bomber... And without these essential figures it makes learning to fly these planes exponentially more difficult. Just knowing the stall speed (under different loads) of each plane would help... New pilots always have a tendency to come in for landing too high and too hot... And knowing your best glide speed to get the best Horiz m/s for the least Vert m/s loss is great when your engine has been shot out.

I am sure Oleg and team would include these figures on release, fingers crossed.

Colonials..........

I thought as such ;) But each to his own, eh mate? ;)

?

Why did they use celluloid instead of glass?
What were motorcyclists lenses made of?

tire is when you get fatigued, tyre is what goes on wheels.

Amazing as always. I am greatly looking forward to seeing some in game movies.

I don't know really. The Mark II's had laminated glass, the mark 3 series celluloid, and then the mark IV's laminated glass with split lenses (which became quite a fashion for subsequent goggles).
This is why the mark II's were quite popular with many pilots, as the lenses didn't scratch easily, and didn't distort their vision ;)

The language may have been invented over there, but we perfected it over here....ain't I right? :grin:

I know a lot of goggles were disposable. Weight would also maybe have been a factor. Glass would have shattered if struck by a fragment. Maybe some services/pilots went for lighter weight? On the other hand, cellulose is very flammable and I would hate to have it so close to my face.

Another one of those cool little trivia mysteries from that time.

EDIT: I missed Phillip's post prior to this post, good info there. He answered the quesstions I asked here beffore I asked them lol.

Splitter

.

This heretic prefers diesel shunters, but his (nice, fairly big when you click on the thumbnails) pictures show the track fenced off from public access.

http://www.hondawanderer.com/Class_08.htm

This appears to be all youtube stuff, I don't do flash so I haven't seen it, but it appears to be all steam trains.

http://steamontheweb.co.uk/GWR/Glouc...20Warwicks.htm

This is the homepage, notice the fencing in the (fairly small) picture:

http://steamontheweb.co.uk/

Regarding tyre tracks - they don't have to be aircraft. They could be from any wheeled vehicle.

Re runways - most fighters airfields were grass, no defined runway as such (check out contempory newsreel movies with up to 6 aircraft in line abreast takeoff. Couldn't have been done with tarmac runways!). This permitted takeoff/landing directly into wind. Hence the need for a windsock showing current wind direction. Hope that will be modeled accurately or one could really be in the poo.
Pete

I like a lot the details of the Spitfire, like this one (I don't care about the dented shadow, as I assume it's a WIP issue):



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...Untitled-1.jpg

Radiator fins and internals, half open damper in the back, wheel well in 3D ...

... a real artwork ... passion is behind all this, not business!

Hello Oleg and 1C group!

Awesome awesome awesome looking update so far. Just rendering the screenshots makes my computer want to melt down :grin:

I have some questions about the damage model, but I'll save that for when more updates are shown with damage. Thanks a million for all your hard work!

Actually no dear chap. The main reason that our spelling is different is because in Britain the english language continued to evolve throughout the 18th, 19th and even 20th centuries, a living language, from cultural influences of mainland europe, in particular the French.
When the english language arrived in North America through the 17th century it was before these influences and shielded from them, in effect separated. So we see words like centre and center, colonise and colonize etc. Unfortunately globalisation and American made computer companies are teaching much of the World the Americanised spellings.

Of course this has little bearing on grammar and I have no doubt made many mistakes of my own here, however "ain't I right?" is surely in breach of many rules of english. ;)

Languages in use change and evolve, dead languages, like latin, are a constant.

Questions for Oleg...

How big will you be able to model new maps?
Will the other theaters be a series of small maps? or
Will you be able to model the whole Mediterranean Theater with one large map?
Will you be able to model a map from England too Germany for a Bomber Campaign?
Or will all this have to wait until computers are powerful enough to handle large highly detailed maps. Although by the time you are able to make these theaters, computers may be strong enough.

Let's help these guys and raise some graphic cards :-P
Anyone??

Two countries separated by a common language :). "Ain't I right?" also breaks several laws of physics, that's why I used it :). At least we're not the Scots....we go see a band every year called Albannach and I can't understand a word they say! (The music is awesome though)

I hope they get the accents right in SoW. I hear VERY American accents when flying for the RAF and I doubt many Yanks were flying for them in the South Pacific (could be wrong but I would be surprised). And the Geraman ground control always sounds angry.

BTW, if you don't like the way we have messed up the language thus far, wait until our kids come into their own...they're worse than the Scots :).

