LOL! As I said before, "the perfect is the enemy of the good". If Oleg listens to someone here, we will get SoW in 2025 ... Go on Oleg, finish the job and pass to your next project ...

Blackshark is a modern aircraft. Most WW2 fighters need 5-10 button presses and guess what, since all of them use piston engines the sequence is pretty much identical. It's not a question of what's best, it's a question of what floats your boat and how you want to play your game.
So, just because all some people want to do is point and shoot doesn't mean they should force their preferred difficulty level on the rest.

I'm slightly disappointed that we won't have complete start-ups, but i understand that things like that take time. I won't hold it against the developers, especially since they say we'll be able to modify things and model it ourselves down the road. It's just a minor incovenience for me.

The important part is to have the dependencies between aircraft systems modelled. This IS a big deal because it affects damage models and tactical considerations for the player. For example, cascading system failures...you get hit, suffer a blown up oxygen tank and have to dive to lower altitudes in order not to die of hypoxia...however, your generator is also smashed and you're running on battery power, temperature changes also affect your battery life and temperature can change with altitude, so what do you do? That's the stuff i'm talking about, not having to click for start-up per se. The bottom line is, point and shoot is not enough in this time and age and it seems team Maddox understands that, even if not everything is modelled due to time constraints.


Fully agree.


That's exactly my idea. Critical things stay on keyboard and stick buttons, secondary controls that you fiddle with while not in combat are nice to operate with the mouse and not have to memorize a bazillion keyboard commands.

Or already enough :D

But I like to memorize a bazillion keyboard commands!

;)

Cheeses kraist! What's wrong with you...! :confused:

Hear hear! The paint is just about dry and the tanks are full. It's time to scramble and get the bird in the air!

Yes, but not everywhere.

I hear that WoP used 1940 satellite images for the Dover area. Did you do this too, Oleg?

oleg,

could you please look at that question for a moment ?

for many of us that are starting to use multiple monitors in games in the last few years, this is a critical question !

particularly since what you are deciding on right now could lock BoB-SoW into one or the other way of dealing with the viewpoints, and might be much harder to change later

will BoB be able to provide the better "3 viewports" type of view that e-racer (car racing game) now provides ? this is technically the much better option for using multiple monitors around you (like 3 x 24' for ex ).

the "bad" way, like is doing by most other older games now, is to mimic a big flat screen in front of you, with all monitors next to each other in a line. placing those monitors in a V shape around you is the natural and best position for flightsim's and car driving sims (so you can keep viewing distance from your eye to each screen the same on all 3 monitors, otherwise for ex the "dots" of distant il2 aircraft would shrink in size to much by placing the left and right monitor further away from your eye then the centre one).

please consider this technical point :)

I think that we are modeling so many things in each aircraft that never was modelled in any single aircraft sim.

Start procedure do not affect these systems and complexity of modelling.

Each aircraft in our sim may have from 300 to 500+ parameters of modeling.

Say me is there the sim that would model the work of the piston compressor in a cockpit of bomber?
Or is there any sim that would model the work of each cylinder of engine?
Or various of propellers and its reductors?
various of pitch mechanisms?
The work of carburauter? Its diameter of airintake that calculate the airflow dencity in there?
Or maybe you can name the flight sim where in the damage is included the case of tires pinhole and its result?
Where, like in Il-2 for the first time in the world, then now in our sim modelled on the new very high level of precise and phycically (in 3D) all the trip rods to ailerons, elevator, rudder, etc? That can be all damahged separately with its result to control and flight?
Where in a sim modelled some (not all) eletrical wires that can be also damaged in a system of DM?

Can you sayme where in other game is modelling many of these thigns in 3D that to get right place of the hit result instead of randome program table of switchable failure?


Resume:
Complete starting procedure doesn't means the modeling of the things described above.... Trust me
We did way more complex work in general.
Like we did for the first time in the world the co-called in the past Complex Damage Model in Il-2 series.

Please read what you wrote.... Gagarin started in space in 1961. Just to remind.

Sorry, I see what you mean. :o

They used aerial images :oops: My mistake.

There were a large number of aerial images taken around the time of 1940 (and before as well) and these were used by the team behind WoP extensively. Have you used these too?

1. I think you didn't read starting procedures of WWII time figters... and bombers...Its not very few. Usually more than 20 steps.

2. You'll get more immersion with what we are modeling.

3. Systems and starting procedure is different thing. We model the system(s), instead of table for the start of engine.

That is a backward step if i understand this properly.I think the translation may not be very clear [hopefully].
You have seen BoB11 WOV ,some of the switches and controls are clickable or moveable by dragging your mouse over it,it adds a HUGE amount of immersion to the sim.
You can use either the mouse /and or switches you have mapped to your joystick
It is not perfect by all means as some of the hit boxes on the switches are not always 100% accurate BUT it is there if you want to try it.
I hope it will be worked on in the future,after all BOB pilots didn't have multi switched joysticks as we do,they had separate prop pitch levers,fuel cocks,magnetos,they had to do it and fight to survive.
I hope it will be looked into in the future it is a basic ingredient.

When I was asking them for the photos of Dover that they were using they only said that they used the sattelite map... That wasn't interesting for me. And they didn't give me even that photo.
Next time I will think about other forms of business when I'll give the source code and all our own models to third parties for their projects.

I have a lot of photos of Dover from different altitudes and views how it was looking in 1930-40.
There is so many things in reality.... that we even can't model for that time... but it is a bit more detailed that you may find in any other sim.

Please read above couple of my posts what is clickable cockpit switches instead of serious modeling of the systems or program table starting procedure VS modeling of real systems work :)

And did they operate those with a mouse?

Mr. Maddox,

The cockpit images are stunning. I think they are even more realistic than the A2A team which creates excellent FSX aircraft. I eagerly await release date.

