Wider Historical Reasons for SoW.
 

Mr. Oleg Maddox,

Would it be possible to explain to both buyers and prospective buyers of SoW how very important the Battle of Britain was to world freedom? The RAF comprised pilots from all over the world. How this is done is a matter for you and your team.

A sense of world history should be a valid motivation for buying and playing SoW.

And the Battle of Britain was not the only air fight against the German Luftwaffe in 1940. Prior to the Battle of Britain, the German Luftwaffe had been earlier damaged by the Polish, French, Dutch and other Air Forces. This damage was significant.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

About the Sound Engine,

Will it use OpenGL based sound or DirectX based sound?

If it DirectX based Windows will completly proces it in it Kernel and we wont have SoundHardware Acceleration and Effects.


And will the game come with a 64 bit .exe so it can make better use of the Memory on 64 bit systems?

Oleg & team: can we see in the next new year update :grin: the diferents bombsigths? (and please please Oleg I need to see more targets!!!! )

mmm i dont think so. tomorrow is holidays. Will not update i think:(

Hombre de poca fe...
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=12187

ese soy yo

Well, i guess you're right about readiness flights and all. What i mean to say is mostly that i would like as much options as possible, especially in modelling the systems that make up the complete aircraft. Wether that means a cold or hot start is something that's up to the mission parameters of a hopefully well done campaign generator, but i would think it's a serious omission for a next-gen sim not to model the proper way to handle individual systems.

I mean, FSX does it in some payware add-ons and it's not even a combat sim. Depending on the mission and the situation at mission start you could get a ready to fly aircraft, maybe even jump into it with the engine already running, or one that you had to bring to life completely by yourself by turning a bunch of knobs and switches, but in any case it should be more complicated than what we have in IL2. Monitor your RPM, your manifold pressure and your temps first, then worry about combat maneuvering, because that's how real aircraft of the time used to fly as well. It will add a whole new layer of tactics in how we fly, instead of just abusing the engine and cooling it down before the 5 minute overheat timer kicks in and cooks it like we do in IL2. It's still a masterpiece, but it's also a 10 year old title and the lack of realistic limitations in how much you can push your aircraft is starting to show.

If someone doesn't like it, i'm sure there will be options to turn off complex systems management in the realism settings.

Don't start this again, please.

Oleg,

First I'd like to express my thanks to you and your team for giving us such an amazing simulation as IL-2. The detail you put into that sim is incredible.

I realise that many folk want only combat action and none of the "boring" systems management that real pilots had to know (if they wanted to stay alive). However, I know there are quite a number of us who play almost exclusively off-line and really enjoy the immersion of being able to operate an aircraft according to the manual.

What you've given us with complex engine management is already fantastic. I was stunned when I first ran a mag test and excersised the prop and it responded according to the manual - simply brilliant.

My wish list would be the following. If all you do is provide a means for third party developers to add more complex systems then I'd be happy. Personally I'd happily pay the same again or more just for the ability to control my favourite plane type in a more immersive way.

Engine management - Auto Lean / Auto Rich / Idle Cutoff settings on US planes would make a big difference for me - especially if fuel consumption was affected.

Fuel management - having to know the distribution of your fuel load and be able to switch tanks when required.

It would be great to be able to save state mid-mission. This would enable longer missions to be flown over a number of sessions for those who don't have enough spare time in one sitting.

Having bombers stay together in formation when under attack, rather than turning in all directions to escape like a fighter might.


I know I'm going to take some flak for the above but I think learning an aircraft's systems and applying that knowledge to get through a mission can be just as rewarding as the combat itself. On a real mission, knowing how to keep an engine within its limits (temps, pressures, rpms etc) and how to conserve fuel was just as important as watching for the enemy in my opinion.

Thanks again for a great sim! :grin:

I agree with the last couple posts on realistic engine management. I would hope there will be an improved version.

If not, Maybe it would be possible to improve on whatever will be released as a plug-in add-on (example accusim) with options for use in MP (though that would complicate things)

I hope Oleg do business with the people of DogFights of History Channel, because they still using the crappy Microsoft flight simulator 3 engine for the scenes,
http://www.history.com/content/dogfights

;)

Hi Oleg I was wondering can we get some additional screen shot of the internal mesh
like the ones you posted in the first screen shots of BOB?

I see the spitfires internal mesh and possible damage areas, would like to see the same color coding for the other planes i.e. the 109?

http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/ScreenShots_002.jpg

http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/ScreenShots_001.jpg

GF,

The following link will take you to some 109 internal structure shots:

http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...nger/?start=96

Dave

Hey thank you very much.

