It´s such a shame there will be no Duxford, because that means no Czechoslovak squadrons.
Oleg, will there be an option to pick campaign for squadron that was historically outside of the in-game map?
Or, is there some future plan for map extention to the north?

Thanks

With there being an army "none" and figuring it would be neutral, would objects in a blue or red army be allowed to be from army "none"?

-Ambulance
-Hospital
-Other objects that should not be attacked
-St. Pauls (or is it another indestructible object?)


Would 'objects' be able to switch to neutral, when they should not be attacked?

-pilots and crew hanging in their parachutes, so they don't become a target for Triple-A or FLAK guns

Somewhen Oleg stated that each 10 kilometres extension to the north would mean about 1 year additional development work.

I hope the bomber fans get a go at various convoys and ships in the English Channel, as up to now not much has been mentioned about ships, except some nice screen shots I believe of a freighter. As the ship attacks where the kick off for the Battle of Britain.

The similar GUI is great. We will have to discover a new world, knowing the basis. When something new is created, it generates a lot of movement around. FMB tutorials, bombsight tutorials, skins, Campaings, perfomance charts and a long etc...All of that are hours of learning and fun. Wonderfull times are coming.
PD: Oleg: What the feature "battle area" means??
Can we have next week more about fmb and a bombsight view screen?

8-! ... One year of one person, ore one year of the full team? It's maybe also a function of the allocated resources. I cannot imagine however that you need that much, when all the landscape objects are done. But maybe I'm wrong.

I understand that it would cost a lot of work if a city like Paris would appear on the map to (only then it would have to expand to the east). That would have been a lot more work for something that has nothing to do with this battle of Britain simulator.
Like I said in my previous post, the thing that surprises me the most is that there are no airfields on this map where the Italians where based. (Can someone confirm this?) Maybe that is the thing that would cost a lot of extra work and research: building all the Italian equipment.

janpitor

Maps and map landscape items

It will be possible to add these items later. Oleg, has mentioned there will be ability for users to build maps.

Also, on large maps Oleg will add landscape items over time...or provide a way through FMB for users to add them.

The limitations of size for the original release maps may never have area enlarged, but if you have the ability to add airbases it should be possible to create an airbase on the map. I know such airbases may not be in exact locations, yet distances we fly aren't really handled as real world anyway.

By that I mean... most users 8X to combat areas after takeoffs, return to base is handled similarly after combat. In other words, for the most part users are never inclinded to spend an hour gettting to combat areas or an additional hour getting to home base.

So... where airbases are actually located on maps is not always that important. Naturally, if would be nice if you could name airbases as you will so they would show up on the maps as what you want to represent them to be. In your case "Duxford".

You need not worry about this, because attacking convoys was a major strategy in the BOB. Be assured this will be very well addressed.

Oleg, this is important
 

I had missed that ! I simply didn't expect it to be missing.

That depends on whether or not you intend to create realistic scenarios and what is the point in a flagship product like Battle of Britain if you can't? I have flown in scenarios for two hours, never intercepted the enemy, and enjoyed it due to the immersion and the tension. I was even an 11 Group Radar Controller in Aces High over several two hour frames, never "stepped into an aircraft" and enjoyed it more than any other scenario I have ever been in. We aren't all quick-run shoot'em'up players.

OLEG,
12 Group, especially RAF Duxford, was such an important part of the BoB story. The Big Wing theories of Douglas Bader/AVM Trafford Leigh-Mallory were such a controversial issue that we are going to want to try to prove them one way or the other.

I expect you know that 12 Group Squadrons, and the Big Wing, were used by 11 Group to defend their airfields and these are vital to any LW mission designed to destroy those airfields while Group 11 squadrons are out trying to intercept the raids. The delay in forming up and flying from Duxford is a critical timing issue in the Battle. Also, 12 Group's original Big Wing theory, never really put into practice, was to destroy raids en-masse over SE England and it would be interesting to see what effect that, and it's timing issues, may have had on the Battle.

The Map really needs to be extended North as far as Cambridge. I know that is a lot of work but if it would impact release I think a simplified generic Terrain with detail in the Duxford area would be acceptable until a patch could be issued.

I can't stress enough the importance of Duxford in the BoB story.

No problem with that. You don't have to click to 8X to enjoy IL2.

I am sure if you poll enough people you can even find some people who enjoy to watch paint dry. LOL

Not ragging on you just thought to add a bit of humor.

I'm OK with...however users want to enjoy the sim.

Oh my gosh! Well that's the great thing about North Africa...no buildings....no trees.

It is in my concern because I´m from Slovakia and I awaited a long time the possibility to fly some bob Czechoslovak campaign. (maybe to see the known names on rosters and fly missions led by Dougles Bader in an hurricane.) And really if you asked a lot of people to name one important airfield during bob, I believe majority would tell Duxford.
But we will see how these squadrons from north will be implemented from the release.

The Map really needs to be extended North as far as Cambridge. I know that is a lot of work but if it would impact release I think a simplified generic Terrain with detail in the Duxford area would be acceptable until a patch could be issued.

Yeah, but to truly reflect the time both Clydeside (Glasgow) the North East of England (shipbuilding industry bombed from Norway) and the Midlands (Birmingham took a battering, Coventry too) should be in as well. Someone posted a good map showing bomb tonnage (I think) dropped, not sure where to find it though it was interesting.