Splitter

tsk tsk ... try harder, you are not enough OT yet ... I suggest treating your last holiday trip, or your preferred soccer team ...

Thought I'd share a couple of pics from the local airfield. Got so inspired by this game so I had to go support them as they work of donations.

Spitfire Cockpit
Spit props
Spit and B-25 WIP
Spit 2
Spit Pictures
P-51
P-51 Front
Jeep
BOB Map
Canadien 242 July 1940
WW2 Gas Mask

Not true, its from the 11th century, when Guillaume invade the island, is just that usa ( i dont like to said amerain .... ) elvove in other direction

Sry for the english agains.

IF the game is playable ? ? Just to know how good is the AI :) I hope we can do surprise attack, from behind ;)

fire was a real danger and probably one of the biggest fears of aviators at the time, but they wore eye protection for more general reasons then just specifically fire protection. like fluid/fuel/coolant leaks potentially splashing them in the face, or a broken canopy splintering or exposing them to very cold air (at high altitude).

goggles however reduced their vision and slightly blurred their vision to, hence many pilots didnt always like to wear them all the time, particularly in close dogfights. preparing to dive on an enemy bomber formation would be a time most would put them back on

similarly with gloves, their purpose was more for general hand protection used while operating machinery (the aircraft) and the cold air, rather then specific fire protection gear (which was an added bonus)

i am seeing the exact same thing :)

the current business model for the last 20 yrs in the west has now become making a product as cheaply as possible to maximize profits (while at the same time trying to maximize wages for the executives and managers that run the company), and "marketing" has become a tool to sell something to the public which they might not want or need. the quality of the product has now become a very secondary focus

good to see oleg and his group focus on the quality and detail of the product they are making, and then marketing that end product to the consumer as the best they can make it with current resources (and limited time) at their disposal

Yes, i think that's one of the things that makes simulations special compared to other games today. Maybe 10 years ago most games were driven by the same things, but today it's only a handful of titles each year that stick to that old method of making something in a way that you would enjoy it yourself if you were a customer, instead of just making it in order to milk a cash-cow franchise through sequels.

I was talking to a friend who's into graphics programming and he told me that he e-mailed mr Carmack of ID software himself with some coding questions. The guy is probably a millionaire but he took the time to respond to my buddy because for him making games is not just a job, it's also a hobby.

I think this is also the best anti-piracy method available, make something good, maintain a healthy community connection and sell it at a reasonable price so that the true hobbyists, those who maintain each particular genre, would feel guilty not to buy it :grin:


Some interesting questions here. While i think they are not to be answered by the first release in the upcoming series, it still is an intriguing topic. I suspect i'm not the only one who would be interested in a 1:1 map of most of Europe, or in a similar fashion an expansive map depicting part of the pacific theater of operations.

My guess is we'll see things like that, just not now but in the future, probably midway through the life-cycle of the series as it would be pretty taxing on PC resources.

Cutting up a theater into pieces worked well enough for IL2, but i think where big maps would come in handy for Sow is the possible addition of an improved multiplayer environment. For example if people could fly an online dynamic campaign spanning a few weeks or even months, bigger maps would really add a lot to it. I tend to think this is not doable with current PCs, but i'd still be interested to know if there's a provision for it in the simulator engine for when stronger PCs make their appearance.

I think you don't know too well how computers work. How big and detailed the maps can be depends on how much time one is willing to put into the modelling of the map. If the level of detail is the same, it doesen't matter if the map is of some small part of England only or the whole world. Only the parts that the player can see and only the details you can see is in the RAM at any given time. The size of the map depends on your hardrive or internet connection if some parts of the map is on a server. You don't need a Cray-computer for a world map. Look at MS FS.

I may be wrong but I think I'm not.

This approach works for MSFS because it only needs to model a single aircraft. An air combat simulator needs to be able to model the details for each aircraft independently, or at least give a realistic approximation for such modelling - you can take some shortcuts where the action is well separated from human playersb but even using such techniques a simulation can only cope with a finite number of aircraft on a finite map. Not that I'd use MSFS as a good example of how to model even the limited world-representation it does...

Dear OLEG MADDOX I ask to you if the next week e' possible to see cracking(cutaway) of an airplane in order to understand like e' fact within.

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/2...onebiscopi.jpg

this is italian reconnaissance aircraft in battle of brittain


it would appeal to also to see to me l' airplane with all the open doors
door of the open motor
door open crew enter pilot
door of the space open radio and comunication.
door of the open space bombs
door of fuel open
door of amunition open
ec.ecc.