Oleg,
I feel that multi-monitor view is more important than anything else in the future. Because the FOV is so small on one screen, having the sides available to simulate our peripheral vision is not only necessary, but is crazy NOT to have it. Nobody in the real world walks around with goggles on and pilots dont fly with their vision limited. This is an ABSOLUTE MUST HAVE for any modern sim. I am sure that you must have this at the top of your priorities. Please tell us that this will be implemented. After I flew in IL2 with three monitors, I could never go back to one again. Being able to see your wingman and enemies attacking from the sides is a HUGE immersion experience and is CRITICAL. This is 2010!!!
Thanks

I wear glasses. Anything outside them is out of focus. You learn to turn your head.

Multi monitor suport its already implemented. Oleg already stated it answering the same question on one of the friday updates.
You will have to look for which friday update was if you want to see it, because i don´t remember :)

i hope see some nice SOW video

Would be sweet with a trailer or something, after all its scheduled for this year.

Hi Oleg, i have 2 questions:

1) How will level-bombing be implemented in SOW?

IL2 makes levelbombing very easy: there is no wind, and temperature and air density profiles don't change on a map, so we can strike point targets from 4000m to 8000m with extreme accuracy (e.g. kill a single tank with SC500 from 4000m). This - although not realistic - makes levelbombing very attractive and useful in online campaigns like AW2.
If we would have truly realistic bombing in SOW, bombruns with 1-4 planes would be quite useless, and people would loose motivation.
Will there be the possibility to level the bombsight? In IL2, any change in plane loadout or elevator trim will influence the aiming point.

2) Will there be a reconnaissance feature? This would be very useful for online campaigns. We're currently "simulating" a reconnaissance photo by turning our smoke on/off when over the target area. Taking a real picture would be great.

SOW looks great so far, looking forward to the release! S!

Excelent questions/sugestions!

Is Oleg on vacation?! Will there be some friday updates?

best regards

Martin

I'm not missing the updates, but missing the team's participation here.

But can you guys give anything at all (either an update or the reason why we're not getting them)?

Might shut us up if you have a particular reason for letting us hungry :mrgreen:

Hello Oleg, Are you going to support the features of the Logitech G940? Tuning the FFB and having the buttons on the throttle change colour etc.

Another sugestion:

Enemy, friend and AI COCKPIT view, of course in key settings and after death.

I second the interest for level bombing and reconnaisance missions. It's not something we need on release, but it would be nice to have the pieces ready for later inclusion into the sim, through updates or community efforts.

The way i think about it is that you could press the camera key and a jpg is taken, according to where the camera is located in your aircraft. If the new online mode they are talking about is a campaign mode, this would be vey nice to have.

As long as the sim is moddable, it could be done by the community as well. The way i'm envisioning it is something like this. You have the online dynamic campaign manager, which keeps track of important parametes in the server. These things could be few or many and i guess that just like IL2's server managing tools, we'd be seeing more and more complexity added by the community. For example, it could start out as simply monitoring available aircraft for each team and gradually evolve to take into account serviceable or written off aircraft, maybe even aircraft under repairs and available ammo and fuel. I used to play an MMO game that was very complex and a load of things like that are kept in check via XML databases. Of course, this means increased data and bandwidth but not by much, since you don't need this kind of data to actually fly. It would only be useful for the campaign planning menu where you post sorties for the team to fly and for determining if you can use a certain aircraft or loadout, depending on availability.

So, instead of coordinating with your fellow flyers on how to fly a single, objective based DF map, you could coordinate on a bigger scale and plan sorties in sequence for an entire multiplayer campaign. For example, the blue team is giving you trouble by raiding your ports and you lose a lot of supplies because of those Ju88s. Some pilots decide to follow them back from a distance and they spot their airfield, but they can't go too close because of the flak. They tell you about it on voice comms so that the rest of the team can prepare a strike. Being a risk-taker, you decide to fly the recon mission. You get in your recon spitfire or mosquito, take off, climb to 30000ft and head for the airport. Snapping the photos you turn for home as the flak starts zeroing in on you.

Landing back at the base, the film is finally available. You load the planning screen,type a title for the mission and fill in the rest of the details. Number of aircraft needed, type, loadouts, fuel and waypoints, it's like a simplified mission builder. Opening up the jpg photos you snapped on your recon run, you mark the compass points in the corner of the picture for reference, as well as the target's main areas interest, like parked aircraft, runways and fuel dumps in white (the photo is black and white). You also mark the flak guns in red.Finally, you type a briefing and press "post". At this point, the mission is visible to your entire team and anyone can choose to fly it. The system is free-form, so people might choose to spawn on the correct airfields or use alternate ones. What they do get by clicking "accept mission" is the anotated map, photos and briefing in their kneepad. They can also add notes of their own if they want or delete existing ones and re-distribute it among themselves, so that for example a bomber pilot can mark known flak concentrations as red circles in the map, a fighter pilot can delete the information he doesn't need and keep only the essentials and if more people decide to participate they can add their own waypoints to rendezvous with the strike from an alternate airfield, in order not to overcrowd the primary base. For bombers, having a detailed map and a set of navigation tools like those found in the Silent Hunter titles would be very useful and they would be able to make adjustments to their flight plan while flying. For fighters this is not very realistic and maybe the amount of tools and the accuracy of maps should be limited, but i guess that even a single-seater pilot has a pen, a ruler and maybe an angle measuring tool to help him keep notes on his kneepad.

