I don't think you should remove it. It is a nice feature for those all new to WWII flying.

A plane on the runaway rolls towards a pseudo crater. And then?
Does it disappear in ground or what?

Difficult to know what to take from the google translation about craters - you can read it to mean that the person playing the game just didn't see the craters (eg because they were covered in the smoke and dust of the explosion - as is evident in at least one video)

Sorry, but it seems I just don't get the need that some people have to see an impending crisis everywhere.

Another Dad's Army quote seems apt:

Don't panic! Don't panic!!


coming next: Mainwaring "You stupid boy" - I can probably get the whole platoon in before the game comes out!

I can almost feel Olegs frustration in these videos. He is making a state of the art WWII combat simulation, and the visitors to the stand can hardly keep a plane in the air!

It's the young enthusiasm that he is watching closely:grin:

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Bt2.jpg
You are wrong. The area in the foreground all the way to the middle ground is the East End.
The Isle of Dogs in the right foreground was a major area of docks with cranes and Victorian style multi storey warehouses. I saw it before most of it was torn down. The west end is in the far distance. The City of London, which is east of the west end is in the right middle distance. Notice St Pauls is not in view at that distance. Perhaps it should be?

+1 That's the hardest in those videos from the convention....they really fly like pigs. ;-)

The docks you see are, on the other side of the river the Greenland Dock, on this side on the Ilse of Dogs, to the left is the Millwall outer dock leading to the river, at right angles to it leading to the right is the Millwall inner dock which is topped by the West India/Millwall dock. These should be railways, warehouses and docking facilities as well as dock workers housing.

Come on... ;)

And Oleg you see this house in that coner... the roof was pink not red.. mdr

How much time did you think its take to create London in the exact same think...... and the other city.... and all this think. Try to be close as possible.. but hey... you wanna wait for 20 yrs ;)

Seriously...:-P

It's not a good idea to have too many internet windows open a the same time! ;-)

I see pavements in some places!
I thought we might see these in a few years time, but not already now. I was thinking it would look strange in the towns with traffic and pedestrians if there were no pavements.

There are some walls in there too.

http://sukhoi.ru/forum/attachment.ph...5&d=1289059883

Oleg: No need for an English version of that video..Russian will do fine thanks!!

BTW for our friends over the pond: pavement = sidewalk ;)

Sidewalks/pavements are considered to be placed ingame since 2006 already ;) No new invention...
http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/stadtreihenhaus/

It feels awkward to complain about an image that looks better than I would ever have dreamed about, but aren't the roads are bit too light grey? The overall feeling is that there is more grey than black/brown from what I would have thougt about in Olde coal powered England ;)

The image is over exposed , if you think about the colours of the spitfire it needs to be darkend up quite a bit!

You do know this picture has been taken with probably a smartphone or a digital camera so there's no way you can judge colours/saturation or any other aspects of the image quality from that picture. Of course the spitfire isn't as bright as it seems in that pic. We also don't know what settings the monitor has and anybody with any LCD/LED monitor knows there are tons of settings to tweak the image with.

Down-Under we call it a "foot path", silly of us I know to call it what it is ;)

Yes I am serious. The major industrial areas should have an industrial feel about them. I'm not talking about producing a painstakingly accurate recreation but maybe at least having a different generic layout in the industrial areas, certainly having dock cranes around the major docks and maybe having a different house type for industrial workers housing. Maybe also major items like power stations should be represented, and certain key factory sites, like the aircraft factories. Perhaps details like these will come later, or perhaps there will be the facility for the "community" to add these details?

One of the major route finding features leading into London are the elevated brick viaducts carrying the railways. I can understand that it may be difficult to model all of those but I would still be interested in seeing how the rail features will be modelled as you approach the capital and the numbers of tracks on each rail route increase, and how the road rail crossing points will be dealt with.

And..

Most if not all picture's a and video need white balance fixed as regards the monitors..

That's why they have a bluish cast to them.

Yes, totally agree.

We have to look at the video taken directly from the game to better evaluate colors ecc. ecc.. Dover looks great from Moscow, i would like a video from the game too as for the Emil cockpit that is insane to look at, really great.

