Pilot/Crew Hand Signals
 

Hi Oleg,

Just in case my previous post about hand-signals was lost in the mass of off-topic banter and abuse, are you able to comment on any hand-signal animations coded into SoW for coop/online play?

For example:
- Being able to wave to a buddy flying along side
- Giving the thumbs up
- Giving a salute

Being able to do that as a gunner would be really cool too.

Just a little thing that would be great for immersion.


Flying Nutcase

Stop haranging people and ask simple to the point questions lol

+1..I like it

plus I want to be able to flip the bird, at some of the chatty pilots in this thread:grin:

What would be the point?

The only time it's a joy is when you are face to face looking your adversary straight in the eye.

Otherwise, you'll just catch heat.

Ha ha:grin:

But it could become a universal signal to display annoyance at shoulder shooting!

oh come on, it would be great to able to flip the bird inverted above your victim.

that was my point - see Canadians DO think alike

the voice of reason...please to read the above with attention and maybe we can leave the 'zoo behind us

Hi Oleg.

I think if the game goes on to Russia in the future you should do a skin of this JG 54 G2 witch really existed in real life.

It looks like a real warrior and the you know what is painted over.

I did not believe that I was bashing anyone, but obviously I don't know what that means, or I simply misunderstood the tone of said post. (which is the most likely scenario)

I am actually quite happy to see that you seem (in your latest postings) to have gotten the message that I have so rudely conveyed. I tried with politeness before, but didn't get though. I am glad that we agree to not suppose imbecility in the minds of the developers, and instead give them the credit the amply deserve (based on the updates and movies we´ve seen from them).

It is great to have a channel to the developers, I think both we and they can benefit from the exchanges here, as long as they make a bit sense, i.e. do not demean them over WIP updates and obvious place-holders, or show a total disregard for the obvious limits imposed on sim development by computing power and time and economy constraints.

There are 3 or 4 people who talk about each other.
This is not about you! You are spoiling it completely for the hundreds of people who come to this thread for information on BoB.

This is the Internet, selective reading skills are a must. ;)

People see this great update, with this amazing video footage, and keep fighting about nothing.

Strange community sometimes...

so true.

and so often the original post is lost amongst forum 'experts' posting increasingly useless minutiae in an attempt to checkmate a thread poster.

in my opinion, every Maddox post should be locked.

so, idiots cant pollute the information, and those that dont give a damn about some unknowns useless opinion can read the devs contribution unhindered.

Maybe have a locked thread where any direct comment OM makes about SoW could be put.

Title it.. 'Before you get any more ideas above your station, read these'.

Then at least someone with a genuine question can get a reply and people would also have a starting point. Not saying someone should go back and trawl all OM's old posts but it could start anytime.

For Oleg
 

Hi Oleg,

well I finally found a way to read all your posts (thanks to Urufu).

I have read through all of them but can't find answers to a couple of my questions - perhaps you answered them somewhere else that I can't find. So may I ask them again?

You wrote that thermals will be avaiable. Will this and general turbulence be adjustable at various altitudes? Also, the turbulence in IL-2 seems quite coarse/rough, almost on/off at even lower settings. I'd like to see more use of turbulence but I think the mission builders leave it out because it is too coarse especially for upper layers.

You gave an answer on the question about different tracers being selectable by the players (probably not) but did not say if DeWilde ammunition would actually be available. Can you tell us please?

With respect, my feeling is that IL-2 landings (gear modelling) is not very realistic, the Oleo compression seems to be too harsh and if one wheel of many fighters touches even the smallest amount before the other the aircraft bounces around wildly. (I don't mean to be rude but I don't know how else to say this.) Will the SoW gear be more forgiving?

I hope you can answer these but if there are reasons why you can't could you just say "I can't answer just now" so that I know the post has been seen?

Many thanks,

Come on guys, talking about how you all agree that members are doing 'such and such' just lowers you to their(our) level.