Its not going to happen and I'm fine with that, the vast majority of the action took place over the South East of course, and that's grand. I'd like nothing better than to help out my "Southern Softie" battle Brethren, we are all in it together and I love em. 'Geet canny', they are. :grin:

There'll always be an England. :grin:

about the FMB:

could there be a groundtarget "win"-objective that count bombs in a given area (like the groundattack circle no in IL2).
As the bombing is odten against cityareas and not point target such a "win condition" would be helpfull in missiondesign - espacially for scripted dogfightservers and COOP online missions.

would make the work easier than hidding trucks in the houses and X% of them have to be destroyed.........................


and please, let moving targets in a "targetcircle:destroy X%" count without putting stationary objects first in the circle. To avoid submerged Submarines (like in IL2) in woods, you know ;)

Simply ridiculous Duxford is missing, also calling Great Western Aerodrome Heathrow seems poor research, maybe Duxford didn't participate to a research request from 1C Team so were cut off :)

If this is the default and only map we have for SoW should it not be a bit more "in depth" of the UK ?


Still lets hope some of the new FMB requests in this thread don't fall on deaf ears.

And I believe the majority would say Biggin Hill.

Duxford would be behind a number of airfields I'm afraid, even if it does host the greatest warbird show in Europe every year.

You don't know if this is the only map, there may well be other maps included and if not I'm pretty sure a map which includes East Anglia and other parts of the UK will follow

Guys, when BoB2 came out, it was a really buggy game and for most people unplayable. It has developed into one of the best combat-flight-simulators around, and certainly for the BoB no flight-sim beats it.
I think that we have to appreciate that SoW will not be the perfect box of chocolates like we might expect. There will be chocolates in the box which we don't like, and we might want to replace them with chocolates more to our taste. Of course, SoW will have the time to develop, so we will experience these 'unwanted' chocolates being replaced by ones which we like.
This area of the map may, dissapointingly, not be modelled, but it doesn't mean that it won't be. We have to allow SoW to develop into this perfect sim, and I think this may be hard to appreciate as the word 'perfect' gets thrown around a lot these days.
On release I think we'll be in for a treat, but there will be massive room for expansion towards further perfection. I can't wait to play SoW once it is out, and I can't begin to imagine how awesome it will be 3-10 years down the line. :cool:

I'd say Manston, but thats only cause i live 2 miles away, lol.

Hornchurch, Biggin Hill, Tangmere, Debden, theres loads of important airfields, no one was more 'important' or 'famous' really.

Hawkinge, North Weald......etc, etc.

For our Luftwaffe chums, the map also excludes Coventry................:evil:

But the map as it stands is fine. We can't have everything in the initial release, plus it means there'll be further BoB scenarios to look forward to.

There is also an argument that says Duxford would as much use in the sim as it was IRL.:rolleyes:, but if someone wants to start a thread to discuss...;)

From across the pond here, I think it is safe to say that the one that most history buffs here would most easily recognize is Biggin Hill. Until I did some research in the BoB, that was the case for me.

If asked, of course, most Americans would answer that Biggin Hill was where the Hobbits lived.... :).

Guys (and Gals), we are only seeing the first part of the SoW series. We know it will be expanded if it sells well. Have a little patience. If Oleg tried to please everyone with the first installment, the sim would never be finished.

Splitter

This says it all. I flew IL2 for about 3 years before I finally decided to learn the FMB. The best way for me was to get on TS with some others already proficient in its use and in about 30-45 minutes had enough understanding and knowledge to create a few missions for our server (greatergreen).

I don't care that much about the looks of a tool even though it would be nice with tool ribbons in the upper part that change depending on the object you selected on the map... And good right click context sensitive menus!

I remember my first time in the IL2 FMB - took me 10 minutes to understand how to create an object... Which is 90% of what you do ;)

Ok guys, now we want the map to be changed AND the fmb.

Anyone got any other 'deal-breakers' that are absolutely going to ruin the game for them :rolleyes:

I'd like to request Oleg to include Norway so that the Luftflotte 5 bomber types don't feel left out.

I think Oleg said that the user base would only be able to create small maps and that the developers would reserve the large maps for themselves.

So, there really won't be a later solution to the absence of Duxford as far as I can see - even if someone were to make an 'extension' map to the north, there wouldn't be any way to link it to the main map (?)

The real problem here (with the map and the fmb...and soon no doubt a score of other things too) is that as more detail on the real game comes out, people are going to find those perfect, cosy dreams of perfectibility, that thrived in the absence of any real information, starting to look a bit shaky.

The game is going to involve compromises. Better learn to deal with it.

The inability to fly out of Duxford will, it seems, be one of those compromises. But surely the role of the Duxford squadrons can be adequately represented through use of air-starts and delayed arrival times over the main theatre to the south (as actually happened in reality).

p.s. Duxford wouldn't be the first airfield I would have named - wouldn't even make the top 5. Sorry.

kendo, my point is that Duxford should never have been a 'deal breaker'.

I don't want to offend Oleg but it is so fundamental to the main defensive Battle, in the South East, that it should be in there. It is not a 'future enhancement' for 'other campaigns', it was an important factor in the Battle and should be in from the start. Not having the one day major NE Coast Luftwaffe raid (2 targets) playable is only a small matter.

I know you're joking about Norway but as an example that was a separate campaign and could come later.

No Duxford in the BoB is like playing cards with all the Jacks removed.

BoB in it's historical sense can't be properly fulfilled or re-enacted/scenario'd without it. OTOH, if people are only interested in big dogfights and shooting down a few bombers over Kent and pretending they are recreating the BoB they won't care, and it won't matter, what fields are or aren't included.

We could of course select a West Country airfield to represent Duxford and have them fly northeast to the edge of the map then turn around and fly south but that's hardly in keeping with Oleg's policy of quality and accuracy.