I took that post down you must have caught it just in time Veltro...good for you :)


Some of those web cams were fine and some were terrible but I don't think you can judge too much by then either than the basic game it's self if you get my drift.

Sorry, must be language issues at your end....:???:

Swiss; I completely agree. Can the amount of young people (and families) playing the sim at the event be useful evidence for the games success? I mean it surely looks promising, and the gameplay seemed great, especially considering the amount of time some people were playing the game for.
I do, however, agree that the best feedback will come from people who are simmers themselves there. If only we could read Russian! translating the russian forum gives some feedback on the event, but as Stranki said before me, it's easy to 'misreaded' it ;)

I agree that the phone camera pics are horrid colour wise.

Here's the same pic in B + W

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/z.../Sowlondon.jpg

I've wrote a response to your original posting, but missed your smiley in the hurry. Therefore your posting had another touch and my answer was plainly false.
I wanted the mods to delete my posting, not yours :-P

Hecke are you reading too?


Ever dropped a bomb right at the spawnplace and tried to spawn again the same place?
Il2 has already craters which FU your gear, ergo you dont need high polygon 3d craters for this feature.

And it would be a funny feature for online gameplay(which the only thing I care about):
Bomb both strips - mission over.:rolleyes:

Then again I think i've heard the sow landing gear will have suspension - so maybe we still can takeoff wherever we want.


edit: Hecke, you want the deep craters so planes can almost disappear in them, only the tail sticking out?
ok.
fun: 9pts
immersion: 3pts

Your response suggest that I am commenting on the image being produced by SOW. I am not!

I am commenting on the image being produced by the camera, which too me, looks over exposed. It is not a fault with the simulator it's the recording process.

When I've converted the image to greyscale without any other alterations it looks like this.

http://i1042.photobucket.com/albums/...Sim/gscale.jpg
It still looks over exposed and grainy. As said many times before, dinky cameras in mobile devices are not very good at representing this sort of information.

When I adjust the shadows and highlights I end up with
http://i1042.photobucket.com/albums/...im/gscale2.jpg

We start to get detail in the white areas and more depth in the dark. To me this says that the image captured the camera was over exposed.



Winny, did you do any other processing to your image?

Cheers!

Simple misunderstanding then and I agree with the camera shot, it's over exposed so no judgment on the games visual quality can be made ;)

Sorry mate :( I hope you'll find it in your hear to one-day forgive me :D

Seriously, it's a poor quality shot of a work in progress. That's why I didn't directly refer to the image rather pointed out what the Isle of Dogs looks like. We've already seen models of dockyard cranes, warehouses, rail heads.

Details? I've already seen sub-urban semis terraced in inner city urbations but haven't commented on them because I couldn't care less.

As to details. The Isle of Dogs is the docklands. It's one of the most significant targets for the Luftwaffe's raids on London during the BoB. It is acres and acres of warehouses, docks, wharves, rail heads, factories and workers' housing. It's the heart of a maritime empire, it's not a little detail.

Nope same as you I think, Grayscale> Bright/Contrast and a tint. I over did it a little with the contast I think..

I am hoping to see these viaducts as well.
But I imagine it is a big headache for the development team even just trying to fit railways through all the modelling work (of buildings) they did for the cities. I'm still hoping though.

I think roads are often lighter than we imagine.

One of my personal irritations with FB/Il2 has been that the roads are too dark.

I would say though that I would prefer a yellowish-grey to the bluish-grey to roads and buildings, it looks more natural. It might help to get a real artist to aid with colouration and shades of different textures. They have a good eye for these things. Often seeing things better than photographers do (:-))!

http://comps.fotosearch.com/comp/GLW...~gwt174035.jpg

http://image.stock-photos-agricultur...-01506608t.jpg

Old tarmac can become quite light. It is often lighter than the grass next to it, it shows more if viewed in monochrome.

It would be great to eventually see some evidence of road-repair work. Or at least not have a seamless perfect ribbon of grey (not that I can judge anything of SoW yet):

http://www.corbisimages.com/images/6...3/HU033658.jpg

I agree with others that the cities should look dirty. However, I just can't get over how fantastic the cities look! The only thing I hope is that there are some larger buildings like schools, hospitals, cinemas, police stations, council buildings etc. in the city housing areas too, for it to look realistic.