And this is what I want, I would sacrifice any startup procedure for this any day of the week, especially as many RAF aircraft were pre-started by ground crew while the pilots were running across the airfield toward them anyway.

With a damage model like this I no longer need to worry about maintaining a full 2 seconds into the same place of a 109 in order to get it to fall apart. Now, wherever I hit will be a broken part. :D

Why is it dramatically weaker?
Ok cockpit sucks
For me Terrain textures look much better then what we have seen in SOW

For example look at the Switzerland x addon
its impossible to outperform that.

And did they have a plastic cone like the ones sick dogs have with 70 degrees vision of the world with a pixelation raster attached to it? ;)

In a real plane you take a microsecond glimpse down at the temp meter and then look ahead... You reach for the gear lever,throttle or flaps without even looking down, and zeroing the altimeter is done in a second. Being on final having to "look down" and messing around with the mouse to go to full flaps when in danger of overshooting the runway is a no no for me immersion wise... Having said that I understand that some people like it, probably the persons that think that "full real" is imposing that completely unrealistic cone on your head instead of allowing padlock etc to overcome the problems of simulating the impressive control a real person has of his head and vision with 180+ degrees of FOV (for motions at least).

For me, I play games like IL2 to simulate WWII dogfighting and I like it best on the servers that even allow external views but with good missions like UK Dedicated 1. For "full real" I go fly for real instead...

Did read you with more attention:
And what the problem with what we are modelling using mouse control?
It seems that you and most didn't understand my sentence that we are modeling these that are using for the flight... all you listed above is for the flight! We have it with possibility to control by the mouse.

We haven't all the switches clickable in the cockpit using for starting proceduere or so. This is other thing than the control in the fligth isn't it?

I think all is clear now?

I still don't get it what is and what is not. Sry Oleg.

This is for Russians and for Germans actual. I have read about it a lot in the past. And I told it in Il-2 time of life, I told it when we started really new sim....
With no modeling starting procedure we really is more close to reality than to model it.
The most important to model the systems that are working in fligth. And to model them by the way that are not random table failure with the great size hit box for the full aircraft or its couple of parts... Even in Il-2 had most complex things of this modelled for its time.
I hope people will understand it :)

Then you simply should learn real aircraft systems and its control and then to compare what is using in fligth(some time also different for different aircraft type) and what is ONLY for starting procedure.

We model the first.

All well said.

so nothing clickable for start procedure?

First of all I can't write here manual....
Second - Starting procedure we have just very small part common for all aircraft.
Third - we pay attention for more important things of the fligth simulation than the simulation of the cockpit on the ground. We leave it for others who can't do other the most important things on the level that is neccessary for the succes on the market.

Thanks for the answers. I still would like to have a complete cockpit experience (some time in the future maybe, thanks to the built-in mod support in SoW), but i know what you mean and it's the same thing i was talking about: having the start-up is a nice touch to have but not critical, however the systems are the important part.

That's exactly what i was hoping to hear, thanks for modelling all that.

No more instant pressure build-up, no more firewalling the throttle right after engine start, no more 110% throttle all day long, etc etc...i can wait for the little details now that all the rest of the important stuff has been confirmed :grin:


For the people that don't understand it, the way i read mr Maddox's comments it looks to me like this:

1) Not all controls will be working or modelled. Controls will be modelled if the corresponding systems are used by the game engine. So, if your aircraft is equipped with intercoolers and the game engine models carburetor icing, you will get working intercooler controls. If there's no complex engine start however, you won't get a working starter button.

2) However, there will still be a higher amount of controls needed to operate the aircraft properly than there was in IL2. Things like intercoolers, carbuteror heaters, even canopy de-icers, etc.

3) All of these systems will be damageable with appropriate consequences, due to enemy fire or improper operation by the pilot. For example, carburetor icing builds up if you don't work your intercoolers correctly, the engine loses power and finally stops.

4) You will be able to control these systems either by mapping them to joystick/keyboard, by clicking on them in the virtual cockpit, or using a mixed system, whatever way you prefer. This way, people with expensive HOTAS sets can map it all to their sticks, but people with simpler sticks will also be able to fly at full difficulty by assigning the most important functions to their sticks and using the mouse for the non-critical ones.

I'd say it's a very good start and highly promising for the future. I would still like to have the entire thing modelled 100% at some time, but i have no problem accepting compromises when the final result is looking to be so well balanced.

So, if I read you correctly Oleg, a team that built its brand new game on YOUR engine code, (and I am sure that you did give them good advice from time to time), and got lots of good reviews and good sales, turned Oleg Maddox down when he asked for a picture ? :( And we all dream of a "sim community" that would be "friendly competitive" so this genre will be living for a long time....:confused:
That's beyond disapointment...

Anyway, you do like you allways did, raise the bar so high that it will be easier for others to just crawl under !

Salute !

May I try a short summation of what is being written?

- Not all things seen in a cockpit will be clickable. Some will.
- Clickable items will also have keyboard shortcuts. The player can choose which to use with those items.
- The team has modeled systems in the planes. If a bullet hit your fuel line, you have a fuel leak (these are no longer random occurrences as in IL-2 where what the damage might be is determined by a percentage chance).
- No complicated start up procedures, at least at release.

How did I do?

Splitter

Gotta love your approach and the manner you keep answering all of these questions Oleg! Big THANK YOU for that.
Some of these posters attitude would make bit angry and make me stop answering in such in a informative and polite way. Think that just shows that you are a really nice man Oleg and because of this you will have/have allready very loyal customer base. :)

Cheerious
Kammo

First of all: a truly fantastic update! The pits look stunning.. unlike anything seen before in a flight sim! Seeing them combined with the scenery shot made me ecstatic! I also assumed the tooltips and mouse control on throttle etc ment clickable pits and passed out of the awesomeness of the update!