Please remember that this thread is specifically intended for us to air our views on this week's offering fom Oleg. He's quite capable of answering for himself on such a fundamental point. It's the first time I have seen the map and you can judge from other posts that the Duxford issue is a real concern.

Duxford definitely wouldn't in the top 5, that's true. It is also true that 12. group mostly arrived late for the action in the BoB. Still, it would have been nice to have their main stations, but it won't happen so no need to cry over spilt milk. We get so much more!

I don't think there is a top 5. The Battle ebbed and flowed with first some airfields taking the brunt or plugging the gap and then others. Sometimes all of them. Some of course had higher 'scores' and fame than others. The key sector stations were Hornchurch, Kenley, Biggin Hill, Tangmere, North Weald, Northolt, Debden, Duxford, etc.. PLUS their satellites/subordinates like Manston, West Malling, Hawkinge, West Hampnett. If you say 'Tangmere' you are also saying 'West Hampnett'. I wouldn't be able to split Hornchurch, Kenley, Biggin, Tangmere, Manston, Duxford, Hawkinge and West Malling and I'm not sure about some others but that's 8 anyway that played key roles in the Battle.

This observation about the map was made at SimHQ:

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...ml#Post3150692

Hello Klem - I've taken the liberty of re-ordering elements of your post so that i can address the different issues a little more easily

Understood - my reaction may have been a little on the strong side. I wasn't trying to defend Oleg though - the opinions were purely my own

I think that our differing opinions about this reflect the debate that has been going on regarding the campaign game: some people want to be able to make strategic-level decisions for the German side - to be able to direct the air campaign with a view to changing the outcome, i.e. a German win. Others think that this is out of place - that the campaign should reflect the perspective of a single pilot (or squadron at most).

I'm probably in the latter camp. Though I wouldn't be averse to a strategic-level sim of the battle - I think that SOW's (and Il2's) emphasis is naturally on the small-scale air combat.

So I don't really think that SOW BOB is going to be able to re-enact the battle on that strategic level where the player can alter the outcome by use of 'Big Wing' tactics, etc. That large-scale recreation of the battle requires a different game I think. The map for that game should include all of Britain and the German bases in France and Norway. The player would also need to be able to choose where to base his squadrons - eg the German commander could withdraw his forces in Norway and use them as reserve for the main attack across the Channel. It really would be a game on a whole different level.

Given that Oleg isn't going that route, what should he attempt to do with the game map given his limited resources?

I think that he has to provide a representative setting - a stage - for the tactical / individual raid-level air combat that the game can recreate well. That really means the map recreates a portion of the south-east of England.

It doesn't preclude the use of 12 Group squadrons in the missions - I think I'm right in saying that although their bases may be off the map, they fought their engagements on it. It means that if the game won't be attempting to refight the battle on the strategic level there is not really a role for the 'what-if' scenarios that some people would like, and there is no need for the 12 Group bases.

You are right about the minor nature of the northern raids and about my mention of Norway, but the point is that a line has to be drawn somewhere.

The reasons I've given above explain why I think Oleg has it roughly right.

Very nice FMB stuff here :grin::grin:

Should I anticipate the next LLTM to feature SoW?;)

I'm also thinking that triggers / scripting could be used in creative ways to reflect the use of 12 Group squadrons.

Admittedly, that won't give those who want to fly in one of the Duxford squadrons the experience that they want, but it could maybe reflect their role in the battle reasonably well?

I generally agree with what you say. I'm not talking about change of Strategy. The Axis Strategy for defeating Britain was the destruction of the RAF through the air battle that became known as the BoB, to be followed by the landings in the SE. That would remain the Strategy.

The 12 Group Squadrons/Big Wing question was more a matter of Tactics. Should they have been thrown at the bomber formations wherever they could be found or used for defence of the 11 Group airfields (as they were - well, supposed to have been)? Would the former have resulted in an earlier more decisive victory over the LW and possibly even prevented the Blitz through the destruction of many more enemy a/c even though they had already bombed the airfields or would its non-protection of the airfields have left them devastated and inoperable on a larger scale and earlier than they were, leading to defeat of the RAF? Perhaps it became a moot point as soon as the LW switched to attacking London but if you were Herman Goering and had the benefit of hindsight you'd have kept attacking the airfields and then the case for how to use the Big Wing could have been critical and argued in either direction. At least we have the opportunity to try out both arguments.

So, back On Topic, a Duxford is going to be needed.

But you're back into 'what if' scenarios again.

That was my main point before (someone else also made the same point talking about the campaign - as an individual pilot or even a squadron commander you have no real influence in those kinds of questions. You just follow the orders handed down from Group or higher level)

When flying a mission in il2 or SOW you will be given a briefing - your instructions - there is no lee-way. You don't get to choose what targets to attack and you don't get to say that your superior's strategy is rubbish.

The jump to allowing the player to decide targetting and strategy is really a jump to a different game (or a different level). It is something that was never in il2 for instance.

It seems that BOB will restrict a player to fulfilling the role of an individual pilot / squadron commander. You will take part in missions and endeavour through use of tactics and skill to succeed. You won't get to decide the strategy, targetting, etc. If you want a realistic campaign that reflects the experience of the real-life pilots then this is accurate.

If we want a sim that allows us to be Keith Park or Leigh Mallory I think we need a different game, or a massively expanded game that would include resource management elements (pilots, aircraft) and require the player to manage locations for squadrons along with targetting and how the squadrons are used.

