Aye, I says. Proton has a good point there. Wiv these static screens, we can't half get the true picture.
But; can ya' see through fire in that way?

No I do not think so. Even in a small fire or an evolving fire, the flame is always much brighter than the background and "hides" it effectively.
Do not forget than from this brightness standpoint the (fuel related like in the Fw, presumably) Wellington flames are spot on.
On th eother hand shapes and smoke transitions are very good on the Fw...I am pretty sure tha Luthier is simply showing a lot of possibilities and they have a pretty good idea of what is right!
Generally speaking, all airborne flames are too bright to see behind; they maybe of different sizes or colors depending of what is burning, in which quantity, and what are the aircraft speed and altitude (the latter ones are very important, but probably not yet simulated in SoW, and probably not before long...).
The smoke is another matter entirely.

JV

He is indeed.

Yes indeed. When SaQSoN speaks it's time for you guys to stand down and actually listen for a change.

And if you all had been paying any kind of attention to what has been written about SOW, and not just glomming on to every screen capture like a flock of crows pecking at a carcass you would know that individual systems in the aircraft will all have their own discreet damage models.

But carry on with your dog and pony show of screen shot debauchery, it's actually fairly entertaining.

Well said.

It still doesn't answer the question of the transparent fire. Is this shot just showing the fire starting or what? I'm only asking, as I've yet to see an aircraft on fire and be able to see though the flames to the fuselage section.

Your first post in this thread is:
"That's exactly what I was thinking.. Antennagate is now firegate.. ffs. "

Since you said you do not post useless chatter, then it must be serious.
So, Oleg and team reads this apparently serious statement,... what are you trying to say?

I never said Oleg/1C do anything more then take a look at what I am saying and the detail provided.

It is up to Oleg to decide if it's worth modifying, and if so the priority and effort decided to expend on it.

Thank you.

To rest:
Oleg has demanded an unprecedented amount of detail in SoW, it is sure to be the Sim to compare with for years, maybe decades.
Details is what Oleg is looking at, and this is a detail.

I present him an opinion, an explanation, and historical documents best as I can provide. Rest is Oleg. (This is not the first game I beta tested!)


Someone said who will notice? Others will. It will not happen often, but their will be times when players will be in positions to see a flaming aircraft for a few seconds, and will see those details.
Such as this one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...P-024_USAF.jpg

Well, my apologies for offending anyone...It was just surprising - It has been said of course that the DM would be more detailed, but I don't think it has been said explicitly to what degree.

Modeling cylinders and prop-governors is a little different that modeling a thin fuel line, and structuring flames to erupt from the exact point that the little line is hit. It seemed too good to be true, not to say that Oleg&Co aren't programming miracle workers.


Anyway, I thought I'd repost this:

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-conten...onmodeldm2.jpg

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/dm3.jpg

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/dm4.jpg

It's a little old (2005) so a lot could have changed, bit it's not totally obvious from this that fuel lines are modeled. Likely, I don't fully understand what is going on in these illustrations. This was the cause of my "skepticism" of such fine detail.

However, one can see how this surpasses Il-2 in all counts. You can clearly see the spars, control lines, hinges/attachment points for control surfaces, firewalls, bulkheads, armor plates/glass, radiators, governors, engine block, supercharger, oil reservoir, guns, ammo bins, radio, battery, etc.

You have to be careful when using wartime photography, or any photography for that matter. The camera captures things a little differently than the human eye, especially with regard to points of light, like flames.

Yes.

Luke and Pillip.ed are also right.

What will help everyone is make the initial comment as detailed as possible and move on, except if more info is discovered. Its up to the pros @ 1C to go with it.