Now hearing the clickable pits is not actually included was a clear cooler for me. Not that Oleg you would have specifically said that everything would be clickable, just because I drew that conclusion out of the update and the messages.

I think this thread alone makes it clear that following an accurate procedure is indeed something people DO want to do. Not all of us, but some so please cut the condecending attitude towards it. It would be especially cool for bombers etc where the technical part of the flight is a big thing as there is no dog fighting!

I was also ready to build my own 'power glove' to implement the touchscreen aspect which would have taken the immersion to new heights for me!

And it's probably <1% of people that would know that the 110's antenna is wrong, but that's not the point now is it? The point is to get it right and accurate and for me (and to quite a few others here) startup procedure and clickable cockpits would fall in to the same category.

And I hope this isn't taken the wrong way: I know that SOW BOB is and will be the greatest sim out there and is already modelling a million things that others don't. And I rather get the sim out asap than wait for another x months for the clickable pits and start-up procedures.
However what I do want to say is that following the procedures is a big thing for a lot of flight sim aficionados! I love it in BS and FSX but have always preferred Oleg's sims because of the other features and the WW2 era.

I would like to do my sorties as they did them back in the day from start to finnish whether it's about getting the FM, DM or the startup accurate.

But hey, I'll be a happy camper when I get my hands on this baby whether I start my missions by igniting my engines with one press of a key or not. It just would have been a kilo of sugar on the top of I would have been able to start up and close down as it was done in real life.

But anyhow this was one of the best updates I've seen, thanks a million for it!! And even bigger thanks for having such a dialogue with the scene, this is unheard of!! :cool:

Start up procedures:

If they were available, I would use them a few times for each aircraft I flew. Once I got the procedure down, I would then just use the "quick start" option. The fun for me is from the time I push the throttle forward to take off until I cut the engine in front of the hangar.

That they are not included at release is no big deal to me. I'm sure if they ever become available in a future update I will learn them and then just go back to quick start.

THANK YOU to Oleg for answering the questions that have been posted on here. Above and beyond the call of duty.

Splitter

What horrible people; no wonder the development process of WoP is so poor.

You've done excellent work with this Oleg though; thanks for sharing so much with us ;) At Hawkinge Battle of Britain Museum here in Kent, they have a large number of period aerial shots of various airfields and countryside IIRC. Unfortunately, one can't take pictures here, however if you e-mailed the museum they might be able to supply copies of the pictures. If you are interested, that is ;)

+1

??? i would love to own an authentic cockpit but unfortunately a computer and joystick is the nearest most if not all of us will get to.

:) Thank you for the answers Oleg ,i do think that people don't understand quite what you mean at the moment,several posts from different people since you posted have tried to clear it up but i guess we will find out in time.
All i ask is please don't stifle whatever could be made workable in the future,it is a popular request.:)

I have always been against "clickable", The ability to program key's/buttons for all controls/switches was my hope for this sim. Some what accurate starting procedure was also a big hope of mine, but it will not be in the release it seems. I will most likely hold off on the release version, and see what developes down the road.:grin:

Luckily most people will still buy it, even if there favorite feature isn't readily available, as they understand that nothing will be developed down the road if initial sales are off.

Slipball, you are serious?

You would not buy the initial release simply because you cannot operate the primer pump and manually test the hydraulics?

Our genre is already very small. Not buying the best WW2 air combat simulator just because you cannot push a few levers and twist some knobs is just petty.

And childish.

I don't have the x addon for FSX, but I much prefer SOW's developers terrain building. FSX's idea of putting trees and buildings on Satellite images looks like crap.

In IL-2 is two types of damage models:

1. Tha has percentage model in some square of the hit that was in a first version.
2. Co-called complex damage model which include the first one and the modeling of internals up to 40 units in some planes. This model was introduced with the Forgotten Battles forthe new flyable aircaft and in time has been added in most non AI aircraft.

In a model 2 is modelled hit boxes for engine, reductor, supercharger, fuel tanks, etc repeating actual sizes of modelled devices.
It is also included the 3D models of some elevator, rudder, etc control
that also possible to damage by hits and its based on the durability terms.

In Sow we have only the model 2 with way more advaced calculation and several separate hit boxes even for some single devices... say for the engine... I told about modeling of cylinders already for example.

The option to have clickable or nonclickable cockpits must be the course of action

Making players click who don't want to or making players assign controls when they don't want to is simple foolishness in my opinion. The choice is always the proper path. We aren't talking about SWOTL here; this is the 2010

Since it appears the choice is actually present, I can't imagine what the complaint is about

Thank you for the clarification.

Clickable cockpits: Slipball and others, I think Oleg has said that cockpits will be clickable (some controls) but that doesn't mean you MUST click. I am sure there will be corresponding keyboard shortcuts if you don't want to click.

Does that make sense?

Splitter

Then you will not by this sim in principle. Because we dodn't plan to make all switches available in the cockpit clickable or mapped to the buttons. Not now, not in future. This wasn't our goal now, not in future.
If some year later third party will be able to make one plane with this feature, then this will be just one plane for this sim with the complete starting procedure... because they will spend half of the time for modeling and escpecially for programming of a completely new module for just one aircraft... to make all switches clickable in 3D models (that we did from the beginning for some) doesn't means automaic work it in a sim. For this should be created additional progam module.

As for your wish: except the starting procedure all neccessary things for the fligth, dropping bombs, etc are present and in most cases fully authetic.

on-of switches.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry to ask again...
Can Mr. Oleg tell me if BOB SOW will have the possibillity of adding on/of switches instead of having only the momentary switches like the ones on the keyboard? Or it will only be possible to do it by using a program to map keys?
I know some games that have it, some RC games (radio controled sim.)
Its very usefull to people who want to build pannels or simply to add a switch (e.g.) to easy remind gear position. I hope it includes that possibillity...
I enjoy all your team work, and tank you for the updates.