Personally speaking, I would love to have a game that covered all of those levels. I just realise how big a leap beyond il2 that would be, and I don't think we're going to get it.

this has got off-topic somewhat, but it all comes out of the debate about the map - the type of game we are going to get determines the type of map we need

I found a good BOB map?
 

Looking at the full area of the BOB map, I think Oleg was in a real 'quandary' (difficult situation). If you move the map up to include Duxford (see map attached) you cut out the Normandy beachhead. I think the map size probably is limited (due to programming) and Oleg went to the maximum.

Kendo has given us the answer, using 'scripting' we can include 12 Group effectively in the the battle, though they would be in an 'airstart scenerio'.

Looking at the map I have attached, let's hope some 'budding map maker' will include 12 and 13 Group in a new map.

Let us all be thankful for what Oleg and his team have done and move on. I would be grateful for some more feedback on the FMB.

DFLion

We've got to remember that the FMB is included in the package and with this we can create any type of mission we like. In this way we are acting a bit like a general aren't we?

With regards to Duxford, I'd like to know what happens when we fly off the map? I could be wrong but I seem to remember Oleg saying that the land masses of the entire globe are already in the engine...hence the edge of space views we were treated to once. This could mean that the entire UK is already in there but only populated with textures in the extreme south.

With this in mind it MAY be possible for modders in future to introduce a correctly placed Duxford, perhaps with limited terrain features depending on memory limits etc.

Just a thought.

kendo, this is my point. Missions can be created by us in which we can decide strategy, distribution of forces, tactics etc. We aren't a slave to the mission generator. But without the resources (Duxford for example) we can't meet the true extent of even just the defensive aspect of the BoB. We may have to settle for a poor fix, another airfield and routing 'rules' to represent Duxford but it's not very realistic and I'd like to know what Oleg thinks.

If anyone is thinking 'realism fanatic' or 'that's way beyond IL-2', well, that's what I expect from a 21st century simulation that has taken over 6 years to create. A massive amount of work has gone into the FMs, FMB, getting the aircraft, vehicles and the grass looking right etc., but not even having an appropriate map is a bit fundamental.

Picking up on DFLion's thoughts on map size restrictions, what happens when we get to the 8th Air Force bombing campaign stretching from England to Berlin? I don't suppose many people will want to sit in a B17 for 4 hours (a scaled down 8hrs?) but that has been done in other air war games. It's a subject for the future but the map size question is likely to arise again.

The map "edge" has to occur somewhere. I think the limits Oleg has chosen are sufficiently large to allow a lot of flexibility in mission building and will keep the majority happy for some time.

I would be interested in knowing whether the coastlines will continue at low resolution beyond the map edge. As mentioned earlier OM has said that the game engine can model the entire globe. This will give a much better view at high altitude than the existing IL2 effect at the map edge.

It s a shame that important sites like Duxford have been left out but I can understand why. On the southern coast I would have preferred to see the line drawn west of Weymouth (Portland), which was the scene of attacks in the Channel Phase. -- but I guess since we have Southampton and Portsmouth we cant complain.

Not having the correct airfields for the Regia Aeronatica seems like a more important omission since we will have their aircraft. -- but then again we are getting a Gloster Gladiator. They were based in the West Country, well off the map. On balance the more aircraft the better.

I just wanted to add some facts to this really.


12 Group
As of 1st August 1940 (and most of July) there was only 1 Spitfire Squadron based at Duxford and they flew out of Fowlmere. There was no fighter sqn scrambling out of Duxford as the sqn would fly to Fowlmere early in the morning and were actually scrambled from there.

At this time Bader was flying out of Cottishall which had 1 Spitfire Sqn and 1 Hurricane Sqn. Digby had the same. Of the 32 times which the 'big wing' tactic was ordered up it resulted in combat 7 times.

303 Sqns first kill was 30th August, 2 months after the start of the BoB.
they were stationed at Northholt.

As of the 1st September there was still only 1 Spitfire Sqn at Duxford, but again they were moved forward in the mornings to Fowlmere.
The only sqn actually scrambling from Duxford was 310 (Czech).

Duxford was not an important base during the BoB.

You and Sutts have a fair point there and I actually agree with you. I think a lot of my criticism was about the 'what ifs' and setting strategy aspects that i didn't think was realistically going to be achievable in the campaign - and that the impact of 12 Group in this area could be reflected in other ways.

But, yes, it's a shame we won't be able to script our own missions to simulate being a part of the 'Big Wing' (frustrating experience that I suspect that would be :) ). But some people may also feel it's a shame not to be able to try (at least once) the German raids from Norway, with maybe slightly changed tactics. People have commented on the Italian bases too. I'm not sure if the restricted map size in this instance is mainly down to the limits of current PC specs or about Oleg's resources/time limits in creating it.

Winny raises some interesting points too.

Good point about future 8th AF situations. I guess that a way will have to be found eventually and I'm sure we'll see things progress and the issues will be solved.

Unfortunately, for now though, no Duxford.

Enthusiast
 

In for a second just to say that, as a complete editor freak (in any game, expecially IL2) I greatly appreciated the last screenshots showing the FMB

Thanks to Oleg and his whole great team.

Cz

I completely agree although those airfields are north of the current extent of the Map.

I would be happy to see Duxford representing all of those.

Anyway, enough said unless we can hear from Oleg.

I don't think any 12 Group stations are on the map and I'm not arguing against that it would be nice to have Duxford on the map.
SoW is obviously a Simulation based on 11 Group.