If such a campaign front-end could be coded and moded into the sim at some point for multiplayer, it would be awesome. It's like having a 24/7 DF server that you can join whenever you like plus the realism of coops in one gameplay mode.

Will be blood when you get hurt?
Also I bet for a new Forcefeedback system, G940 and new hotas owners will apreciate your work

Will it be S-3D (3D Vision) compatible?
 

Hi Oleg

I'm interested in knowing whether the game will be compatible with stereoscopic 3D, specifically Nvidia 3D Vision?

Cheers

Dear Oleg Maddox in a war there are basic things like:
the amount 'means
money and resources.
the amount 'of fuel.
the number of men and morale.
in IL-2 are the foundations that have a quantity 'unlimited air
in IL-2 are the bases with Angar and tanks of fuel and fuel tanks unusable
in IL-2 lacks the aerial refueling area and repair aircraft.
in IL-2 if you land an aircraft by damaged after you have the chance 'to predict a new one without problem.
in IL-2 one when you eject from a plane you do not have the chance 'to reach the base on foot or by half.
in IL-2 does not exist reconnaissance and then followed by a study for a tactical surprise attack.

As I see it, photo recon would be easy in a multi crew aircraft. Just make a crew station (like the bomb sight position) that lets you see through the camera viewport. For the single crew fighters these were fixed and the poor old pilot didn't get a chance to see what he would be taking a picture of, just get into the right position and hit the shutter release.

But that leads us to the problem of ground detail. For Photo recon to be useful we need enough ground and object detail to make the photo's useful.

Then it becomes a skilled task to interpret the photo's to make uses tactical decisions and attack plans. ie Hit the parked planes and it removes planes from the line up when a player respawns. Hit the fuel dumps and it reduces how much fuel is availiable. Hit the maintenance facilities and damaged planes can't be repaired for further missions.

It would be fantastic to be involved in a simulated environment like that.

I also think it would be cool to have a "fighter control" table where a non combatant player could plot the positions of their own side, and have the radar contacts of the enemy also displayed. They could act as controller (for want of a better word) that would co-ordinate their own sides aircraft and vector their fighters onto the enemy aircraft. I'm sure there would be enough players that would want to take on this role. From my experience it's the squadrons that are acting as teams that have most success, this would give them a way of co-ordinating there efforts. (of course getting enough of the rogue wolf lone fighters to follow the instructions would be quite a task ;) but that's what court martials are for!!!! ) If nothing else it might remove some of the problems of of 5+ aircraft shoulder shooting a lone e/a while a squadron of them are a few miles away shooting up the ground objectives!

cheers :)

I dont know if someone have asked this before me,sorry if it is.
Is going to be blood if we get hurted?

Dear Oleg Maddox in a war thing, 'that could supply a military base?
-Air Travel
-transport aircraft by other means and means by truck type
military base what kind of supplies can 'have?
-fuel ------ clients possibility 'to have more' opportunity 'to fly and do more' missions
-food-------- chance 'to have the men and crews always well fed and with a good energy level and morale.
-money-------- chance 'for a military base to have power of buying weapons and men and means to increase the capacity' to defend or attack
-Weapons ------- chance 'to make use of various types of weapons including those illegal chemical bombs and bullets like machine guns and cannons should not be infinite but limited depending on the type of situation.
-surface and air transport -------- opportunity 'to choose the suitable medium and calculate consumption costs the range and the ability' to create damage to the enemy.
------ men-chance 'to have men with a ladder Petty officers and soldiers, pilots Tenen Colonel Captain ecc.ec. with his own power with his own experience with his own nationality '

Dear Oleg Maddox in a war and what 'the enemy attack?

-ports
-airports
-transport vessels including submarines, airships Airplane
What allows the transport?
roads-highways ------- clients possibility 'to create barriers to bombard roadblocks with men and tanks
-bridges ------- possibility of destroying a bridge and divert the enemy's decision to pursue a road alternative or different objective
-galleries ------- chance to block a tunnel with bombs to prevent the passage of a train or a column of transport you
-shipping routes ------- chance 'to undermine the sea mines that explode on impact or electrical impulse to war if the wires cut electric mines would not explode.

ports must have the capacity 'defense such as the famous and the most' great basin of Europe in the port of Taranto ITALY

undermine put balls for air shield to networks or Schield to defend against torpedoes or torpedo.