Brickwall comes to mind:confused: talking to it that is..

Big +1

You can't be serious. :confused: I'm going to hold off until this thing actually flies thats what I'm going to do. I'll show them.....

OK, I was a little pissed...of course I will buy the release, probably 3 of them, me, my son, and a friend who I think would enjoy it very much...please excuse me Oleg, I quess that I mis-understood your past words on this subject, my error:grin:;)

Damned if he do, damned if he dont.


U should be ashamed of your selfes.


Ungratefull childishnes (is that a word?)is a gross understatment.

genuine lol

Oleg knows best!
 

I reckon Oleg knows best what's worth spending his time on and what isn't he's proved that with il2 - I've played that thousands of hours and still am playing it - that's down to it being a wonderfully entertaining sim, yes I've bought other flightsims - some with clickable cockpits that have an half hour start up procedure if you want it, but I return to il2 again and again. I, like most people here, can't wait for SOW:BOB (or whatever its finally called) its the most anticipated software out there as far as I'm concerned and what I've seen and read from Oleg here only fuels that anticipation more.

And what a guy Oleg is, its gone 1 .00 AM in Moscow and he's still here answering questions with undying patience when it comes to 'clickable cockpits'. Build yourselves a switch box its much more fun, and please please don't hold off buying what will be the greatest flightsim out there just because you cant flick virtual cockpit switches for an age to get the engine fired up, just pretend your groundcrew prepped it !

You are very wise!:grin:

Wasnt referring to u in perticullar, at least u came to your sences and changed your mind, lol ;)

I remember quite well the debate about clickeble cockpits and Oleg said they wouldnt do it and here he is saying "we`v done the most important parts clickable", i can only assume they did it because people asked for it, to be nice, because lets face it, they wouldnt lose sales if they simply didnt, would they.


Well, what can one say really?


Top noch :)

What the heck are u talking about? The trees are awsome. No sim can beat this. Pls show me otherwise!

Don't get me wrong. I only played the demo of WoP a few times, and I'm not saying it is better or best etc.

However, photographic textures can add a degree of clutter and randomness that you don't get otherwise, and houses placed on that texture in the correct places look naturally spaced, giving towns an authentic appearance. Roads have varied textures, rather than being uniform ribbons of grey. Gardens can be seen.


Personally I find this imperfect screenshot pleasing to look at. From WoP:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...0909112511.jpg

Flying houses ? LOL !

@Oleg and Team

great work, i love you guys !

cant wait for release :-P

Peffi, despite his often acerbic style, Vladimir "SaQSoN" worked (works?) very closely with Oleg's team and is an expert modeler who knows his stuff too well.

And he's right: satellite textures often look terrible, specially at low height. However, I'm one of those who'd like the SoW team to improve this aspect of the game -if it's similar to what's been depicted up until now.

On the other hand, I'd like to point again to that small bug present on the pre-rendered reflections: some of them don't seem to present the reflection flipped horizontally as a mirror.

Actually that's a good attitude towards the whole deal. I too can wait for extra detail to be added. Like i always like to say, we didn't have water=3 in the original IL2, but we got it someday ;)

As for me, i think i would use the manual mode every time and it would be especially rewarding if there was a bonus to it.
For example, the way Black Shark does it is good. You can press left windows key + home key and the chopper starts up all by itself but not as if by magic. It still goes through all the steps required. The advantage to learning how to do it yourself is that experienced users can start it faster than the auto-start feature can. So, pressing left win + home might start the chopper in 40 seconds, but an experienced user doing it manually might be able to do it in 25 seconds.

I think that's a very good compromise. It allows people who want full difficulty FM/DM without the hassle of extreme systems management to fly on the same server as people who want 110% difficulty (which prevents further diluting the community and spreading us thin across a billion servers with different difficulty settings), while also providing a reward and an incentive for those who take the time to learn how to do a few things extra.

In any case, the most important part for me is that we have a confirmation from mr. Maddox that even if checklists are not included, the consequences of improper system operation are there. That's the first and most important step and it will change and revolutionize the way people fly and fight online.
I just went back and read another one of his posts 1-2 pages back and it pretty much says that almost everything will work except the start procedure. That's good enough for me and a steep evolutionary curve from the IL2 way of doing things. I would still like to have it all modelled, but i know that this one must get to release sometime and money must be generated if we want to see more features ;)

Also, Splitter's explanations about what won't work, what will work and how is pretty much the way i understand it as well. I doubt people will be forced to use either interface, the most probable thing to happen is that they will be able to use both at the same time according to what they like best.

I think that a lot of people are not familiar with clickable sims and that's why they think that clicking on things is mandatory in such sims. To my knowledge, there's not a single flight sim out there that forces you to click everything. Taking Black Shark as an example once again, i've never flown that but i downloaded the manual when it was made available before release. Every single switch and function in that chaotic cockpit can be mapped to a keypress or stick button, scratch that, they are even mapped by default the moment you install it. The reason people click stuff is that they can remember which button drops the gear and which lever changes the collective, but they can't remember that ctrl+shift+alt+> is used to select the fourth softkey in the bottom row of the MFD...for things like that it's simpler to just point at it and press the mouse button.

The important thing is to look at the forest and not just the tree. Most of us lack the interface and input devices to simulate everything the best way. Some have pedals, some have dual throttle HOTAS, some have head tracking, some have custom sim-pits, but very few people have everything.
In order for a title to succeed we need a strong user community. In order to build and sustain a community, all these people must have a means of flying together in the same environment, regardless of their hardware setup. In order for them to be able to fly the same software in the same environments, some things have to be designed to work with the most common PC interfaces that everyone is sure to have...keyboards and mice. If customized cockpits were cheap we wouldn't be having this discussion, but these things are not cheap at all.