Winny; I think I said that in a seperate topic I while ago. I think the consensus was that it's a bit pointless...the same thing will probably happen.
I don't know. If I had more time I'd be tempted to put together a comprehensive topic for all of Oleg's questions and Answers so that people can resort to this if they want to check-up on any answers. I don't have the time though.
I have always thought a list of what Oleg has revealed will be included in the sim would be nice, especially if the list was split into categories (e.g. one category for AI, another for the terrain, etc) I know that Heinkill put together something similar a while back.



Klem; regarding tracer this may be interesting to you:

The incendiary ammunition was also variable in performance. Comparative British tests of British .303" and German 7.92 mm incendiary ammunition against the self-sealing wing tanks in the Blenheim, also fired from 200 yards (180m) astern, revealed that the .303" B. Mk IV incendiary tracer (based on the First World War Buckingham design – it was ignited on firing and burned on its way to the target) and the 7.92 mm were about equal, each setting the tanks alight with about one in ten shots fired. The B. Mk VI 'De Wilde' incendiary (named after the original Belgian inventor but in fact completely redesigned by Major Dixon), which contained 0.5 grams of SR 365 (a composition including barium nitrate which ignited on impact with the target) was twice as effective as these, scoring one in five.

The 'De Wilde' bullets were first issued in June 1940 and tested operationally in the air battles over Dunkirk. Their improved effectiveness, coupled with the fact that the flash on impact indicated that the shooting was on target, was much appreciated by the fighter pilots. It was at first in short supply, and the initial RAF fighter loading was three guns loaded with ball, two with AP, two with Mk IV incendiary tracer and one with Mk VI incendiary. Another source for the Battle of Britain armament gives four guns with ball, two with AP and two with incendiaries (presumably Mk VI) with four of the last 25 rounds being tracer (presumably Mk IV incendiary/tracer) to tell the pilot he was running out of ammunition. It is not clear why ball was used at all; presumably there was a shortage of the more effective loadings. (By 1942 the standard loading for fixed .303s was half loaded with AP and half with incendiary.)


It's from an article written by Tony Williams (I don't know if he's famous or not). In one or two SoW videos, I'm sure I saw a 'flash' from hits from a Spitfire/Hurricane, which might indicate de-wilde ammunition.
It's interesting to read about the tracer, because apparently it did burn, and so left a smoke-trail (Williams says this) Oleg did say this is being modelled; I'm not sure if he had the relevent info on the MarkIV tracer, but I'm sure he does :D

Thanks philip,

I did know that background but I don't know if Oleg is giving us DeWilde in SoW. Actually, I don't know if he gives us it in IL-2, for some reason I have it in mind that he didn't, but let's stay on SoW ;)

I'd be interested to know too. Based on what he's revealed about modelling different armament types, I'd imagine it would be included. It's quite an important part of the shooting experience IMO ;)

i lol'd at this thread. then i held my head in my hands.

anyway.

varying ammo loadouts... has that been covered in any way? where we could make the choice, as with some of the new 4.09 rides, whether we take tracer in all guns etc? would it be practical/historic to specify belting in either the bob or later theatres?

In (virtual) reality though, when blazing away at a Ju88 with two 109's on our tails, how are we going to assess whether a certain ammo mix is more or less effective than another? Or even more true to life?

I know I've not even considered ammo in IL2, other than the obvious differences between MG's and Cannon and the different calibres.

Perhaps I'm not cool, calm and steely eyed enough to assess these complicated issues in the heat of combat?!:rolleyes::grin:

I think we are all going to learn alot about type of ammo we use in the SOW.

The British aircraft are using pea shooter .303.

It will take alot of lead to put down any German aircraft with .303 unless we have some sophisticated ammo loadouts.

I still do the BOB II WOV. I can't tell you how many times I have emptied my guns and didn't knock down a single aircraft.

Finally, I learned to get extremely close before firing...then and only then do I get kills.

The SOW will definitely be a new world for most of us after we've been flying the late war aircraft in IL2 with all the firepower available.

6guns x 50calibers vs 6 guns X .303 calibers

Yes, I know the British did some miraculous work in the BOB.

You really ought to get very involved with the IL2. You are wasting alot of time asking questions that you can answer yourself, if you were virtual flying.