[youtube]AyTMjKlx51U[/youtube]

Oh my....best video yet!

Splitter

Many thanks Dano, great video. ;)

Can anyone identify the HOTAS that is being used in the Dano's video? (message #434) Sort of looks like Thrustmaster but I'm not sure. Not the stick in the freeze frame before the vid starts but the one being used by the guy in the wool hat a couple of minutes into the video. It has quite a number of 8 way hats.

Thanks

Shame there was no ingame sounds.Were there no ingame sounds at all or just not able to be heard above the general noise?.
If there were ingame/engine sounds does anyone know how they sounded?:)

Looks like a Saitek X65f with the hats switched around.

there should be a load of Russians who know how it sounds since there were headsets;)

Thanks Dano,
Good call! Yes, interesting to see the hats switched around. I wonder what the consensus is so far on the shaft sensing (not movement) feel is? Certainly geared towards modern jets - somehow I think it would detract from the stick movement of WWII fighters. Would be nice to see a long throw stick from between your feet.
Cheers.

They all seem to have head-phones mate ;)
But +1 to your question. I'd love to know how the merlin sounds on start-up.

Have to say I'm a bit disappointed with the Russian youth at the show. Bad flying and even worse camerawork!

Like how the prop cuts out under negative g in the low flying bit over land that ends with a crash...

Freycinet, Luthier once said that (for him) SoW's FM was a complete step-up on Il-2, so much so that he had to re-learn to fly (so to speak). I think the game is reaching new boundaries with regards to realism in the FM department.
But I have to agree, none of the videos seem to show anyone having a go at flying a complete mission.

There is always a simple explanation for anything, you know. :grin:

As people, who attended the fair told, there was a huge crowd on the BoB stand and a line to each computer where BoB was demonstrated. So, basically, no one could spend more then a few minutes in game, because he was pushed by the next guy in the line. Who, obviously, would start the same stuff from the very beginning. Plus, most of the people wanted to try and see as much BoB features as possible, instead of just playing one complete mission, which they would be able to do anyway, at home, when the BoB comes out.

PS Regarding the sounds. You, actually, can hear a faint in game sound in some videos. But again, according to those, who were there, there was so noisy, that people had to shout to each other, even being face to face close.

:lol: Definitely. Just couldn't agree more! But, you know, that's all your fault! Why, oh, why didn't you came there yourself? Then everyone here would see an ace flying, filmed with a pro camera, operated by the pro-camera man. :cool:


:rolleyes:

Just think if we had 10 or 20 of us guys, some HD hand cams and about 2 hours, then we we see some good vids im sure. :grin:

[youtube]QFCHleSGrAs[/youtube]

Thanks Dano for putting these up. They must be on invulnerable settings. That Hurricane would have blown up I think.

Oh my! that Hurri flying over those crop-fields has just realised part of my child-hood dream for the perfect flight-sim! :D thankyou Dano for posting that. Oleg and co have made me even more happier. Sheer beauty.

And thankyou, SaQSoN for another informative answer. Cheers ;)


Any input as to whether it will be possible for landings, like the one shown, to disrupt the crop-field?

Don't know, exactly what you mean, but I may say, that ground vehicles do leave tracks in grass (not too long, however).

...


This Hurricane has the de Havilland Spinner & Prop.

#3 on this line.

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Spinners1.jpg

...

:) I would think people were crashing deliberately because they wanted to see the ground and damage details closer.

I mean that if I crash-land my plane, I'll see a 'scar' or mark in the field where my plane destroyed the crops.
And that's nice to hear about the vehicles ;)

Damn' work getting in the way, but certainly I'd have loved to be there to show you Russians a thing or two about flying. I expect an invite next time. :)

Nice to the shipping manouvering under that Ju-87 attack in Dano's vid.

Just a thought.
 

Did anybody else notice the purple directional guides on the video 0:43 that Dano Posted?
I think that will be a fine addition to the project. I had tried to get some of my younger relatives involved into IL2 but they had a little trouble understanding how to fly it at first. Not to copy the MS model, but training visual aids do help. I am hoping for the same type of help with the stukas for offline fun. Too bad the AI did not take over when in attack mode at 1400 ft or soin IL2. (auto pilot as what I have read about) Will that (auto pilot aid) be in SOW BOB?