So, the defining question ends up being this. Can we compromise to use less than ideal interfaces in order to have more advanced modelling of aircraft features, or will we throw the baby out with the bath water and miss out on a bunch of realism because we don't like the interface that much? I think the answer is obvious here. People who say that complex systems management should be neglected because clicking on stuff or remembering complex keymap assignments is unnatural are the equivalent of a real WWII pilot saying "i refuse to drop flaps for landing because i don't want to take my hands off the throttle and stick". :rolleyes:

I'm glad the developers understand this and are giving us choices, instead of "railroading" the gameplay for everyone involved.

When Oleg says no startup procedures it really isn't as bad as it sounds.....we already have most of the items referred to in the startup procedures. In fact we already do in IL2.

Here's a quick extract from the Hellcat pilot notes I have to hand:


Set throttle approx 1/5 open - WE HAVE THIS

Mixture - Idle Cut-Off - WE HAVE MIXTURE (I hope Idle/Cutoff is selectable)

Supercharger - Neutral - WE HAVE THIS

Battery Switch - On - PROBABLY DON'T HAVE THIS

Auxiliary fuel pump - On - PROBABLY DON'T HAVE THIS

Hold primer switch on for 3-5 seconds - ALMOST CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE THIS

Ignition switch - on "Both" - WE HAVE THIS

Starter switch "On" - WE HAVE THIS

When engine fires advance mixture control to "Auto Rich" - WE HAVE MIXTURE - I hope Auto Rich and Auto Lean are now properly modelled.

Do not exceed 100 RPM until oil temperature reaches at least 40 degrees C
- I HOPE OIL TEMP TAKES A LITTLE TIME TO RISE

If the oil pressure gauge does not indicate 40 p.s.i. within 30 seconds, the engine should be stopped.
- I HOPE THERE IS A REALISTIC DELAY IN OIL PRESSURE


So as you can see, we have most of the ingredients already.

The battery switch must be quite universal to aircraft of the day and would be very easy to model. I'm sure electrical failure is already modelled.

Other things referred to in pre-start check lists include cowl flap and landing flap position, propeller controls, intercooler and oil cooler doors, tail wheel lock, fuel selector, oxygen supply and flow, trim settings.

Again, we should have almost all of those controls too. I'm hoping fuel tank selectors are included.

So not bad at all really. Now, once the engine is started there are a few additional checks that include testing mags, supercharger and propeller controls. I don't know how many of you have compared the results of these tests with the real pilot's notes in IL2 but I can tell you they are very close already in IL2 - I remember being amazed when I switched magnetos in IL2 and got an accurate mag drop. Same with exercising the propellor.

A small feature that would be REALLY NICE is being able to enter the cockpit without all the controls already being correctly set for takeoff - as an option of course. This would enable those who like to follow procedures to follow them. There was a small utility created for IL2 that enabled this cold start procedure to be followed.

I hope the above puts some of our minds at rest.:grin:

WOW.. I never knew a cockpit could look so good! simply amazing. I love the way how you use all the new effects out today in such a smoooth way. SOW, I think i love you

Sound
 

Oleg,
Thank you very much for taking the time to provide updates and for the fine work you and your team are doing.

Can you provide an update regarding the sound engine?

For me, the fly-by sounds and different cockpit sounds that unofficially made their way into the IL2 product gave me much pleasure and provided a greater sense of immersion than the original sounds (even though they were not technically as complex).

Could you tell us a bit about any differences in the sound engine versus the last official Forgotten Battles version? Perhaps how much closer to perceived reality?

Best regards,
Thanks,
Catseye

Hi Oleg,

What will the DM be like with AI planes? I can't imagine that every AI plane will have it's pistons etc. modelled. Am I right that the complex DM is just for your own plane? This is fine online as everyone's own PC will be doing the DM calculations but what about offline with AI?

The reason I ask is that I used to fly online all the time when I was living in Europe. 6 years ago I moved to Australia and I now don't play online at all as I find it impossible to find a server under 350 ms ping here in Australia.

Yes there are some Australian servers, but nobody is ever on them when I play on weekends. So for me offline AI plane's DM and FM have become very important.

I wish internet technology/infrastructure would improve rapidly so that ping times to the US were 100ms or so; either that or that more Australians would play these sims :-D

Yeah right... You believe that huh ... I sure don't.. I'd be willing to bet that 95-99% of the folks on this forum will have SoW within the first week of it's release.. including you (I see where you corrected that..;)) if not the first day.. especially once the reviews start coming in.. regardless to how much moaning and groaning and nit picking about misspelled this and unclickable that..

I agree with you Slip.. but I also believe that whatever 1C has in store for us on final release will be good.. and more immersive than IL2 was..

BTW, here's the officially prescribed engine start procedure from Air Publication 1565B (July 1940): Supermarine Spitfire Pilot's Notes.

Starting the Engine and Warming Up
(i) Set:

Both fuel cock levers ON
Throttle ½ Inch open
Mixture control RICH
Airscrew speed control Fully back DH 20º
Rotol 35º Propeller Lever fully forward
Radiator shutter OPEN
(ii) Operate the priming pump to prime the suction and delivery pipes. This may be judged by a sudden increase in resistance of the plunger.
(iii) Prime the engine, the number of strokes required being as follows:

Air temperature ºC: +30 +20 +10 0 -10 -20
Normal fuel: 3 4 7 13
High volatility fuel: 4 8 15

(iv) Switch ON ignition and pull out the priming pump handle.
(v) Press the starter push-button and at the same time give one stroke of the priming pump. This push-button also switches on the booster coil and should be kept depressed until the engine is firing evenly.
Note: If the engine fails to start on the first cartridge, no more priming should be carried out before firing the second, but another stroke should be given as the second cartridge is fired.
(vi) As soon as the engine is running evenly, screw down the priming pump.
Testing Engine and Installations
(i) While warming up, exercise the airscrew speed control a few times. Also make the usual checks of temperature, pressure and controls. Brake pressure should be at least 120 Lb/Sq. In.