[QUOTE=AndyJWest;188560]This approach works for MSFS because it only needs to model a single aircraft.QUOTE]

? AFAIK MSFS can have a multitude of aicraft in the sky at the same time. I still believe I am right about how big a map can be. If Oleg wants to cover Tellus to put in the game it is possible but it will take him a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. How many airplanes that can be in the sky at the same time was not the question and is another question.

You missed the part where I said that english language evolution continued from the 17c, where 'US english' was protected from that.

English is a bastardised mix of everybody who has invaded the island since the Romans, not starting from 11c. The true language of this island is closer to welsh if anything, the only part that was here first and didn't get wiped out totally by invaders.

lol, nicely done but where did he get the Spitfire from? Did he nick it? :D

They'd be lucky to get the goggles in place when diving on a bomber formation! It really is not as easy to put the goggles on as one would think.

You should read earlier post's from Oleg:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...015#post169015

About the map size, I guess I repeated just what Oleg said before. Possible with unlimited size but restricted due to the work Oleg would have to put into making it with desired detail-level.

Oleg said also that user-developed maps will be limited in size, smaller than the official ones.

Cheers,
Insuber

I've not been on the forum for a couple of days, so hadn't noticed the debate a bit of humourous (humorous:)) banter caused!
Osprey is correct, although where the original pictish and celtic folk who populated the Island came from I don't know.:confused:
We really shouldn't criticise our colonial friends for corrupting the language, as the language is a corruption in itself. But I can't help doing so and it amuses me.

@Splitter, I always assumed the American accents in RAF missions were supposed to be Canadian.
Was I wrong? And have I just made another social 'faux pas'?!:rolleyes::grin:

Aw heck, Dutch, now I am going to have to listen to the chatter more closely! Canadian is possible, but I am not hearing the "eh?" at the end of sentences....."Stay with your leader, eh?" :). Canadian accents and northern midwest US accents are pretty close in some ways, but the "eh?" is tell tale.

German and Japanese voices in games usually have that "angry" tone and I think that comes from the movies (where they are always angry).

Splitter

That's BS we don't have accents just Newfies. I don't say boot instead of boat.

I've always liked "Control Tower Fritz, allways sound like he has beer and sauerkraut ready for me when I land.

Easy Richie, we have different dialects down here too. New York and South Carolina sound like different countries. The upper midwest has their accent, New England has its' own, Texas is different from other southern accents, California does its' own thing. And there are others. (But yes, we can usually also pick out Canadians in any event....they are the ones with the funny looking money :) )

I do hope some care is taken when presenting the radio chatter in SoW. Not every American pilot was a good ole' southern boy nor a Blue Blooded New Englander. Not all Brits sound like a member of the royal family nor a working class Londoner.

We talk about immersion and hope the engine sounds are good....but what about the language and radio chatter? I don't "think" it would be that hard, or that expensive, to put some variety into these things for SoW.

Maybe this is already taken care of. We have no way of knowing since we have not heard any voice audio. Is it of "initial release" importance? Probably not, but it would be nice.

Splitter

Go to the 'samples/speech' folder in the programme's files and listen all day long if you like!:grin:

I love searching through those for bits to use in short films.
There's quite a lot of swearing and blasphemy in there that sounds quite genuinely RAF banter.
'Bloody Hell' , 'Sod it', 'Christ' and 'Bugger' spring immediately to mind.
Believe it or not, 'Pull your finger out!' is also in there.
It's a hoot.:grin:

+1 HaHa :)

Hey Major, the archery at the flight field is perfect way to learn and feel the balistics for the unexperienced pilots...Oleg have to include such tuition for the novices...it is historical.
/I know I will be banned for Couterstrike trolling.../
~Regards!

Your answer Major!! In the motion pictures


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbDmMKMy6TY

HERESY!
no surprise - who'd want Wales?!

I haven't seen the video above because I choose not to install flash.

I have to agree with the last, archery targets are straw, with a canvas front, as in the lower photo above, besides being better for the arrows, that sort of target is more durable. Durability is why those wooden targets probably aren't for aircraft guns either, after being hit by a 100 round burst, they'd be matchwood. I don't know what they're for, I think rifle targets are paper, maybe the wooden ones are for airgun darts? Supposing they are targets at all, which the variation of the banding makes perhaps unlikely.

Beautiful!

A wild guess: are they something to do with painting roundels on aircraft??

RedToo.

I think they are for adjusting the guns by use of a periscope.
You place the target the set distance away then adjust the alignment of the guns by using a periscope attachment.