-The city in a city you can damage the industries ports stations barracks or you exterminate the entire population to create a 100% damage.

in IL-2 lacked a very popular weapon, the landmine
-mine explosive anti man
-explosive anti-tank mine
-explosive anti-ship mine

other thing that was missing in IL-2 was the blimp

Hello Oleg Maddox course the success of a mission determines the increase of money for fuel and food resources.
in war you've ever seen captured enemy airplanes?
enemies would I have changed catturatie colors and insignia.
is at war there.
Oleg Maddox what were the difficulties' of a war?
Of course the economic resources.
but an important reason that could change the tactical decisions of an attack
were especially the weather.
Oleg Maddox imagines Italian pilots take off from bases in Belgium, such as
Ursel to Dover attack with a temperature of-3C ° pilots CRYSTALLIZE
the airplane is heated by heat from the engine but the roof was all discovered CR42
then imagine the Stanamina or energy as the pilot loses marks and images also
or cold.
Then Oleg Maddox pilots had to be:
good tool case -------> resources
--------> well trained so many hours of flight experience missions without
I read in a document that the Italian pilots were when they arrived in Belgium
classified together with the German pilots and with numbers groups and team teaching
and that the German pilots sneered at the poor Italian pilots' flight equipment
type jackets heavy wool socks or ECC.
and that Fiat BR20 did not have the armor and then the Germans helped
Italian pilots using padded jackets
and to strengthen the armor on the BR20 which however were an easy target for
British pilots.

So Enterprise Knowledge new material from the axis or allied faction
signed economic agreements such as:
if you do this mission I will supplies of this new material.

The England being an island surrounded by sea from a tactical point of view was inferiority 'compared to Germany and the Nazi-Fascist Axis

The then England could refuel and new material
only through the airways or the ways of the sea

so imagine the delays of the Supply of ammunition and difficulties' from England
its weakness was just the sea only an attack from the sea by submarines could break the British nation
but this is not 'happened.

must re-study the history and understand many things before making a simulator based
the battle of England.
from the tactical point of view
FROM THE POINT OF VIEW also technologies.

1) This would be a fun position in a bomber to fly if you had a few tools to make it different than the other positions. Maybe a pair of binoculars so you can spot other aircraft or landmarks further out than the pilot or gunners?

2) Air Warrior had these features, and that was a 1990s sim! It made high alt strategic bombing server an actual purpose on the map. I remember I used to crew a B-17 w/ like 10 gunners online, we would take off at an airbase far off the front lines and gain alt and destroy the spit factory so the other team couldn't use their spits, or ammo dumps so they didn't have cannon, maint sheds so you could repair. Or you could bomb the airfield itself and you couldn't take off! Would be great to see this stuff online in SOW.


3) That would be so cool! Great idea. I'm sure lots of people would love to play ground controller. As long as it stays within the technology they had in 1940s.

Dear Oleg Maddox another very important thing.
an airfield or airport when it becomes unusable after bombing
the craters and splinters of iron and debris do not allow take-off and taxiing aircraft
it takes a long time to repair an airfield or airport with their track.


in IL-2 launches the bomb at an airport and the crater is not '3D and the crater floor and then disappears after a few seconds
so the track and the airfield are reusable.

Not inirely true, depending on the sice of the bomb, the crater will be visible for X amount of seconds and it will cause your landingear to fail if u run over it.(Cant remember if time can be changed in Conf. file)

Its not 3D however.

crater should be at least 3 meters deep but in IL-2 did not see any difference in height
in IL-2 as well as the craters disappear disappear even debris that should be permanent
and that could be removed only with an excavator or a mechanical shovel.

a crater in 3D SOW would be ideal just depends on the altitude where the power bomb is launched.

Mission briefing interface
 

Hi first off thanks for all the hardwork on IL2 we appreciate it.

my Question is about the briefing screen... I think alot of people would like to see the ability to access recon photos and extra briefing goodies from the briefing screenany way this is going to be implicated or could be in SOW? i have been making missions and recently started messing around with recon photos and the like creating more intricate briefings. Thanks again

If possible please, I'd like to see the same kind of info in the briefing as was common in WWII:

Course, speed, height, winds, expected cloud cover, known threats etc.

And the ability to print it out would be great too.

Thanks!

Smoke and Fog effects in SoW
 

From the brief video clip shown of the Spitfire, the lighting effects are outstanding as is the interior modeling.

Looking outside of the cockpit, the flare off the sea looks fantastic, as do the clouds in the distance.

Regarding the clouds and atmospheric effects, do you expect there to be columns of smoke rising from burning cities that reach and extend through cloud level?

Will it be possible to have smoke drifting over the landscape at ground level?

Lastly, can the weather effects simulate thick ground fog so that it is almost impossible to see the end of the runway?

Thanks, and really looking forward to this being released one day, cheers, MP.