It would be nice if you were able to allow the player to call in sqn's from 12 Group to 11 Group airfields whilst in a mission, and accuratley represent the time delays involved.

Personally, I think it is more important to represent the Squadrons accuratley and be able to use them, than have Duxford.

There's a fine line between 'What it was like' and 'How it was'
If any game was exactly 'How it was' it wouldn't be a game any more, it'd be the longest documentary ever.

If you want to know what it was like to be an 11 Group Fighter Pilot in 1940 then SoW will show you 'what it was like'. If you want to be a 12 group pilot then you should probably give it a miss...

Or they could just take off from one of the 11th group airstrips, circle for 15-20 minutes to burn off some fuel and waste some time and voila! You just simulated a flight from an airstrip further away! Don't forget to circle the airstrip for another 10-15 minutes when landing.

Klem, I am assuming that you aren't an englishman because your geography is all over the shop.

1. Duxford is in the East, not the South-East You may consider it the South East but people in England consider it Eastern, especially those who proudly live there. To put things into perspective it is as far north as Coventry and they speak funny up there ;)
2. The South West is not on this map. The South West (where I live) extends to Wiltshire and that's it. Everything else to the East is considered Southern and South Eastern.
3. Historically 12 Group squadrons didn't get all that involved in the fighting over the South Downs. Winny covered this point very well.

In order to include Duxford the map would have to extend another 50 miles northward. To put things into perspective RAF Croydon is 50 miles from the South Coast at Brighton.

there has to be a line not crossed to get this thing done ASAP :-P

I was looking forward to bombing Weymouth, but Southampton'll do nicely. And Sidcup of course, coming to get you Sidcup.

Thanks for the update, looks like more lost weeks in the mission builder ahead.

Oh gawd I promised myself I wouldn't say any more on this but your points are a bit different.

I am English, I now live on the South Coast near to Brighton. I was born in SE London under what had been the V1/V2 alley and 300 yds from a major triple railway junction that got plastered several times. I played on bombsites and have got p*ssed in Croydon. I work as a volunteer at an aviation museum that was an 11 Group Sector Station and has a hall dedicated to the BoB. I know exactly where Duxford is, I have visited it several times and my daughter went to Uni at nearby Cambridge. I drove past Duxford many times.

My english said 'the main defensive Battle, in the South East,' meaning I accept that we don't have the North Eastern LF5 raids or the offensive bombing raids into Germany (don't ever suggest to Bomber Crew of the time that Bombing played no part in the Battle, I have met a couple and they don't like it).

I know the South West is not on the Map and I haven't worried about 10 Group although the map touches on that.

The 12 Group squadrons did not, indeed, get much involved over the South Downs, their task was to defend the 11 Group Airfields, particularly those to the South of London down to Surrey and mid Kent.

Look guys, we can kick this football around for another week. We all have our opinions about whether 12 Group was important or not. Some of your your views are interesting and to me somewhat surprising at how little importance you attach to 12 Group's involvement in the Battle, as it was fought, or to how it might otherwise have been fought.

However, mine was a simple question to Oleg. The only thing I am really interested in now, expecting that we won't get an important part of 12 Group, is how Oleg, knowing the Battle, intended us to represent Squadrons outside 11 Group that took part, e.g. how did he envisage us representing the Duxford Wing.

That's it, I'm done.

Klem

You have made some very good points.

Oleg may be able to address your concerns. Possibly a while after the initial release with an enlarged map, which could release as a patch.

Then again, for security reasons the actual map for BOB SOW may not be what we are seeing in the screenshots. Afterall, the SOW is about the Battle of Britain. It just doesn't make sense for a BOB to not have all the groups covered.

Afterall, many users already have large amounts of ram, high performance video cards, and multi-processors. It has been my understanding the map sizes have been restricted principally to allow persons with lower spec systems to use the sim.

If this sim is like IL2 was I will not be surprised it it will run fine off a dual core something or other with DDR 400 RAM and -4 generation video card.. at toned down settings of course..

NO DUCKSFORD!
say it isn't so, those button clickers have won again.

Everybody just calm down! LOL! Hasn't it struck anyone that there might be several "versions" of the map? Like we have in IL-2 where some bases are on one version and not on the other i.e the Guadalcanal maps. Just a thought :grin:

First time poster, long-time builder and player.

This is a significant update, thanks very much Oleg and team for showing us the guts of the game.
Very interesting stuff, and things will get more interesting when we actually start to build missions and campaigns.

Some quick comments:

*The size of the map is very impressive. It's more than I dared hope for, thank you.

*I'm glad to see triggers will finally be a part of the FMB. This will allow for so many more scenarios to unfold in a mssion as opposed to the old FMB.
I don't know if the question has been asked, but will the triggers be area triggers or event triggers, or maybe a combination of both?

*I like the look of the new FMB. It looks instantly familiar...which is a good thing.

Thanks again for the update.

Oh NO!! Just when it had all been sorted! (nearly) ;)

I can't see that being the case Nearmiss. Are you suggesting that you were hoping for the map to go all the way to Scotland (and presumably then include Norway too - sorry that old Norwegian horse has been flogged pretty hard by me these last few days :) ), to cover anywhere that saw ANY action at all in the BOB?

(I believe the first German aircraft to be shot down in Britain was up north [either Scotland or north of England?])

Or, do you mean that it should just include the SW and up to the midlands?

There are a lot of cities to include in a bigger map - if they're all going to be done to the same standard as London it's going to take a LONG time, and for what real benefit? How many times will people re-enact a raid on Hull?