The test firing was usually into something similar to this..

http://www.independent.co.uk/multime...nd_400990t.jpg

I have a picture in a book of an armourer using the periscope on a spitfire but the photo dosn't show what he's 'aiming at'. It is being done out on the airfield in the photo so there would have been no actual test firing. Just aligning.

Get Flash, it will save me having to do screencaptures! :-)

Thanks Richie for the video! It is obviously a training target looking at that footage.

The video shows German airmen in a pillbox witnessing target practice. It all looks staged, but is no doubt an authentic recreation of a training method. I think it is the cannon on a bf109 that is being used for this practice.

Interesting tracers from the cannon! Photographed by a stationary camera on the ground.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...ack/targ01.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...ack/targ07.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...ack/targ05.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...ack/targ02.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...ack/targ08.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...ack/targ06.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...ack/targ03.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...ack/targ04.jpg

I believe the "aircraft" and even the "shoot" part are done with models and movie FX (of the time): the impacts do not look right, but the worst is the last passage of the 109: with this attitude, it should have been crashing two frames later....If you watch the video you will see it with the same attitude flying almost level!

So I would not put too much faith into the tracer behaviour...

JV

Well,in Flyboys they used such targets but the pilot was on the ground.

Me.
It's bloody gorgeous.

I agree something doesn't look quite right. Movement of the plane does look strange in that last passing shot. It is staged, and edited, and shot in the studio (cockpit shots) to some extent. But the main points of the film remain - it depicts target practice with painted targets, and the tracers look authentic, though I agree they may be 'blanks'.

well, I am waiting for 15 :)

Hi Oleg,
I may be displeasing the purists, but I d like to see in Bob the following feature:
a mode (usefull for rookies) that would allow the pilot shooting on a target to see (readable information on the screen), in real-time, technical information about the dammage caused by his shoot . For example, rudder hit - 70% destroyed etc., left wing hit 2% dammaged

I think this kind of functionnality could help rookies to improve their skill in dogfight.

Another point, a detailed statistic chart at the end of the mission would be great to evaluate your action.

Thanks for reading

I don't know if it would be that useful to provide system-by-system updates on the health of each component of each enemy aircraft for a simple reason...what happens when you need to let go of that guy and start working on another one?

Unless there's some kind of feature that mimics space combat games, where an in-cockpit screen shows you individual component status as you cycle through the enemy targets, we don't really have a way to collect and combine such information in an easy to present manner. That is, unless we add an MFD screen but that would look totally out of place in a WW2 setting.

Another issue is that becoming too obsessed with the "health" stats on each plane's components might lead to the development of bad habits instead of teaching good ones: over-fixating on the target because if you switch to another one you lose the amount of information you had about the previous one's systems health, an artificial feeling of fighting where everything seems to be governed by invisible health bars, etc. I guess there are some invisible health bars in every type of game, even simulators, but it makes for a more immersive experience if i don't see them, as i'm getting the illusion that things are happening dynamically with a bit of a random element and not in a fixed way, for example "pepper his rudder with a 2 second burst and off it goes, every single time".

I think what would matter most is teaching people the importance of concepts like tracking shots versus snapshots and when to choose them depending on your armament and the enemy aircraft's structural strength, angle-off and stuff like that. If all the rookie cares about is watching "target left wing structural integrity: 50%" messages, then all they will do is focus on tracking shots in an effort to see the invisible health bar count down. Then, they are effectively shepherded into a way of training that is too one dimensional for their own good, they go online and get owned repeatedly by a boom and zoomer using snapshots because they never had to bother with a different fighting style up to that point.

Don't get me wrong, i fly 90% difficulty offline (externals on) and full switch online but i still want to see as many options as possible that will make it easier for a rookie to pick up the simulator and get to grips with it. Your idea is not bad for someone who wants to use relaxed difficulty settings, but i think it needs some refinement to be even more useful. I hope i'm not coming off as an aggresive, antagonistic know-it-all wannabe by saying this, just giving my honest personal opinion about it. Cheers :grin:

Since the topic of goggles and oxygen masks came up earlier in this thread, I'd like to ask a question.

I didn't notice until I studied the picture of Sanford Tuck in the Hurricane, but what is the additional attachment to his goggles...a type of sunglasses that are attached to the goggles? I've never noticed this before.