This would be excellent Philip. I can see us landing in a hay field in...England? You must be a Spitfire or Hurricane pilot? If I landed in that field it would probably be a wheels up ditch :)

Probably, not.

If the work doesn't let you to leisure - abandon the work. :cool:

I took a note.

Cool vid though I really wish they would get the right markings for the aircraft. Hurricanes with crosses and 109's with roundels just ain't where it's at. :-|

I'm sure the majority of people couldn't have cared less about the correct markings at the time and were just all too eager to spend their limited time actually seeing what BoB could do rather than making sure they had historically correct markings on for the critics. It's not like they're hard coded to the aircraft, it's an option so there is no point whatsoever in getting annoyed or wound up by it.

Agree, if you had ten people behind you waiting to have a go, you wouldn't worry about markings.

SaQSoN - I remember that Project Galba was put 'on hold' a while back so that work could be diverted to SoW:BoB (completing models for SoW:BoB).
Can I ask - how near completion is that project now?

BTW, I love how the Anson turned out!!!!

About Spitfire versions, what's Spitfire Mk.I "Cep...."? Why there is always a girl icon?

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachmen...1&d=1288977879

However we have:

Mk.I
Mk.I "Cep...."
Mk.Ia
Mk.IIa

lol

We'll just have to wait and see Veltro :)

I'd love to hear about Project Galba too. Had a lovely photo session with a Meteor F.8 in Brussels a while ago. It would be so cool if I ended up helping a little bit with the modelling of the sim!

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...ml#Post2386653

Oh yeah, also sent a big zip of pics of the Tiger Moth in the Brussels air Museum to Ian Boys back in 2006. Would love to know if the info from those photos found their way to the BoB Tiger Moth model. Well, I'll have a look of the credits in SoW:BoB... :-)

Interesting...maybe they have really implemented this:

http://katycarr.com/wp-content/uploa...00-225x300.jpg

http://katycarr.com/2009/10/05/spitf...ilots-of-wwii/

The “Spitfire Women”, although not all of them got to fly the fighter pilots’ favourite plane, were the 164 female pilots of the Air Transport Auxiliary (ATA). Once planes had been built a British factories, or shipped from overseas, or repaired after major damage, or indeed had to be scrapped, they had to be transported to where they were needed. So:

“In all, the ATA delivered 308,567 aircraft, including 57,286 Spitfires, 29,401 Hurricanes, 9,805 Lancasters and 7,039 Barracudas of the type that took Betty Keith-Jopp to the dark floor of the Firth of Forth. In mid-1942, when British aircraft production reached its peak, the ATA was moving more planes each day than British Airways did on a typical day in 2006.”

i too would love to hear some news about project galba. think i'm more excited about that bob

"Cep...." is probably short from "Серия (Series)" should be some minor differences, may be propeller?

Thx sneeke, makes sense.

Project Galba...hmm. Named after a Roman emperor that spent a lot of time in Spain. Spanish civil war maybe? Now that's a forgotten theatre for flightsims :)

Those two previous videos made my mind finally (I was worried that SoW can't deliver what was promised) - Storm Of War will be everything we can hope for the WW2 Combat Flight Simulation in 2010 decade. This will be very solid foundation to build lots and lots of expansions to it in following years.

@addman:
Project Galba is the project name of a Korean War Flightsim based on the SOW Engine ;)
http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/MiG-15%20grab0000.jpg

I would correct you, because Ilya probably said a bit other.

FM in BoB has some close behaviour of the Il-2 series. Howevere it is rewritten from zero using some time more complex formulas and as a result - more precise behaviour in some flight situations.

Onthe shot most guys who is very familiar with Il-2 maxed our complexity settings wew impressed by the following thing... they were get damages with inaccurate use of engine, with some incorrect settings for the flight, using other than neccessay prop pitch, etc...

The newbies were using default settings for the novices that we set ourselves on the booth that to preven the postings something like nothing is working in that comlex sim... we want to have newbies as a customer as well as hardcore.