Take the IL2 with the TD latest release 4.09, try the full mission builder, and do some online flying. You will find chit chat talk really isn't where the action really is.

People that are flying and enjoying the IL2 are not dropping onto these boards very much.

One super way to enjoy the IL2 is build missions and follow behind the player aircraft in the missions. Then you can see what to tweak, where you need to implement more action elements, etc.

Also, get a good air war history book and try to replay those historical air combat missions. You will really be touching history and you will definitely begin to understand what those combat pilots were up against.

You have appx 1/3 more posting than I, and I "have to work these boards"... also I've been here a lot longer than yourself.

Agreed! What I meant was how will we know if a kill is made due to ammo mix, as against just happening to hit a vital part of the aircraft whilst trying to avoid return fire and the fighter escorts?

The 8 and 12 x .303 gun Hurris were in IL2 though, from FB on, also in Pacific Fighters, and worked fine. Didn't the early P-40's in IL2 also carry .303's? Or were they all .50 cal?

Funnily enough, I've been wondering myself when a lot of people on the forum find the time to actually fly a flight sim.

Maybe some people just prefer to use virtual words than virtual bullets, whether piercing, incendiary, or just plain 'ball-shot'.:rolleyes::grin:

In Il-2, I fly the Hurri mark 1's a lot and those 8 .303's pump out a lot of tracer! So much so that it can impair my visibility of the target. If I could select to have tracer in just 2-guns, my shooting would be a lot better ;)

Each to his own, though.

Nearmiss; I know what you mean, but I don't post to raise my post-count. I never look at it in any-case. It's only my interest in SoW which has raised it so high.
I do fly Il-2 a lot (or have done in any case). Recently, I've put work first as I prefer to fly longer sorties (based on BoB campaigns and day-to-day episodes) and I don't have enough time, really, to fully enjoy Il-2 as I'd like ;)

Battle of Britain aviation history is my main interest (I collect BoB flight-gear) and a lot of my reading is both fictional and non-fictional books on this subject ;)

Thankyou.

Here's a picture of a Lancaster in Kelowna BC 1999. To change to a cool subject :)

Why would you need to know? If you want to know for training purposes, just set-up an off-line mission where you shoot at an enemy bomber that is unarmed, and keep practicing with different ammo mixes, and see how much damage you can do. Am I missing your point (if so, what is it)?

I don't really need to know, which is my point!:)

Phil called it 'an important part of the shooting experience'.
If I'm shooting at something in online combat, there is so much movement that it's impossible to see how many bullet strikes there are in any given burst, let alone what proportion of which bullet made the hit.

Plus, I'm usually far too adrenalised to analyse the results with any semblance of empiricism.:grin:

By important, I also meant the fun-factor; the fun (be it slightly destructive) of seeing your bullets destroy the enemy A/C. Personally, I'd love to try out different types of ammo, as it would really put me into the genre, and feel like I have a lot of control over my own, personal, plane. at the end of the day, whether you can shoot down that enemy A/C can be a life or death situation. Luckily this isn't the case literally for us, but it really adds to the immersion :cool:

Yes, this one is very good and, dare we say, almost photorealistic :o !!! Nothing to say ... it looks even more perfect because there are no clouds in this screen, my other subject of worries about BoB :(

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/2224/80540008.jpg

Maybe a lot of the ppl think if they had different ammo/mix/more or less tracers they would score more kills.

I hate to tell you but: That's an illusion.

It's not the ammo, it's the pilot.

A huge majority of real fighter pilots never scored a kill let alone made "Ace".
In reality a large percentage of us will get shot down,injured and killed before getting any hits to take the opposition down.

"in reality", most of us wouldn't even make it off the runway.
(includes me)

Well I suppose that's what I was trying to say, albeit slightly more diplomatically.:grin:

(I'm upset no-one thought my 'ball-shot' joke was funny!:))

... if by miracle they manage to start the engine ....