(You can plainly see his oxygen mask hanging forward from his helmet 'loom' assembly and I like the ever-present mask as it usually contained the radio xmtr, as someone pointed out earlier. Pilots would hold the mask over their faces to talk even if they weren't wearing it full time. The mask and bulk of the Mae West contribute to the pilot 'look', IMO.)

http://i999.photobucket.com/albums/a...2009/tuck3.jpg

brittish pilots that were about to engage enemy bomber formations had adequate time to place their goggles back over their face (eye's) before engaging aircraft they had spotted earlier (or were being vectored to by ground control). as you can see from many photo's and historical video, often they had the goggles over their forehead and not over their faces while patrolling or on the way to a target. it wouldnt take them more then 3 or 5 sec to do so.

many pilots on combat patrol, or before engaging the enemy, did not always have their goggles over their face because it did reduce peripheral vision somewhat (partic early model goggles) and it also slightly blurred the vision forward. so unless at very high altitude (cold !) many pilots/aircrew did not permanently have their goggles placed over their eye's.

i suspect that during takeoff and landings it was also a good idea to put them back over you'r eye's, because of the higher risk of crashes and incidents over that period of the flight

interesting picture

it looks indeed like a small pair of sunglasses attached to the goggles, which can be flipped up and out of the way when not needed. i suspect it is a personal pilots "mod" to better be able to look for the "hun in the sun", but i have never noticed it before in other historical photo's

Very very nice!!! :)

Standard RAF C type helmet with MkVII googles:

http://www.flightgear.ch/Pictures/RA...rine%20019.jpg

Same rig with polarizing shield down:

http://www.flightgear.ch/Pictures/RA...rine%20022.jpg


The Mk IV goggles had similar flip down polarized lenses ( Mk IVb seen here on a type B helmet) ....

http://www.flightgear.ch/Pictures/RA...%20CR%20P1.jpg


here is a D type with MkIIIa goggles note the MkIII and earlier did NOT have a flip up polarized shield:

http://www.flightgear.ch/Pictures/RA...rine%20025.jpg

This is a German LW LKpN101 III from the early 1940's (the N meant netting):

http://www.flightgear.ch/Pictures/LW...rine%20014.jpg

This LKpW 101 is rather interestingly combined for display with a steel helmet (M42 ?? ) :

http://www.flightgear.ch/Pictures/LW...0JK%20Main.jpg
http://www.flightgear.ch/Pictures/LW...%20JK%20p1.jpg

There is an entire website devoted to Flying Helmets including RAF, LW, VVS and US ones:

http://www.flightgear.ch/index.htm



Well worth a look through.

Thanks for that informative set of pictures, WTE_Galway. They certainly show the application!

In all these years of viewing pictures, I"ve never noticed the sunglasses before or seen them used. Remarkable!

nice find, thx for posting

i have never noticed these before, but it looks like it might have been standard issue (not just for the tropics ?) :)

Luftwaffe Flying Steel Helmet:

I stumbled upon this picture a few days ago. Here’s a fellow wearing one.
Some individual flight crews it seems took the initiative and used the Luftwaffe issued steel helmet to give them some protection from gun-shot and splinters.

I'm a bit "scared" to mention this on this forum because I suspect that it has been addressed in the AI behaviour improvements in SoW, but I presume that one will be able to keep up with one's flight in SoW?
I must say, on some '1946' missions, as much as speed off behind my leader on the runway, keep the ascent gradual, push the airplane as much as I can (subject to overheating etc) my flight disappears slowly, but surely, into the distance.

WTE_Galway good one! thanks:grin:

+1

I think thats a feature for fps and it's much too arcadish for MY taste.
It might be interesting in training, but then it would be very hard to hit always the same parts to get the same results, so it seems rather pointless for me.
We should remember that we don't have hit-boxes for a wing or the fuselage but a lot of really small hit-boxes for all the sub-systems and parts.
One would get messages like:
Left wing, Spar 3, 4 and 6 hit; lost 50% stability;
Hydraulic Line left gear holed, 100% pressure lost;
Engine hit, spark-plugs 12 and 13 100% damaged, Power loss 12%;....
For the training it would be enough to show the hits with markers like in IL2

my thoughts

? Just simple real time gunnery statistics, as CFS had some 15 years ago (upper-right corner with components hit & hit %) ... great for gunnery practice. Remember that new users are often scared and repelled by the steep learning curve of combat flight sims.

Yep, 15 years ago, with large hit boxes ;-D
Oh well, as a option, as long as it doesn't reduce performance :-D

I'm confused about about why anyone would want little red arrows flying around the cockpit or statistics writ large in the corner. Why can't they learn to fly by instruments and learn to shoot properly, and then get situational awareness by looking out of the window? I thought this was going to be a realistic flight simulator....