(ii) See that the cockpit hood is locked open and that the emergency exit door is set at the "half-cock" position.

(iii) After a few minutes move the airscrew speed control fully forward.

(iv) After warming up, open the throttle to give maximum boost for cruising with WEAK mixture and test the operation of the constant speed airscrew.

(v) Open the throttle to give maximum boost for cruising with RICH mixture and check each magneto in turn. The drop in rpm. should not exceed 150.
(vi) Open the throttle fully momentarily and check the static R.P.M boost and oil pressure.
(vii) Warming up must not be unduly prolonged because the radiator temperature before taxying [sic] out must not exceed 100º C.
"When engines are being kept warm in readiness for immediate take-off, de Havilland 20º C.S. propeller should be left in fine pitch - control lever fully forward."
Final Preparation for Take-Off - Drill of Vital Actions

Drill is "T.M.P., Fuel, Flaps and Radiator"
T Trimming Tabs Elevator about one division nose down from neutral
M Mixture control RICH
P Pitch Airscrew speed control fully forward
Fuel Both cock levers ON and check contents of lower tank
Flaps UP
Radiator shutter Fully open


And you're ready to fly. Simple, isn't it? Even in CFS there was a startup procedure.. but it was simplified and dumbed down from this which is what I believe Oleg is saying when he says that systems will be modelled as opposed to full startup procedures.

If you'd rather fly than fiddle, press the E key and take off!

Note some of the highlighted portions of that procedure...

Bottom line for me is this.... Great pit screens Oleg.. great update.. I can't wait to get my mitts on this thing.. and I think that it will run on a wider range of PCs than many think... It will be interesting to see how the ballistics and the DMs work in this.. I think this sim will have layers upon layers of surprises and details that many of us haven't even thought of..

I want now.. i want now... your killing me!

And that's only the drill for a single-engined fighter. Try sorting that for a twin-engined bomber + taxying to the line + waiting for the rest + taking off + climbing to a mimimum 10,000 feet over France + + picking up the escorts ...... something near an hour so far ...... and then the fun begins. Let's hope you didn't make some kind of mistake during the start-up procedure and need to abort your flight!

Which can be bypassed with two simple key presses.

oleg,

thank you for focusing on that part, it is indeed the most important for 90% of us, AND it is what make the future of the sim so much more interesting because of the increased complexity of modeling those elements of the system working together !

similar complexity like you are doing for the AA, the search light, the radar, and even the amount and type of shells from AA batteries available/used.

meaning, if one element in a complex system like that gets damaged, other parts of the system start to fail (engine overheating, selective loss of power when one piston fails etc..), or searchlight damaged in AA battery reducing its accuracy for Flack

this is MUCH more important then 2% of users wanting to go click click with a mouse on the screen in a complex startup procedure for 20 min before they get off the ground with their aircraft

I am more familiar with X-Plane than MSFS and I think it does a wonderful job with some clickable cockpits on certain planes. During take-off and landing (the times your are "flying the airplane"), there is not much you need to do that requires clicks in the cockpit.

During flight, however, you are changing radio/nav frequencies, getting your plane into economy cruise, and constantly checking systems (pilots are rarely bored). THIS is when clickable cockpits come into play.

When the action starts, your head is outside the cockpit so to speak. You are using the keyboard and keeping an eye on the runway or traffic. I liken this to combat situations in SoW.

As a flight sim, you really want clickable cockpits to simulate being a "real" pilot. In combat, your really want your head outside the cockpit with control on the keyboard and joystick.

Trust me when I say that learning to fly a flight simulator is totally different than flying IL-2 in a dogfight. I like both...but I like combat more :). "REAL" WWII combat pilots had to know how to fly, like in a flight simulator, and how to go into combat like in IL-2. What in the HELL is wrong with the option of doing BOTH in SoW?

I am sure Oleg and company are trying to make the program accessible and enjoyable to a wide variety of simmers/gamers. I don't think he is going to exclude one or the other. I am REALLY expecting, from what he has said, a possible combination of flight sim and combat sim. That would be INCREDIBLY unique.

Blackdog is infinitely more familiar with the online world of IL-2 than I. I hope what he envisions becomes reality. Engines take a bit to smooth out and settle into "running". You might get away with taking a cold engine into the air....and you might not.

I WANT to get into the online world with SoW. And I want "piloting" an aircraft to be a factor in being valuable to a squadron. I don't want it to just be about bouncing off the ground, not using the runway, and pointing your nose at an enemy and shooting. I like both things and I hope that both are somehow incorporated.

/mini rant.

In a fairly short time, I have come to trust Oleg's vision for SoW. It WILL NOT be perfect when released but it will have both the "wow" factor and depth.

In the words of OddBall, have a little faith, baby.

(Was the last reference too American? lol)

Splitter

except of course when you get to lower altitudes you silly little man

some of the high detail scenery addons for FS-9/10 in the last couple of years look great for medium and high altitude, because it is basically satellite photography textures pasted over a fairly rough contour map.

but once you get to lower altitudes like 2000 meters and below you get major problems (for a combat flight sim), the textures suddenly look like being exactly that, just flat textures, there is no 3D detail in the contour, there are minimal real 3D objects on the ground (houses, trees, cars, trains, troops, tanks, etc..). they might give you one highly detailed airport if you buy the next addon, but everything else immediately outside that airports it again just ugly flat textures that look like martian vomit after he had a meal of carrots and parsley.

oleg's project is entirely different in focus regarding scenery, as you should have been able to realize by now by following the release of screenshots in the last couple of years (just go to foobar's website to refresh your mind and compare)

even WoP is 100x better then the high detail fs9/10 scenery addons (when seen from low altitude)

I would also like to know if there are any plans to allow things like UDPSpeed to work in SOW online? I used to use it all the time when flying offline missions in IL-2 before my laptop broke, but I spend the majority of the time flying online where this utility doesn't work.