Nobody notice that the best aircraft of Wings of Prey is the bf 109 (so nice of fly, like a spit, including the 109G6 whit cannons in the wing), spitfire (nice like always) and some Russian aircraft??? And the more crappy are the Mustang P51 (stall all the time, whatever I do, spins out of control WAY too easy), the P47 (is like fly a B17 and I can’t up the nose) and the Focke Wulf FW 190 have a similar problem like the P51

My ask is if oleg going to take some of this types of plane movements and maneuvers for the Storm Of War or this ( Wings of Prey) are not so real for him

I don't think Oleg will be using a game that is a step back from Il-2 as a simulation of aircrafts' behaviour as a template for SoW...no need to worry about that. At the very worst it will be as good as Il-2, I'm sure. We already know from the debug text on some of the screenshots that the damage modeling is more detailed.

I'm still relatively new here so there must be something that I haven't got yet but really, I haven't seen any response from Oleg to any of the questions lately. My question posted a while ago didn't get any love. What's the point of posting questions to Oleg here? It seems like a black hole.

Distant

There is a thread that has floated on this forums for months about 3D. You'll find answers there.

Look at the horizontal bar above and click on search.

I'm familiar with forum/bulletin software in general, even was doing admin for couple of fora way back. Just that this thread "question to Oleg" implies "answers from Oleg" as well and I am just surprised that it isn't that way but still there are people continue to post questions.

Thanks for the tip, I did started a thread recently about sterescopic 3D SOW BOB and got a few responses from other users here but never had a direct yes/no answer from the devs either.

Anyway, I'm no longer interested in what the devs have to say about S-3D at this point since there are simply just too many good games that work well in S-3D presently and I just don't have time to play them all.

There are few answers from the developers because few questions are worth answering.

Most of them are either repeated questions already answered or are answered by members that know the answer.

The good ones usually get a reply ;)

Distand got a point, numerous people asked questions about the Soundengine etc. but no awnser so far.

Think i been asking that for a year or so but no awnser to it, not to anyone as far as i know.

Seems that no one really awnsers the questions in here, i would think atleast 1 person of the Oleg SoW team could read trough this once in a while and awnser some questions... :(

But does it matter what sound - engine will be used???
When the game, as already stated, will run under directx why shouldn't the sound?
I think this information is irrelevant as OM will use the technology HE thinks the best for his product.
So, who cares?
BoB:SoW will have the best technology that OM can use within his financial and time limitations.

Create your own thread and maybe someone will answer your questions.

Oleg, Luthier and others have answered a myriad of questions on this forums. Also, each Friday update gets placed as sticky until the next update is released.

One thing... Look at some recent game releases and realize that every thing Oleg divulges can come back to haunt him in another company's game. It is smart to hold alot of things back, especially if they are special attributes people will be excited to have.

To be honest, we are in the best place with IL2 we have been since the release of Forgotten Battles. The TD, and weekly updates along with plenty of responses from Oleg and Luthier.

DirectX Sound gets procesed internaly in the Windows Vista/7 Kernel, your Soundhardware can not do anything with it, you have to disable Soundhardware effects and Acceleration.
If you dont you will get Missing Sounds, Ambient volumes get mixed up, and you see a drop in FPS, stutters and even freezes and crashes.

OpenAL sound gets used by a lot of games that run DirectX 9, 10 or 11, A: because its cheaper to licence, B: it still gives full Soundhardware suport.

Dont see much point in starting my own topic on this subject if theres a dedicated topic for questions.
I would expect atleast someone from the 1C team to check in once in a while.

They check, and certainly take advantage of the nature of questions asked...they just choose not to answer some of them yet, for their own reasons we may not fathom, being short of the informations or limitations they have!
As Luthier recently stated, they know everything there is to know about how to make SoW great: they are not blind, they are not deaf...but OK, they are mute :-) Nothing to worry about methinks...

JV

Again on training section
 

Hi Oleg,

I have a great idea for training of beginners: a Tactical Advisor !!! Based on the enemy plane characteristics and on the situation (energy, relative position), an onscreen message will advise the trainee on the best behavior: spiral climb, turn, scissors, yo-yo, lead or lag pursuit ... you name it!

It should be easy to implement, as it is the same logic that an AI plane would adopt, but think to the insane impact on a beginners skill!!!! It would be supercool, wouldn'it????

Bye,
Insuber

the few requests I have are

1) please make realistic spitfire flight models and not what we have in IL2

the spitfire could not nor probably ever could out turn a 109 ,the leading edge slats gave the 109 a lower stall speed and the wing loading of a 109 is lower than a spitfire allowing for a smaller turn radius for the 109. Only pilot skill makes the difference(Len Deighton-- fighter .. a very good reference book)
if it wasn't for a small fuel load of the 109 the spitfires would have been toast in the Battle of Britain (Aviation history magazine)

2) please make the flight models mod proof allowing only official mods

3) have an effective checksum for online play

4)the British 20 mm cannon were unreliable and the pilots who had them wanted to go back to the 303's . what we have in Il2 is far from reality

So basically you are asking for a Spitfire that cannot out turn a 109 and to make sure it has no cannons?