As real as possible is, regrettably, not everybodys fashion. :-(
Those, who dare the challenge, are even sometimes called snobbish :-D
One can always hope that the arcade setting get boring for the masses and a few more
will find the way to the light of "arapatm" (as real as possible at the moment) :-D :-D

Then turn them off I'm sure

For training purposes, if one could see a small glimt of light as the bullets passes closest to the enemyplane, it would be a great way to train lead / lag.

If he hasn't bailed and/or nosing into the deck, you missed! Simple really.

Because SOW (and IL-2 as well) is, first and foremost, a game, not a simulator. A game is made to entertain people, a simulator is made to train people. The idea of a truly "WW-II simulator" is completely absurd, because WW II is already 60 years ago. Nowadays, noone needs a pilot which can fly a 60 year old WW II aircraft to its limit (because it's sometimes quite dangerous), which can use deflection shooting from 500m (because they have complicated gunsight and better, missiles for this purpose), which can turn his head quick and often enough to spot enemies (because they have radar). You won't get a job after you beat the best of the best aces in SOW online.

Many people (including you) have fun having a much realism as possible. For you, anything less than "full realistic" is just a waste of time. Because of you, many realistic features are implemented in game, which makes flying in games more or less comparable to flying in real life. You enjoy the game, the game developers do their best to make you enjoy their game and buy it. Excellent, a typical "win-win" situation.

Some people (including me) just don't have time, don't have motivation or simply aren't interested enough to "learn" the game. Sometimes, we enjoy realistic features, sometimes they irritate us: got bounced from nowhere and killed immediately, firing the whole magazine without effect... We don't want to sit 8 hours a day to "learn", we want to be Ben Affleck in our short weekend. We don't want to get shot down 10 times for each kill, we want to see enemy's wing falling off every 5 minutes. Therefore, we need "arcadish" features to make the game easier. Call us "noobie" of whatever you like, being a better gamer doesn't make you a better person. As long as we enjoy the game, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. And as we buy this game, with the same price as you, our opinions are as important as yours.

TRAINING with post-flight (or, better, real time) hit statistics is more realistic than your stuff, because the GUNNERY PRACTICE was actually done like that in the combat flight schools.
PRACTICE targets were used, such as drones pulled by another plane. Try and check the memories of Brian Kingcome, for instance.
As we don't have this possibility in the game (and we don't want it either, as it would be too cumbersome), we must find something else to TRAIN our virtual pilots.


And, let me add that's not about full switch vs. Wonder Woman (yawn!), it's all about attracting more users and enrich our community. Stripping out TRAINING functions and make this game a barebone flight simulator will not help, imho. Any technical aid to TRAINING will reduce the learning curve and facilitate the passage to full switch, if the gamer likes it.

(I've put in capitals the words that sometimes go unnoticed by some people).

Cheers,
Insuber

The "problem" is that easy gained success is worth less.
To "beat the system" (or here to master the 60 year old systems of those obsolete planes) is worth the work put into it.
There is also NO border between simulation and game, the switch is fluent, and simulation is definitively not only for training but also for entertainment.

Surely it takes longer to learn how all this other stuff works and then have to spend more time understanding what it's trying to tell you, than it would doing it in a realistic way. If you're too lazy/have no time(I sympathise!) to learn, I can't really help.

I hope there will be a MANDATORY training course so you will have to learn the right way to fly and shoot before you're allowed to play this 'game'. You'll only have to learn it once, like riding a bike, and then there'll be no need for statistics, arrows or whatever.

Jameson, you can simply switch the arrows off in the options menu.

this is italian Helmet.
http://www.ams.vr.it/Attivit%E0/mili...MS/pier_13.jpg
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3015/dcp04860em0.jpg
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/5...uilottiix2.jpg
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/3020/cimicchi6.jpg
italian savage sistem
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...salvagente.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...alvagente1.jpg
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/1...ataggiora0.jpg
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/1...taggiora0g.jpg
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/1...taggiora0o.jpg
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/7...2726comiso.jpg

For training purposes, not online combat, it would be educational to see instantly where the bullets hit the target or how close you are of hitting it. There is also a limit to the situational awareness one can achieve by looking at a 24" (if even) screen. Not everyone has the Track IR or multiple screens setup. Small arrows that gives you clues of where the enemy is is therefore not cheating. They just compensate for the simple fact that you are not in the real airplane where you can twist your head in any direction you want and that your periferal vision (close to 180 degrees in real life) is very limited when looking at a screen, or even three screens. SOW BOB should be made so as many as possible will enjoy it. If it's a game or a sim should be up to the player / pilot. We have also only seen pictures of SOW BOB. Sound and most importantly how realistic the airplanes fly is yet to be known. If the AI pilots have their googles on or not is of miniscule importance to me.