So, what's the verdict? Will we be able to use these kind of things in SOW?

I can't believe this even needs to be pointed out. Again I go back to X-Plane which uses satellite imagery. From altitude, it looks fine (for the most part). Of course, the "Earth" takes 60 gigs of hard drive space to accomplish this.

However, there is nothing (or very little) in terms of 3D objects at low level unless you have an Ikea fetish....X-Plane users will back me up on the number of Ikeas in a given major city....

Even when you fly over a well know city like Washington, DC, there is no Washington Monument, no White House, and no Lincoln Memorial without add-ons.

No, give me the detail Oleg is shooting for in SoW.

Fanboi out :).

Splitter

Exactly.. All that sounds good on paper.. but consdiering the people who will actually use features that detailed.. you have to ask yourself is it worth it to the devs.. considering that that already know what they want to do with the product .. and given the track record of 1C I for one am expecting to be wowed.. I still get wowed from IL2.. just not as much anymore..


Bingo... hyeck I am looking forward to having the buildings finally in proportion to the AC..

you quoted the wrong part of the text in your quote :) (using my reply instead of the original posters text)

i just responded to his earlier post where he claimed fs9/10 was so much better from all altitudes, and gave a list of examples why oleg's work is better for the lower altitude levels that are important in a combat sim

and me referring to "martian vomit" in low altitude fs9/10 scenery is because you just get a few spare houses (the carrot chunks) sitting on top of a textured flat satellite image map, with a few odd trees randomly placed (the parsley chunks). not really something you want to use in a combat flightsim where you might have to go hunting for enemy tank formations on the ground, or target a specific road/bridge to slow down troop movement

I was agreeing with you, Zap :). You had already made the point disagreeing with the post that you quoted (dang, this internet stuff can get confusing even when you get it right! lol).

As an example, flying over Niagara falls without seeing any falls.....this satellite stuff is not all it's cracked up to be in every instance.

Looks good from Angels 30 though :).

Splitter

Totally correct

FSX terrain mesh cannot handle complex ground parameter as IL2 1946 does.

Global textures for terrain is not good enough especially when you start to go online with the sim.

IL2 1946 out performs all sims in this area for its net code and complex terrain IMHO

Well, look at all the add-ons for FSX that do actually feature complex start-up procedures. There is quite a big market for them.

There are over 30 small prop aircraft or WWI and WWII add-ons on the Just Flight site alone (not counting the shockwave products). There are lots of user made add-ons, some of them very professionally done (see PC Pilot's free downloads each month).

The people buying those at the moment might convert to SoW. I think realistic weather and turbulence etc. will win them over. Click-able cockpits too.
I am pretty sure that manufacturers of add-ons are keeping a keen eye on SoW, and that it will take no time at all after the release of third party tools before we see some add-ons, and some of them maybe with more complex start-up procedures.

Personally I enjoy both ways. Complex start-up is a different experience. But won't worry if everything is simplified

Start up procedures are a must in sims like FSX where its a major part of a civil aviation game. Thats mostly all you do is fly from point A to B using all the correct procedures. Thats the game.

Combat sims are entirely different and start up procedures aren't as high on the priority list. The developers have to make tough decisions on which features have the most priority. I don't care for complex start up procedures, but sims like BOB WOV were you can just simply turn on the magnetos, fuel cocks, pump the primer, and hit the start button, is very immersive. Especially when you can combine this with a refuel, rearm, process. it can also be very immersive when you haven't primed the engine enough, in an emergency take off scenario, and engine is just turning over and not firing.

I prefer to push one button and start the engine. If Oleg provides a required start up procedure I'll just program my ChProducts MFP board to press one key.

The IL2 and BOB SOW will be about enjoyment for me. The MSFT flight sims were fine for awhile. I enjoyed all the procedures, navs, charts, approach plates,etc. After I pretty well had that mastered I got bored with it.

Agree 100%

Flying a King Air from Toledo to Chicago is the most boring thing I've ever done on a computer.

FSX lasted about 3 months on my hard drive.

I realize that everyone has their own idea of "fun", but honestly, there is nothing "fun" about a flight procedure simulator.

Nothing.

I think you're right. If one looks closely at this picture below, one can see that text which is presumably missing:

http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/Flu...E_bestfoto.jpg

Lets hope Oleg didn't miss that upon all these clickpit start procedure discussion ;)

All of this is a small niche of market. Several thousands to 20,000 comparison from half million to several millions copies (the last did Il-2).

I have a complete statistics that to decide what is important or not.

Yes it is nice feature to have complete startup procedure, to make manuals for all of the modelled planes... but... :
1. first of all see above about statistics
2. They are doing not from the zero, but based on the other code that was done originally by other team (in your case MS or Rowan's). Trust me to modify the original code is a way more easy than to create from zero by original team
3. Our team is very small but doing real things... we haven't forces for production for each flyable plane this procedure, including manuals. Samples from above - they are doing for single plane - just one (MS) and other - lets say that it isn't close even to Il-2 and can't be in competition to Il-2 in many ways (see amount of sales).

Just because great amount of sales of Il-2 (some time second to MS series, some time higher) we was able to make so cool looking cockpits and aircraft, other things... Because all money from income and even more was going for production (sad it anyway was not enough that to order more good people - programmers and airtist-modellers)

Hi Oleg,
I have a quick question for you. How has the joystick input curve changed from 4.xx IL2 to S.O.W. ? Do you still use your old joystick curve from old IL2 for your current build of SoW? If not, what do you use for X, Y, and Z? Finally, do you think that players using linear axis of 100 100 100. ect..for XYZ is advantage over those players using default curve? i.e. 10 20 30 ... ?