I disagree, and I tested this out in Il-2 by launching a mission against a lone (friendly) heinkel in Il-2 flying the Hurricane mark 1 and then the Spit Mark V using only the .303's. Consequently, the Hurricane would spit the tracer from all 8 guns, whereas the Spit would only be shooting it from 4 (so half).
I scored more hits with the spit than I did with the Hurri in a period of 15 seconds firing short bursts. The reason? I could see my target, and where my tracer was going! I know exactly what you mean, Swiss, but many pilots chose to limit their tracer to just one or 2 guns to give a clearer view of the target when firing (even burst firing with the 8-gun planes can be hard).
As with ammo, I agree; more destructive ammo, in ever sense, just compensates for pilot error (unless the pilot is skilled enough to know when to use it).

I'm not disagreeing with you entirely, but that's my experience from Il-2 and BoB2-WoV. I've ready many accounts from pilots who have said the same thing, too.

Do you mean real pilots ?

Yes; real ww2 pilots ;)

Its seems obvious that tracers are very helpfull when aiming at the ennemi. I'm surprised that it doesn't seem obvious for anywone ... who has played IL2.

I'll have to go back and find it, but I do remember a report that some groups eliminated tracers completely and their effectiveness went up.

Think about it...on a longer deflection shot, tracers help. But when you a snuggled up on someone's six at close range, tracers don't matter at all. Flashes from hits tell you everything you need to know.

All AP and incendiary rounds would do more damage than replacing 20% of the ammo with less destructive tracer rounds.

Now I guess I have to go find the documents on groups eliminating tracers :)

Splitter

I remember reading the report as well. One of the USAAF fighter groups (or perhaps it was just a single squadron) decided to remove tracers from their loadouts. They found their overall scores were going up. Possibly because the enemy was not alerted by the tracers flying near their plane and possibly because it forced the pilots to not rely on tracers and instead do range/angle calculations completely in their head.

Depending on the virtual situation the lack of tracers may be or not be a useful feature. Either way I'd love to see customizable loadouts. If someone wants to not use tracers...great. If someone wants to load up a ton of tracers then ok.

Your problem may be that you are too far away and impatient. Practice getting closer, and work on leading your target when firing;)

The reason I am hoping for DeWilde (reasonably simulated) is that in IL-2 I am often thinking I am not hitting the target when my buddies are saying things like "good hits klem". For some reason many of my hits don't show to me.

Perhaps my assumption that we don't have DeWilde in IL-2 is wrong and it is my PC (AMD 3800+, 2.4GHz, 2 x 7800GTs). If there's no DeWilde, perhaps not all other ammo hits 'flash' on impact (but my buddies see them?). Perhaps it won't happen in SoW but I would be happier to know we have DeWilde :)

i'd much rather have DeWilde than tracer personally.

tracer makes little diff to me, i'd still hit without it (in il2) just because i've fired so much in il2 over the years, and its second nature where to aim. Seeing your rounds hit is much more useful imo, because then you know you've hit.

Interview with:
CAPTAIN J. J. FOSS, USMC
US medal of honor
Executive Officer, VMF-121
Bureau of Aeronautics
26 April 1943

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Aircraft/VMF-121/

Hey Philip what servers do you like to fly in on the Hyperlobby? I'm always in Spits VS 109s:Mods witch I do terrible in for my experience of thirteen years flying sims and tens years in IL-2. I used to do much better but I don't like my stick at all and I need to get some monitor distance glasses made...getting older lol

About Tracers/Ammo mix.

The standard RAF loadouts at the start of the BoB. On an 8 x.303 gun aircraft
3 Guns loaded with bog standard .303 ball ammo
2 Guns loaded with Armour piercing
2 Guns loaded with Mk IV Incendiary Tracer (burns on way to target)
1 Gun loaded with Mk VI De Wilde

Or

4 Guns loaded with ball
2 with AP
2 with MK VI, the last 4 rounds were all Mk IV tracer to let the pilot know when the ammo had run out

Unlike the other Air forces of WWII the RAF preferred to load each gun with only one type of ammo.

Something I forgot to ask is if SoW tanks (and grounds objects in general) will have different skins for different battlefield (desert,regular green,snow...)?