Sure some folks will want to go through this and learn how to do everything. Some people on here want to spend several minutes starting up the Merlin engine, activing fuel switches, checking the mags, and other start up related items. But not everyone. Many would like to start the engine and get going. Both are perfectly acceptable.

Not everyone is the same or wants the same thing out of the product. So statistics and arrows pointing objects out will appeal to some people and not others. That is why there are options... not everyone has to play in exactly the same sandbox. To do so would narrow the level of interest sigificantly...

Fortunately Oleg's always been about the options.

If you were in charge of SOW then Oleg and company would be on the side of the road asking for spare change.

This is a GAME that needs to make money. You're not going to see the RAF out at your local games store asking for 40 copies so they can train their pilots to fly Hurricanes and Spitfires. That's why there are adjustable realism features.

The type of people here on these forums represent only about 1% of the demographic that will buy this game. (they also represent about 3% of the autistic community) This game needs to be first and foremost, FUN! If it's not fun then they don't make money, and there is no further development on the game or the series. All these options can be turned off or on. If we didn't have external views for example, then every screenshot that Oleg posts every Friday would be another cockpit cap.

Grow up a little and realize that not everything is "your way" or "no way".

I don't use them but i see the use for such helper tools. Poor scaling of difficulty is one of the prime reasons we don't get more people into flight sims.

Everyone likes games with explosions, so why aren't more people into flight simming? Well, what many of them don't like is getting smacked across the forehead with a 500 pager that details just the basics for theory of flight, formation tactics, gunnery principles and so on, not to mention that most of the times today the manual doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what's in the simulator. It's not just getting smacked across the head with that 500 pager, back in the day it was at least provided in the packaging, now you have to print part of it yourself from a pdf file and then scour the internet for the missing parts before flogging with the manuals can commence. That's the extra masochism that we long timers appreciate and crave, but it's easy to see it doesn't work any miracles for bringing new faces into the hobby :-P

Just because the arrows are there doesn't make this a not realistic simulator, as long as we have the option to turn them off. Effectively, having a wide array of difficulty options to choose from enables us to have more games in a single title: from ultra realistic (PCs of the time permitting) to ultra arcade.
I don't use arcadish gameplay options but don't diss arcade mode, it's what can bring the new guys in and new guys help pay for our expansions and implementation of realistic features. ;)

If i scoff at something , for me it will be the lack of personal chalenge in arcadish gameplay, not the people who use the options. For them, the challenge is there and when they reach a certain skill level when it's not enough the answer is simple: they either put the game down or up the ante by starting to fly with more realistic settings.
Frankly, as long as a person who flies with all the realistic FM options turned off doesn't try to play know-it-all on the realistic-flying guy about the physics of flight or claim expertise in how things should be, i have no problem whatsoever how he uses his simulator.
In a similar fashion, i don't think people who fly full switch are snobs just because of flying full switch. They have a more varied and accurate experience and as a result their knowledge pertains more to what is closer to reality, if people want to challenge them then they need to do their homework first and that's not snobbish, it's reasonable. Being a snob is telling people to "stfu n00b, i fly full real", it's perfectly ok however to say "i fly full switch and so i think that your opinions only apply to your preffered difficulty settings and not the entire simulator environment".

I think we all have to keep in mind that we didn't arrive at the point we are overnight. The reason i want ultra realism is because i've been using flight sims for 18 years and i've seen pretty much every trick in the book, so i'm looking forward to something a bit more challenging and maybe surprising. However, there are other people who are just starting now. It would be stupid of me to expect them to acculumate in a few weeks the same amount of knowledge i have managed to collect over the past 18 years and then proceed to degrade them when they try to learn gradually. It doesn't do good to anybody behaving this way, neither the new guy who will be discouraged, nor the veteran who is looking for some "fresh meat" or maybe the challenge of training an up-start wingman and finally, not for the genre on the whole which will suffer reduced sales.

The question is simple. We either try to accomodate the up-start guys and ease them into the hobby gradually, or the hobby gradually dies as we get older and start suffering from poor eyesight, hand eye coordination or worse :-P

If you sell a sim with a default full real setting and that's all it will not have no selling power. Many of the newbs who buy it will simply not have the patients to learn. After the 100th ground loop and firery crash into the fuel depot they'll give up and take it back to the store and get a Microsoft product.