Not hard to guess what side of the channel you will be flying from ;)


The Spitfire shouldn't have cannons anyway, certainly not at the beginning of the BoB but to say it cannot out turn a 109?

When? They had reliability problems to start with, they solved them later in the war.

Any simplistic statement about 'X' outturning 'Y' without stating the conditions is practically meaningless.

The majority of RAF kills in the Battle of Britain were scored by Hurricanes...

Need I go on?

I agree with the two posts immediately above mine.

Particularly the Spitfire had lower wing loading than the 109, just look at the wings, the wings of the Spitfire are much bigger, so for aircraft of more or less the same weight the loading is bound to be lower.

In "Luftwaffe Fighter Aces" by Mike Spick, on page 50 we have a table including many things, particularly:

Um , High and low wing loadings had bugger all to do with it, it was the spits ability to fly through most of the wing stall that gave its pilot the advantage at low and high speed and the cannon problems wernt fixed untill the feed and eject mechanisms were finally sorted out late 40\41, the 303 s were as a stop gap given an array of tips to make up for the lack of stopping power.

OK, Icewolf. Which versions of the Spitfire and Bf 109 is Skip Holm talking about? Under what conditions? Were the ones he flew fitted with full military equipment? Were the engines downrated from military WEP standards? Were there restrictions put on the aircraft, due to them being rare warbirds?

Under some conditions, a good Bf 109 pilot might just outturn a Spitfire, but I'd be surprised if that many BoB engagements involved the sort of prolonged turning fights where this would be significant. And, as I've already pointed out, they were often engaged against Hurricanes anyway.

If you want a realistic BoB simulation, the restrictions on Bf-109 endurance caused by limited fuel are going to be a lot more significant than minor differences in best turn rate etc. If you don't want these restrictions to apply, then you aren't simulating the Battle of Britain at all, but some fictitious joust where everyone starts out under the same conditions - if you do that, you may as well make the planes all perform the same too.

Actually, a 'realistic' BoB simulation would need an AI Herman Goering to make idiotic tactical decisions, and ground anyone whe didn't obey them...

Many issues with the flight and damage modeling have constantly brought on some very contentious argument and debate over the past years on Il2 forums.

I've often thought how it would be if Oleg released default aircraft, along with flight model specifications and performance charts he actually used to create each aircraft. These default aircraft would be the only ones allowed within online play. I'm saying I believe there are modifications in the aircraft that aren't actual in order to provide more competitive air combat, or a more level playing field.

Wouldn't it be great to have the ability to amend those flight models according to actual full real world performance charts and specifications. These aircraft would be naturally only be flown online servers that allowed for modifications.

The comment made in the video interviews about the war was still being fought and won by the allies...even in games was right on. The 109 weighs 1,500 pounds less why wouldn't it climb faster than a P-51,etc. I did some tests within the FMB awhile back, and the G-2 without gun pods was a stellar performer in the full out climb over just about every aircraft. I think there was one spit model that was a bit better climber. I couldn't test the turn rate adequately, or at least in a way to may a good comparison. So, effectively I think the 109F and 109G2 aren't run down for better online play.

Thanks for the video Icewolf, very interesting.

Interesting video, but did you notice how hard the interviewer pushed that first pilot to compare the 109 to the Spitfire after the pilot repeatedly told him he hadn't flown one and was going by what he had read? He kepted on asking untill he got a comment that he liked. Very objective....Not! But that was the entire tone of the interview.

And I sort of assumed everyone knew the P-51 was a boom and zoom type plane?????

It did raise one question for me. Will the 109's leading edge slats be within the damage model and will the loss of those slats (in a stall being held back by those slats) be modeled?

Just imagine! your in a turn and burn fight in your '09, pushing the edge of the envelope, and suddenly loose a slat (or it gets jammed by a single .303 round in the wrong place :) )! Now that would be fun!

Cheers!

Skoshi

Agree on the interview, but it was likely those pilots are used to having amateur questions. Both pilots seemed reluctantly helpful, IMO.

Still they did answer and not blow of the interview.

Nearmiss wrote:
I'm fairly certain that Oleg Maddox denies doing this in IL-2, and says he tried to match performance to the actual data he had, as accurately as the sim would allow. With conflicting data, and some aircraft having much less documentation than others, it is inevitable that controversy will occur, but I'd like to see evidence to back this up before suggesting there has been any deliberate 'adjustment'. Merely saying that because a particular aircraft underperforms according to your interpretation of the data, there has been deliberate tampering, as I have seen argued, isn't proof of anything.

In any case, this thread is about BoB:SoW. We should at least wait to see how the aircraft perform before complaining. ;)

In SAS1946 there is work of FLY BY VIEW SOUND, my sugestion to SOW, worth check, be shure!