I will also post not in this but probaly in the next update or in interview for the SimHq the difficulty settings, and all possible controls settings in the sim that to make everything clear for the communty. then will answer quesition. Then next update will post the builder screens that to explain some new features. Etc...

the more advanced engine management sounds nice !!
please dont forgett to ad a "pilots manual" for every flyable plane concerning the "needed" settings to keep your engine "save" ;)

limits like these are always nice to know :D
http://www.franky.fliegerhospital.de...20Bf109E-3.jpg

as an example !

Such an update would be MOST appreciated! We got a healthy dose of graphics and such in the video from the Moscow expo, a look into the nuts and bolts of the sim would be very nice.

Splitter

The videos from IgroMir sure have whipped up some excitement!:grin:

Looking forward to getting the info about the difficulty and control options.

Any chance you could put up some images of what the campaign/career mode will look like?

It looks like BoB is really going to rock!

C_G

"Any chance you could put up some images of what the campaign/career mode will look like?"

yes a little more infos from the campagne and editor will be nice :)

Great post, Oleg, thanks for correcting me :D

Here was Luthier's original post:

It's quite different. It took a lot of time for me to readjust and to actually learn to shoot things down again. I needed some convincing that the new feeling was indeed better. The most convincing argument was lots and lots of guncam footage, where time and again I saw the guys keep having the exact same kind of trouble lining up and hitting targets that I myself was having.

Lower speeds also feel different. It's so much fun to just barnstorm in a Tiger Moth, flying through hangars, or doing loops under the Tower Bridge at 45 mph.

The joystick input has a lot more than what we had with Il-2. You can adjust your settings of course.




he was talking about the FM :D is this what you meant?
Link: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...118#post143118

Even if to add just different effects of air mass working around then already will be other than in Il-2 feel even if there will be just old IL-2 FM. Ilya said from user point of view and what you would like to hear. And from this point of view he said everything correct.

Joystick input have nothing common with programming of FM. It is just game adjustments for the different of the joysticks types and not everybody even can adjust it for the most close feel of response comparing to real aircraft. It is real problem with which we all need to live.

In a common with FM programming of joystick the FIXED input-response to controls MUST be just one joystick on the market and this joystick must have all players. Hope you understand what I told here.

who knows how to adjust the input curves will get the most realistic feel.

Yes, I understand you now. I had though, initially, that when Luthier said it took him time to readjust to the game that it had something to do with the flight-model. I can see, though, how external matters (like the air-masses as you say) would make a difference too. This is great to hear. I can't wait to try and shoot a single-engine plane down in SoW ;) Hopefully we'll get to see this in a later update some-time...



Thanks for answering our questions. :cool:

Oleg, can you maybe clarify how ground is effected by

a) bombs (Last time I asked about deep craters you told that you never stated deep craters.) So will there be at least not-so-deep 3D craters? :cool:

b) a plane crashing in ground with an angle where it slips on until it stops (where in real life the ground would have sth. like a "scar".

Perfect. And today, with joysticks with larger resolutions, we need less and more linear curves, no deadzones and filtering at all. Just little tweaks and avoid big jumps to get smooth input settings.

The great quality leap in this matter don't came from 1C, Oleg, etc, is about hardware producers and our hard work tweaking and modifying the control inputs we use. IL-2 are great in input settings and I believe BoB will be better.

If people have trouble with joystick responsiveness, try the solution I achieve: really cheap and great feel and control:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC4QqG4KiGM

Ugly and messy, a little "off-topic", but with IL-2 great possibilities in setting control inputs and good FM, I have the feeling I'm in a real Warbird, with little budget, and peole can beggin to imagine solutions with control rods with WWII dimensions and feel what I'm talking about...

Don't blame IL-2 and future BoB FM and interface for input lack of responsiveness, blame your input solution and tweak it! It's easy!

Yes, the difference between stick and control column gives the difference in feel, so making like youy long stick, equal to the long leght of real thing will give way more feels of real control and flight.