To Blackdog and others who have posted similar: Yep.

I want to get my son (17) into SoW as one of those things we can do together. No way is he going to be able to know what I know (since I have been flying flight sims for almost 25 years off and on) or compete with me on settings that are more ""realistic".

But we could "dumb it down" and have some fun together right from the start. More realistic settings could be introduced to him as we go along. Eventually, we may go from playing "his" game to playing "mine"....and he'll probably kick my backside by that time lol.

Other people have friends and family they would like to get into "flight simming". 16 year olds are going to see the product on the shelves and pick it up. The wider the audience, the more copies that will sell. That helps all of us. Why limit the audience?

Just understand that people will be playing different games. Having the option to make it more "arcadish" would not take away from the "simulation" crowd at all.

Look at the Total War series. There are a dozen different way to play that game. Some people automatically resolve all battles. Some people control every little aspect of each battle. Some use diplomacy, others ignore diplomacy. The list and combinations go on. If the developers of those games said "Everyone will use diplomacy and fight all their battles" the over all market (and popularity) of the games would be severely limited.

As long as the "realistic" options are there, I am happy. If people can turn them off, how does that effect me?

Splitter

N.1 we return 60 years behind.
N.2 an airplane of the second world war does not have computer.
N.3 comprises the difference between arcade game and simulation game.
N.4 to read to learn to study handbook in order to fly with an airplane of the second world war.
N.5 to study a takeoff procedure and to study the air navigation through manual maps and instrumentation for navigation type rules or protractor.
N.6 SoW classified whit a simulator not is a game.
elimination any help whit computer interface in the simulator.
No arrows no auto loock enemy no gps map no gps electronic instrumentation no night vision no ammo infinite no fuel infinite.

this is a simulation not a stupid ARCADE for little cildren.

Sow's box should have a label stating that the recommended age is "Over 25". What teenager could resist? It would be an instant 'must have'. Lol!

Well, seeing as though I have such a set and have tried this out first hand, I can say that it's not as easy as you say. I have played Il-2, and for fun tested what you just said, and the goggles kick up in my face and block out half my vision. The celluloid lenses don't help, and any surface scratches create shadows that look like far-away planes. With the mark IV goggles, they are easier to put in place, but for me require the strap to be tightened which is a bitch to do with one hand (too much force and you may risk snapping the strap) ;) I can see why they might have done what you have written about, but it's not as easy as you make it sound.


The 'sunglasses' part you mention is a flipshield. If you look at the goggles the pilot is wearing in the update, you may notice they are mark IV's:

Have a look here: http://www.historicflyingclothing.co...=12088&phqu=10

http://www.historicflyingclothing.co...otos/12088.jpg

The flipshields were really brittle though, and broke off easily.

Note the picture of Bob Tuck. He is wearing a pair of mark IVa or b goggles, with shortened ear-loops. The helmet is a modified b-type NOT a c-type as you may think it is. It's a very interesting set, as all aspects of his headgear have been personally modified (notice the strap on his d-type oxygen mask)
;)

Yes it was standard issue. The AM used the flipshield on all goggles after the Mark IV series cluminating in the mark VII's. (The goggles inbetween weren't goggles, but spectacles. If you're interested I can supply pictures)

This set, though, is not BoB.
A BoB set would consist of:

B-type helmet
D-type mask w/ type E carbon mic or type 19 mic (Tuck has the latter)
Mark II, III, IIIa, IV or IVa goggles (the latter 2 had flipshields that could be taken off)
I have not included spectacles here, as they were more common in coastal command, but if one was to take the spectacles into account, then the Mark V or Va would be BoB.

Wow, what a stupid thing to say.
I know of at least 8 people who started playing IL-2 because they initially got the console version of BoP. They all started out on Arcade mode and within 8 months they've gone through Arcade>Realistic>Simulator modes on BoP and then gone and downloaded 1946 because they wanted more. These are console gamers crossing over. The more units Oleg sells of this game the better as far as I'm concerned and if that means making it more accessable then so be it.

To call arcade childish is, well, chidish. Why cut off a whole new audience just because you want some wierd 'sim elite'

+1

Oleg is making this sim for all parties; simmers and acracders alike. Arcade may sound simplistic, but of course there'll be easier options for SoW ;)

the little child not have good pacience for learn a starting procedure of ww2 airplane this is a serius simulator not a ARCADE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM2-P...next=1&index=1