Also, the secrecy argument has been used a few times before by people who have a hard time believing that their personal idea of what the game would be isn't going to happen. I don't buy it. :)

By the way, where is Oleg when we need him?;)

Hopefully not bothering reading the last 5 or so pages.

Lol well said.

I understand why some ppl are frustrated, Oleg should say something on this as clearly some of us were expecting a larger map.

Personally I would have liked the south west to be present but I'm not too bothered.

I would happily play this game with the present map. Just give it us asap, please.

+100%

What about Slough? (;))

I agree with you. The thing is, i agree because i'm mostly an off-liner. For an online server running realistic missions, the limited initial scope of the new series will mean that lots of mission builders will want to delve into slightly what-if territory.

In that case, the player does in fact shape and decide strategy by the way he's building the mission. Not to mention that if the new multiplayer mode that's been talked about is in fact what most people think and hope it will be (an online dynamic campaign, like DF and coop mode mixed together with supply considerations and monitoring thrown in), the impact of players on deciding the overall strategy becomes even more.
If we think of having this sort of DF server that runs weekly scenarios instead of missions spanning a few hours, it's obvious that there will be no predeterimned briefing like there is in co-ops and single player campaigns, no definite orders, but the players will form up on ad-hoc missions of their own in an effort to achieve the objectives as efficiently as they can.

Give players, any players of any game, the competitive incentive and they will soon come up with a lot of variations that the people in charge back in the day missed or simply didn't want to risk trying.
In that sense, i have a feeling we'll see a hugely succesful use of the 110 for example, with most people using them as fast fighter bombers and for fighter sweeps ahead of the main bomber stream, tactics that were never used in the real battle.

I do agree that the line needs to be drawn somewhere and the game released. However, it would be good to know that if a community made and limited in size map of sufficient quality could be made for the "missing" territory, that it could be incorporated into a patch that joins it with the rest of the official map, just like community submitted aircraft made it into IL-2 in the past. I guess this solution would please everyone in the long run ;)

Edit: I see you guys beat me to it :grin:

Let's hope they still have the map as "in development" because, as it was pointed out in another forum, the Basin de l'Atlantique wasn't built till after the war.

Center of image: Harbour to the left of Dunkirk
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/1...54558porti.jpg

"Today" : Harbour roadstead to the left, docks to the right, near city centre
http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/5...nkirkbasin.jpg

Aerial '44. Harbour and sea access near city centre. Would overlay the image above to the right quarter.
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/2940/dunkirk44s.jpg

That 1944 aerial image looks awfully similar to the details on an il2 map which I've seen somewhere. ;)

Colour Flags tags for nation
 

Oleg and gang,
It's been quite a long time since I posted here for Il2. but I have been following the progress always and after checking your screen shot examples, I would suggest the following:
Consider changing the nation flag for Germany and Italy to Black. Britian, Canada and France to Blue, USA to Green. I do not know if this is possible, but just a suggestion. As with everyone else, I am greatly looking forward to seeing this game in the near future!

Jadehawk

Anachronism and map
 

...


First of all I would like to thank Oleg and his team for this interesting glimpse of the FMB and Map.



@JAMF
This issue could be more complex to solved. :(


Anachronism and map

Years ago, when the '1946' title became available, the included 'Bonus' DVD allowed us to discover the early phases of development of the so eagerly-awaited BoB SoW.

Among other subject, that video uncovered the dev'team members at their respective 'Battle station", depicting some of the today well-known aircraft, vehicles, buildings, miscellaneous objects and map.

With one scene, we could overlooked Maxim K', working on the South-East Canterbury area with the Map Builder tool.

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Canterbury.jpg

At that time I was a little worried about the referential map data used to create the in-game map. For example, the M2/A2, the motorway connecting Dover to London was depicted (in red on the above picture) on the referential map which most certainly confirmed the use of a modern, post WWII map edition. Hopefully this motorway is not represented on the game map. ; ))




Last summer, the BoB SoW July 09th update, the following screenshot had a first example of anachronism with the existence of the King George VI Reservoir (opened only in November 1947) .

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Bucking.jpg





With this update, I still have some worries with the publication of the latest screenshots.

Let's have a look on the rapidly expending post war urbanization of towns and cities and compare the extract of this Ordnance Survey of Great Britain 1940's edition map with the BoB SoW Map.

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/southend6a.jpg
http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/southend6aa.jpg


We can observe the quite larger brown cities areas of the future game map compared to the original 1940'S map.


A closer look at the town of Southend

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/southend.jpghttp://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/southend1.jpg




Now I go back to my armchair next to the open fire with a wonderfull feeling of drowsy tranquillity. ;)

...

Oh dear, looks like someone's been relying too much on google earth. Shame we didn't see the map sooner. This explains why all the fields have modern day tractor tramlines too. And the 1947 reservoir and so on......

You'd think they could have found a period map to use.:roll:

Just hope modders have access to the main map.

Shame.

You're right Roldophe. The areas depicted on the SoW map look like they're lifted straight from modern day google earth.

Period orndance survey maps for the area can be found here:

http://www.ponies.me.uk/maps/osmap.html

If you compare the period map with the SoW offering you can clearly see how the individual settlements of the time have been merged and spread outwards. Canvey Island (highlighted in blue) did have a small development area but nothing like that presented on the SoW map (which matches modern google almost exactly).

Even more interesting is Basildon which in the 1940s was a collection of a few streets hardly worth mentioning. After the war this area was designated one of the modern "New Towns" and was massively expanded. This expansion is seen on the SoW map.