1. It isn't comfirmed by the guys whois doing restoration
2. On my own photos that I did for the E series with 109th (original from Messerschmitt factopry museum, trasferred in USA, flyable.) there is 120.

I can't say you how we did now.
However these who use 100,100, 100 - make the problems for yourself, because the control became less realistic.
And advantage? No, in my opinion these have disadvantage using such settings... they need to be way more precise in control and use very small movements of the stick.
For the reaction speed of FM it doesn't matter which settings are used. If they like it - for me it is no problem, but for the behavior modeling by the stick the long size real control column my recommended settings wer optimal. And they were repeating the settins of two real pilots who was beta testers as well and did understand what these settings means.

S!

So. We have systems modelled properly. Very good. No start up procedure in initial release, but later possbly as 3rd party addition. Very good. But as the systems are modelled in detail then supposedly even you press the magic "start engine(s)" button I would expect that you STILL have to check fuel and oil pressure, temperatures being good before taxing/take-off. I hate the simple IL-2 way: Press "i", slam the throttle and do not worry aboutany kind of pressures or temperatures, no damage. If systems are modelled in fidelity you SHOULD get penalty if abusing the limits a system operates at.

So from reading Oleg's answers this is what we will have. Real startup, even behind a button for example, but you have to operate the plane within parameters or systems will fail or get damaged. Am I right?

I don't mean to be too picky, but aren't the crosshairs too big, too thin and too white? I thought they were smaller, fatter and yellow.

Otherwise the cockpits look absolutely amazing!

geeez.....some around here should realy get laid or wankz abit.....

We get a game that is maby 100% more detailed in every level and its not enough....

We get engines where a cylinder can get blown or you loose electric power because of a shot over wire......

We get visuals that are werry impressing...

But no its not enough.....

One thing "some" forget here is the things mr maddox talks about between the lines...he uses "not in initial release" alot <----- im not native english speaking and know what that meens....

Instead of all the whambulance calling, relax and enjoy...be happy...the wait will be worth it.....and remember....."not in initial release" DONT MEEN NO!!!

mr maddox.....i buy this game happy as a boy who got hes first kiss....im impressed by the progress so far and know by the history from IL2 series that you dont let the costumers down....

And dont let these wierd statements get to you.....10+ years and so far you and your team have been some of the best in the game producing world to listen and work with us "prob heads"

Get a darn good day.....and atleast you know there is some of us who dont cry like a woman who broke a nail........

I would like see you on a DF-Server :D 50 enemies over you airfield and you must press button 1, button 2, move lever X ten times.... you will be dead and have to start again :D
Press button 1 again, 2 again and dead again :D
You will be frustrated and you will never start the game again, because Oleg has not build in a quick start button :D


So in this way I prefer the one-button-startup ;)

Maybe, but I don't think it's fun to spawn, press I, jam throttle to 100%, and leap into the air, climb for 5 minutes, and then commence TnB for a bit, and then repeat 30 times. If I wanted that, I would be playing Hawx, or Ace Combat 6.

I get so bored of online mash-ups, that sometimes I find myself flying two-hour long sorties in a TB-3 just to keep it interesting.

Now, if the procedures actually meant something, which according to Oleg, are above and beyond anything out there at the moment, coupled with an awesome FM that conveys the "feel" of flight, then we have a real knock-out winner.

I feel that having a complex system is vital in a combat flight sim. Currently in IL-2, the automatic system in a FW-190 doesn't provide anything to a pilot over the La-7's rudimentary one, which can allow it to fly at 100-110 pitch and power all day even without touching the rads. Having to set the right pitch, radiator settings, manifold pressure, before even thinking about commencing a bounce would mean everything in combat, and make things so much more interesting.

In any case, no one's going to force you to lean, or open your intercoolers, or whatever. It's going to be optional, so why worry?

Not all servers run missions where bases are only 10km apart and the only AA present is the one, which has been placed by mistake and mission creator has been too lazy to "fix" that. :-P

Agreed. Not every detail or system needs to be in the initial release, I loved it how IL2 growed with every patch. It gives the devs time and receive more detailed feedback from the community and a lot of questions that are asked now will be answered by the product itself when we play it.

Its the main reason as well.
Great experience of the online gameplay voting for one button start. But with a lot of modelling systems you should be more accurate than it was in Il-2.

And.... pupular game has always online gameplay. If it isn't well done or close to well done, or completely absent or absolutely not interesting, then the game soon will be failled out from the stores.

You probably compare them to some photos you have seen. You must take into account that crosshairs are at infinity and mechanical parts of sights are not, so if photo is focused at close distance (i.e. cockpit is sharp), crosshairs will be duller and bolder in such photo. Also, crosshairs size is independent from distance to sights, so if you vary distance from, sights to camera (or eyes), you can get illusion that crosshairs shrink or grow (but only relatively to mechanical parts of sight).

98% would like quick action playing online. This isn't only in sim industry but also for any game. Doesn't matter is is shooter or even adventure game (different sort of action, but anyway they want it right after the start the game).

the other 2% asking some uniquie features that dislike most. Including starup procedure.

Will be fair till end: Startup procedure don't make money that we need for the continues of development. Instead it is eating money and resouces of development. There are many other things that are way more important for making successful on the market combat fligth sim.

I need to listen market, experinece for the last 20 years of my business and plan my team work that to do not overload them with the things that don't bring money in future comparing to the investments in such development. Just will repeat: complete check out and starup procedure - this is for third parties for some of aircraft... But I'm sure that for all content of the sim even third parties will be unable to make these things... or they will only do withourt adding of the new content...

Trust me. I know well what I talk.

And look please back to Il-2. Still no one sim has so many things modelled in one combat sim. One could maybe, repating the Il-2 itself with a bit better graphics engine... but it will be repeating, not the new things, like will bring the new series from us in future.