I saw today's video about 1C and Oleg's crew. I'm curious about Phys-X support in SoW_BoB. Is it likely?
Flyby out

Its called Doppler Effect, and the one from SAS is not even an effect but a Recording of a Fly By, its useless Online and if you change the Fly By View Point it doesnt match with what you see anymore.

IMO the Stock Sounds are still best (atleast for Suround Sound) and everything works with them, no missing sounds online for example.


@FlyBy: i rather have Havok (Intel/AMD/ATI) Physics, nVidia PhysX really puts a load on the system + if you got a ATI GPU and a low end nVidia card (or even an Aigea PhysX card) to run PhysX on it gets blocked by the nVidia drivers from running.

Hi, I was told that Oleg Maddox Team is looking for color picture and film of London for the development of the BoB game.

Maybe this can help:

http://www.howtobearetronaut.com/201...-1920s-london/

Oleg, will the new SoW engine take advantage of new GPU architectures? Specifically will the new Nvidia Fermi GPU be relevant to SoW? Here's a link to an Nvidia article over at the Firing Squad: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ew/default.asp
Flyby out

Still missing the Blenheim IV heavy fighter ??? or is only AI ???
I know that early Battle of Britain 60 of that bombers was transformed to heavy fighters whit 4 20mm cannons.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...IWMDuxford.jpg

Sonko, fantastic video, very nostalgic.

Xakk, I didn't know of the 4 cannon Blenheim, would be ideal for SOW ..and so would a hampden. :grin:

hey smartguy !!!

Blenheim Mk IV
in english winckipedia dont gonna read this!

Blenheim Mk IV (Tipo 142L)
Versión mejorada, equipado con una armadura protectora, equipado con dos motores radiales Bristol Mercury XV 905 cv, armado con una ametralladora en el ala izquierda,[1] dos ametralladoras de 7,7mm en la torreta dorsal, y dos ametralladoras de 7,7mms controladas a control remoto apuntando hacia atrás en una torreta bajo el fuselaje, con una carga interior máxima de 434 kg[1] y una exterior de 145 kg; construidos 3.307
Blenheim Mk IVF
Unos 60 Mk IV convertidos en cazas
Spanish Wikipedia


Here said that over 60 Blenheim Mk IV was a Fighter in early Battle of britain thit 4 20mm cannons. I need the list of Flyable Aircraft to check this. I dont see any Cockpit of Blenheim Mk IV !!!

http://i970.photobucket.com/albums/a.../brenheim4.jpg

Not 20mm, 7.7mm, i.e. 0.303 inches, same calibre as the Spitfire and Hurricane, it was intended as a nightfighter I think, and didn't do much good.

you are all right!!!

The Mk.IVF (fighter/attack plane) carried six 0.303 machine guns, four in a belly pack, 1 in the port wing and 1 in the rear turret. This model was also employed as a night-fighter using ground-controlled radar direction.

what a stupid english people hahaha!!!:-P I lock pics and I suppose that they are 20mm cannon.

here i have a compárison of bullets from Fighters of Battle of Britain

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Feb2004cart%20002w.jpg

A comparison photo of the ammunition used in the Battle with some other rounds is HERE:
from left to right

1) the .303 British (7.7x56R) (Spitfire and Hurricane)

2) .5 inch Vickers (12.7x81)

3).50 Browning (12.7x99) (P-47) (P-40)

4) 20mm Hispano (20x110) (Spitfire 1941)

5) 7.92mm v-Munition (7.92x57) (Bf 109E and Bf 110C)

6) 20mm MG-FFM (20x80RB) (Bf 109E and Bf 110C)

7) 15mm MG 151 (15x96) (Bf109G)

8) 20mm MG 151/20 (20x82) (He 162),

9) 13mm MG 131 (13x64B)

Brilliant film Sonko!

The Bf 109G wasn't involved, and I'm certainly glad the He 162 wasn't! The Battle of Britain was in 1940. Try to at least think, and do a little research before posting.

Every time I see those munition comparisons I get a strong "wow" effect. Despite seeing it before. The difference is just so enormous visually.

Does all this mean that the Bf 110 is going to have some major firepower vs the Hurricanes and Spitfires? Especially being nose mounted with no convergence problems.

correctly one must set Bf109F2 for the 151/15 anf Bf109F4 or F2 field-mod for 151/20.

I was write """...A comparison photo of the ammunition used in the Battle with some other rounds is..."""

And I have the same photo but whit more shells in the right: more of the 20mm, 30mm, 37mm. But I have the link in my other machine. Tonight I gonna post that pic.

I think the Hurricane have a good center armament, but not for be a bomber hunter. The Spitfire have a ugly bad and not strategic position of the 8 0.303. Maybe if they put the same config that Hurricane armament, this could be perfect.