The sad thing is, if this is true, then the developers have spent hundreds of hours creating huge populated areas which never even existed at the time. I was really hoping to get an experience of flying over wartime Britain. It looks like what we'll be getting is a very modern Britain with all its huge, ugly post war expansion. A real disappointment for me.

With all the attention to detail the team has shown in the aircraft area, I really did expect to see at least a bit of basic research in the map department.

I do hope I'm proven wrong.

Rodolphe
 

I don't think much of allot off peoples gripes, but what you have shown here is pretty significant.
The whole character of the area is changed if the towns are all 2010 density and sprawl vs 1940 density and sprawl.

Wont stop me for a second from playing or buying, but it is significant to the flavour of the maps and the polygon counts as well.

Awesome!
You had to crosscheck google earth to even notice.

This is game - Not a history sightseeing tour, also they won't use it in history class.


What is wrong with you guys?

Looks like all towns got the same treatment. Here's Slough which sits above Windsor with the Thames running inbetween. I've drawn 2 red lines which pretty accurately box in Slough on the period map. One line is drawn from the right edge of Windsor (which hasn't changed much) and the other is taken from the right edge of the big loop in the Thames before it turns north again briefly.

As you can see, the size of Slough is approx. 3 times what it should be in 1940.

I include the same lines on the SoW map and a modern google earth map for comparison.

With respect, just because something isn't important to you doesn't mean everyone else feels the same. This is an historical sim. The German crews will be bombing historical towns.

I know many of us were hoping to be able to navigate using period maps and bomb aim using original target maps. Also, just feeling the atmosphere of undeveloped 1940s Britain would have been nice too.

This all goes out of the window if the map is based on modern Britain. I wouldn't be surprised to see the M40 in there too!

We're not talking about small differences here. Anyone who lives in the UK knows about the sprawl of the post war New Towns. Bracknell used to be a little village. Now it's a huge sprawling mess of a place. Same with Milton Keynes and countless other places.

I realise it's too late now....but it was a very simple task to obtain a period map before work began.

Totally agree swiss

I thought BOB was an aerial batlle? not a town planning meeting, some of you guys do have a lot of time on your hands

Will you blokes give it a rest please?
The product Mr Maddox has been working on for the last few years is going to be as fantastic as IL2 was 10 years ago.
When that was released, it didn't include the Seige of Leningrad.
Then 'Forgotten Battles' was released, and it did.

As to the historical accuracy of the map, or whether or not the fields have the correctly shaped furrows for the agricultural systems employed at the time, will it really matter that much?

I'm as keen to get my hands on this masterpiece as anyone, but before we complain about what's not there, why don't we wait and see what is there?

I'm sure we're going to be impressed, whether Southend is bigger than it should be for 1940 or not (and what difference would it make when you're flying over it anyway?).

It strikes me that the frustration everyone is feeling in not being able to fly this sim now, is manifesting itself as unfounded and ill informed criticisms of something none but a privileged few have witnessed in full. And that includes the information that came out of Igromir.

Sorry Nearmiss, feel free to ban me, but it's getting on my wick.

Cheers.:grin:

Might cause lower FPS due to the PC having to render more buildings, but more likely it will result in a few people screaming, "My immersion!" then trying to end it all by downing their entire bottle of vitamin D supplements.

Nyuk, nyuk. :)

I don't recall anyone being disappointed with Oleg's work.

Again, the map in the screenshots... may not be the final release.

Talking about the map can't hurt. Afterall Oleg did post the update expecting feedback.

Hmmm... yes, but my impression was that the update was more about FMB than the map, and there have been quite a few posts asking questions about the new FMB which haven't been answered. Or are we asking the wrong questions?

Oleg usually hangs on the forums the first day. He may answer some questions when he posts the new update.

Sure would be a bonus, if he posted more screenshots from FMB.

The SOW FMB has been alot of mystery.

I often find the criticism leveled at SoW overly pedantic or just outright silly, but it seems to me that if the map is as far off as some are saying, that's a big deal. I would say correctly modelling the area over which the Battle largely occured is absolutely important.
________
Wiki Vaporizer

Calling in 12 Group Squadron's
 

I totally agree with your post 'Winny'. SOW BOB will show us all 'more realistically than ever' what it was like, particularly using well crafted and accurate historical missions.

What is going to be very different from IL-2, is that if you survive to achieve 'flight leader' or 'squadron leader' status, your decision's as leader will depend on how your flight or squadron survive each air battle and progress through the 'Battle of Britain' and whether your 'Group' is winning? The same will apply for Luftwaffe pilots 'AI' or 'Online'.

I am sure Oleg has completely overhauled the 'AI' aircraft actions with a more comprehensive 'order suite' which can be better used by the commander. If you make wrong decision's, don't care about your 'AI' or 'Online' pilots, you are going to fail.
As a mission builder, you will be able to effectively 'call-in' Squadrons from 12 Group and create 'time delays' using 'airstart's'. Historically this is what happened. Action 'trigger points' will also make the 'what it was like' scenario a lot more accurate.

DFLion

:grin:
So it has...
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/1...tofmystery.jpg
.

If for whatever reason the map has been developed based on modern urban areas then at this stage it may be financially impractical to consider significant changes. The historic info for the uk is available http://www.npemap.org.uk/

From the NPE site: Using the 1940's maps would significantly reduce map objects in urban areas therfore would presumably benefit fps/gameplay, to everyones benefit.

If it is too late for official changes maybe include the necessary tools with the FMB to edit the map and it could be done unofficially and later adopted, if the work is good enough.