Oleg,

Did you consider to use person view from parachute?
Would be very nice, also when you can pull the ripcord yourself.

a) There is craters. And I told there we have it. And I told that the shot with the damaged gear is a result of my inaccurate taxing on the feld right after the bomb raid.

b) Didn't understand your question. If you mean crash landing without gear down (bail landing), than iot is possible in Il-2 and more real in BoB. If you are speaking about damges of surfaces, prop, - yes some of them are happens. But not 100% like in real life. Such type landings gives real feel in a cockpit, but not 100% real visuals outside of cockpit. But the damages of internals or some of external details are actual for real bail landing.

Oleg, he meant that, if we crash in a field, will we see the destroyed crops where our plane crashed through the field?

:)

On this topic it would be nice if the view didn't cut to externals when you crash. The sudden blackness of fatal impact would have more effect!

Great videos from the show, and great to read all your comments Oleg, I hope you had a good time (even if it was tiring).

For our next "official" update could we please see some bad weather and/or low light? I'd love to see an overcast!

Thanks!

Spinner

I did answer, yes we will see. But all things will be like real scarps :) This is completely other type of damage than the combat damage. We pay more greater attention of visuals for combat damage and less for bail landing. Howver in both cases you may get damage similar depending of the hit force. And ypou can't take the aircraft by a crane to look what happend with the surface under the plane after such landing :)

Oleg,

Is the mission over after crash landing and stepping out like in IL-2?

When we will be ready to show it - we will show.
We are working right now over the implementation of the all things that programmed in parallel to the main work and that was working well in separate module and working with crashes in engine.
Its why we switched off the most hard weather conditions for the show. There was just 3 types of weather but users found in the full builder the features tunings for the different weather conditions, flows, move of the clouds fronts, etc... and speaking about it at sukhoi.ru... we forgot to swith it off also there before the show.... :)
They found there so many things that we even didn't plan to show nearest time.... and not all features will go in release really.... they simply are going in code for future add-ons and updates by a plan.

Its why I plan step by step making shots in English version of the sim to put them here and to comment myself each feature planned or already done that they found in different places of the sim at the show...

Oleg,

The new series with Battle of Britain and Battle for Moscow is also presented as IL-2 in the title. I assume this is the actual name?

Advantage is that this name is very well known, and a household name is in the combat flight sim business.
Disadvantage is that people might think it is an add on for the first IL-2 series.

At the moment the types of mission end are not finished. There should be different various. Because unfinished the menus of interface at first...

Completely agree with you. I was against such name, but it isn't my decision....
I already had a problem answering interview questions of journalists... I didn't understand them about what is speech... or the new in this area journalists simply was asking some time absolutely not in theme questions due to this mix.
So I personally say Battle of Britain... without Il-2 and other things...
In English it has a bit other name, but anyway with Il-2 as the main.....
Using already world well known Storm of War as a name of new series and just adding the line
'from the creators of award-winning Il-2 sturmovik series' would be way better really. If someone dislike short SoW sounding not so nice then simply better to make other name... Hope publisher will read it. Anyway I may disagree with the name Il-2 for the completely new series, but final decision - from publisher.


I will try to speak to big guys that to find solution....

I think IL-2 should be in the name somewhere.

[QUOTE=Oleg Maddox;197149]So I personally say Battle of Britain... without Il-2 and other things...
In English it has a bit other name, but anyway with Il-2 as the main.....

Oleg,
Do you mean that "IL-2 Battle of Britain" will not be the English title for the game?

May be something like this is an alternative:

"IL-2 MARK2 Battle of Britain" or
"IL-2 MKII Battle of Britain"

Yes, the way Oleg said ('from the creators of award-winning Il-2 sturmovik series') is the best I think.
So at the moment the name Storm of war is neither in russian nor in european release title?
Storm of war sounds fresh, modern, and cool. Hope it will be Storm of war in the end, because it's a "complete new engine from scratch".

Yes, Oleg you said that, but the damage could have been from normal texture crater also, so it wasn't clear. I see, you don't want to talk about the depth of craters.

So, what about tesselation in general and maybe for the use in the bomb crater stuff?

Hecke, he's said it will be 3D and deep (IIRC), but there'll be a limit ;) Try a search of his posts; I'm sure he stated a figure.... :-P