The difference with the real 110 was that it's rate of roll was very inferior to any single engined fighter, because it's two engines, which are a lot of its weight and a lot of torque too, were relatively very wide from its centre of gravity.

I do this myself, soo, if some of you find any error, I dont will sorry!:-P

http://i970.photobucket.com/albums/a...ullets-ww2.jpg


link
http://i970.photobucket.com/albums/a...ullets-ww2.jpg

Here are a couple more:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...craftround.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...f109cartsw.jpg

How's this for an idea, although I suspect it would have already been proposed. How about rescue planes for downed pilots. if you're shot down and floating in the middle of the sea / ocean, the AI sends a float plane to rescue you. This would make good use of any float planes .. other than targets or anti-shipping.

just an idea.

You feel up to waiting a few hours for that to (maybe) successfully happen?

I think that old-game style is a better and more realistic approach. Basically if you land safely in the water, you then get a summary (in the old days this used to be a short hand made animation with some text) showing what happened. If you drowned/froze to death or if you were rescued. No user input needed. SoW could do it just like that - a few artistic illustrations showing a pilot in the sea with a floatplane coming to rescue, or a drowned pilot.

Silent Hunter 4 has some nice after-mission stuff that I really liked (great illustrations and texts telling you what happened as a result of your mission. Promotions, medals, transfers, retirement etc). So easily done, so little work, yet adding so much to the feel.

Maybe this is even more usefull:

http://google-latlong.blogspot.com/2...gle-earth.html

World War II imagery layers in Google Earth.

I hope that the rear gunners in aircraft will be able to speak in multiplayer in a useful way, as if a human player had been there (IL-2 MP rear gunners are just bad automatic turrets). Their gunnery could be more useful too.

A request for using such AI crew in a useful way, involving voice actors:

A button that queries the rear gunner to tell you what he sees. Pressing it will make it say if there's any friendly he can see from his position. If there's a fight going on, he will update you on where the closest enemy fighter is (o'clock, high, low etc).

We don't have to make it so limited. Without making it complicated or resource intensive, he can also estimate the range, and if the closest enemy fighter is GAINING or LOSING distance compared to us. This is an important part since combat often involves trying to run away or gain separation from someone, or trying to time a maneuver right.

In reality he would feed information about the enemy to the pilot to help the pilot gain more awareness and fly in a more effective way, without even having to turn around so much.

What is needed is design document outlining how it should function, outlining logic for the code (what he will report in what situations) and add a couple more lines for the voice actors to record.

EDIT: The button-to-query-rear-gunner is a good solution to the problem of not making the guy talk all the time, or not to talk enough (designing a good system is difficult). Then we can time it when we need it, not listening to unwanted stuff, getting our other radio communications interrupted, and getting an update when we really need it (such as when being chased, trying to extend bla blah).

MikkOwl + 1

I hope that we will see some of that in the initial release. And if only as text messages initially.

Will SOW support duocore? What about quadcore?

Read the interview!

Yes it will.

^^Thanks just did! Sorry for the spam!

Octacore
 

I suppose that because of the length of time developing this sim I would've thought it would have to support an octacore or better. Waiting since my thirties and now in my forties. Just getting older and older and older.

will i be able to get out of my aircraft and walk around it. or maybe interact with it? open ammunition boxes or engine cowlings?

@Ctrl-E

that feature might come with the "octa-cores", me thinks. :-D

Will I be able to clean my blood off my pilotseat and clothes after beeing wounded? Will I be able to polish screws or put stickers on my planes dashboard? Will the lack of concentration while peeing be modeled into the games engine? Will I be able to walk around my plane and kick the tires?....

Come on guys, don't overdo it, I want this sim to be ready before I die someday! ;-)

will you be linking the new teamspeck 3 to the game as they are starting to do will game such as ARMA 2 and American army.

with this you can limit the range of the aircraft radio

will a simcock be able to access gauge data from SOW
 

Will SOW allow access to gauge info during multiplayer mode for those of us with sim-cockpits so we can display the info on gauges outside of SOW?

Hi all, (I was put this message, i think, in the incorrect post.)
First to congratulate the team of SoW. BoB on the excellent work we are seeing Friday after Friday.

Ok...sorry for my English...I was use google translation...sry..

In Il2 1946, when we make a sudden maneuver is produced or can produce a "black out" is the only way in which forces reflected "G" excessive, but in reality the driver who performs these move suffers overload whole body and therefore everything it does cost more.
Il2 In this we can not apply such force that we apply to the joystick, it is ""impossible"", but if you use a peripheral where there might be applied G forces blocking their profiles or changing its structure, which is the TrackIR or Freetrack.
I think we can give a little more realistic if an excessive G-force impact on the functioning of the Track-IR / Freetrack or completely block it until the blood drop or raise the head of the feet.
Just an idea