I agree. If this was any usual 'game' that we were looking at, we wouldn't care, but this isn't your usual game. Oleg has set the highest standards. Following previous update discussion you see the effort he has gone to regarding the landscape and photo-realistic colour, and he has gone to lengths to explain to us why it should look different from the sky than we're used to seeing on the ground. SoW could give us quite a unique look at the 1940s landscape and really help with immersion. It's too late now for widespread changes, but if there are a few significant errors I imagine the developer that created that section of the map could make changes quite quickly. It would be disappointing if the release isn't a good representation of the way it was - partly because it wouldn't have been much more work to get it right than to get it wrong.

I wouldn't really mind that much to be honest, as i don't expect a house for house recreation of Britain in the summer of 1940, just an accurate enough approximation that focuses mostly on terrain outline (rivers, coastlines, elevation data, etc).

However, this is not only about accuracy. If this is true then the developers have spent a lot of time working on urban areas that they could have left out, which is a real pity when they have tried so hard and faced so many delays.

Plus it would also benefit frame rates to have the smaller 1940s-size towns. Who knows, maybe the time already spent on it and the resources needed to run the extra, post war urban areas could have been enough to model a few more airfields to the north for the people who want to fly as 12 Group pilots.

That being said, what's done is done and to be honest i don't worry much because i know the high standards of support and add-on content that comes from this company. This is a long-term project and as the development team have said a lot of times, the real work starts after the release of the first title.

To me that means that while we might not have a 100% accurate map of Britain now, we could have it after a couple of expansions and provided the games sell well enough. If sales are good they could probably assign a few people to correct the mistakes, which in this case consists of deleting items from the map, so it should be much easier than adding to it. Maybe two years in the future we will get a big patch with a new map replacing the current one, featuring smaller towns and a few more kilometers of coverage to the north of the current map, who knows?

Also this:
I just feel sorry for the amount of extra work these guys had to put in now that it's obvious they could have skipped it, that's all ;)

The truth is we have no idea what has been done, nor more than what we know about clouds...
So far Oleg showed us mainly FMB features...the only comment he made about the map was about its size (to Foo'bar); It is true that what is shown is a 2000 content map: who says this map served as a basis for the real 3D landscape?

It would not have been that difficult to assemble this 2000 map with easily found internet data, and maybe this is what MG did at first to have an idea of the size to use, and first placement of airfields (which shows some mistakes consistent with the use of modern maps to begin with, like in Arras)...

In other words, maybe this post was about FMB, using an old placeholder map...Why panic and risk saying something stupid?

Be sure Oleg has towns of precise documentation since a while, on the English as well as the French landscapes! Have faith...

JV

+1

i dont think the team would be that foolish to give themselves so much extra work. lets keep the faith here, the map will be reflective of that time in history im betting

You guys are right. I've been a bit too hasty to judge perhaps. What we see on the zoomed out map doesn't necessarily reflect the 3D world underneath.
I've got so much hope invested in this product that it gets the better of me sometimes.

I'll shut up and wait to see what we get.:grin:

A whole new housing estate as been built in my area since Oleg first announced SOW hopefully this will be on the map. :grin:

:I don't suppose you could tell us where you live, Tree? I'll gladly remove all the houses Oleg has put on the map: from 3000m, in a He 111... ;)

Intellectual overload
 

I humbly suggest to refrain from intellectual overload about hypoteses and partial information. It's a game, and few houses or a railway here and there will not alter by much the pleasure of playing it. At least for me.

Again: priority number 1 is to play BoB asap ... small fixes will follow, if necessary.

Cheers,
Insuber

Its highly doubtful that the development team would have the time and energy to model the towns and cities as large as they were in 1940, let alone later.

This depends a lot what is pleasurable for everybody...This being said, do not underestimate the importance of proper recreation: since 1940-50, railways in France have comparatively evaporated when looking at their present day status: I have studied very closely the harbors involved in BoB on the French side: their dedicated railroad network is not even 10% of what it was, and this is quite true of the general network (especially if you include the extensive 1m gauge network).
It is difficult to imagine now how much everyday life (and military transportation) revolved around railways...

So yes I give a damn about some precisions there (and do not start me on airfields!)
Amically,

JV

I think Tree is scared to tell us where he lives. :)

Oleg,

what about something unstatic for tomorrow's update again? ;)

I hope for some engine sounds soon.

Tree lives at 13 Abbey Road:grin:

Extensive rail system would be a big plus

Imagine if we cold lay our own rail tracks in FMB

Oleg,

I just read that soon coming Ati 6970 will have 2 GB VRAM.
The Nvidia GTX 580 has 1,5 GB but is a little bit faster.
What will be better for BoB? More VRAM or higher GPU Clock?

I'll get my K 98 and my scope. :)

Hecke, a good question.

I know this isn't the place for it (there are at least two other threads running on GPUs and System specs) but you might like to see this....

http://videocardz.com/27861/latest-r...nd-6970-rumors
6950 competes with GTX 570/480 and is priced similar.
6970 competes with GTX 580 and is priced similar.

and
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...php?t=18216134
Gibbo: "They are here though. "
and:
"I can't speak for our competitors but we won't be running out and we shall be aiming to be the most competively price on the 6900 cards. "

Looks like AMD may well keep to their revised release date of 25th December.

Of course we won't know the truth until next Wednesday, 15th. From the leaked and general hype I'm expecting the general performance order of play to be :-
6990 dual
580GTX dual
5990 dual
6970 single
480GTX / 6950 (not sure which) singles
5870 single

<switching to the GPU thread>

i would just ask again that it would be great to see some system specs released - please.

also some shots of project galba!