Eventually, but right now they're probably all going to be summer 1940 style camouflage (I'm guessing) since there isn't any real need for additional paint schemes. Adding them doesn't take long at all, and you'll probably see that if they do N. Africa or the invasion of Russia.

That kind of makes sense. Different ammo cycles the gun differently. Mixing ammo could cause "short cycles" jamming the gun. And for other reasons, one type of ammo per gun makes sense.

Splitter

I think this has been confirmed by mr. Maddox himself very recently. It's either in the thread about the Igromir expo, or even in this very topic. I don't know if it's a feature we'll see right away on release, but i have a distinct recollection that he did talk about personalizing the ammo belt loadouts being included in the simulator at some point.

Also would it allow you to harmonize the gun so all the different ammo types were converging at the same point?

But they mixed ammo in reality, probably for a good reason.

If I had to bet, I'd say the tracer-only gun will fail first.
(take a guess why)

Due to barrel fouling? Well yes, perhaps the tracer round would cause that - but the armourers would be cleaning and checking all the guns after a day. Excessively pitted barrels would be replaced pretty smartly.

Also, some of the RAF pilots didn't like having the last 4 rounds in the incendiary guns to be tracer because thay noticed that some of the German pilots were waiting till they saw them before they engaged.

I can find no mention of the RAF fighter command using mixed ammo belts till 1942. (I'm talking MG wise, not cannons).

I've no idea what Bomber commands practice was.

In fact the whole gun will be full of this ugly stuff, everywhere. :-x

I doubt it, since you could use this behavior in your favor. ;)

It's true.

Gunners in US torpedo and dive bombers in the pacific used to throw empty ammo cans out of their cockpits to bait Japanese fighters into getting cocky and approaching from behind instead of slashing attacks from above or the side.

easy solution: tracers or no tracers become a difficulty option. But what does Oleg say?

The way I understand it the 2nd loadout I mentioned, (no tracer) was deemed to be the better option because if you missed when you were bouncing someone (as most BoB encounters seem to have started) they didn't know about it, if you miss with tracer it let's them know you're there.

About 5% of the pilots was responsible for about 40% of enemy aircraft that were shot down. The other pilots couldn't shoot or were too busy to not get shot down so they could not fire.

good question but I think it already has been asked but worth repeating.

BUT there is so much idiot spam on this thread I doubt Oleg reads it anymore

I'd like a few preset options for online games in a pulldown menu. Sort of like in IL-2 when you can select your bombload/gun loadout/fuel. That way people who like lots of tracers or non will have that option.

Another option or addition to that could be people saving their preferred tracer/ap/inc/ball loadout on their PC's then that preset being an option for them when they play online.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=6909

See questions 44, 89, 94. No definite info on which types though. Can't remember if there were any more in the 20 pages of Oleg's Answers I filtered on but I do remember question 44. Maybe have a look yourself?

Why do these good threads start and then die? Maybe because it was supposed to be a collection of Oleg's answers (which we would all like) but before the end of page 1 everyone and his dog started dropping 60 pages of their own opinions on top of what was looking like a valuable service. Still, it looks like everyone got bored by July and moved onto the Friday updates. Yes I know I'm moaning. I've been trying to get a couple of questions some attention for a while now.

Maybe I just need a stiff drink.

I'll stick to filtering on posts by Oleg.

Finally finding my way around but it hasn't been that easy.

Actually i think i got glimpse of it in a much more recent thread. I'll try filtering Oleg's posts by date or searching within this and the Igromir thread.

Make the Box Art like a blended collage and have something like this for the German part. It's different and very effective.

wrong thread.;)

Oops :)

Thanks Oleg, this is looking spectacular. Wonderful nightime shot, can't wait to see the moonlight on the wings. Lovely.

swiss, dont be that way :D

i tried a flight the other day in a single prop plane... i didnt even have a license back then

I flew a small plane also, a Cessna 172. That day there were no thermals so there was no bouncing or anything like that. All I had to do was look at the compass and check a dip in the hill..small mountain where we were heading to and keep heading for that spot. A lot easier than driving.

Now try that with a Merlin in front...


Hint: you wouldn´t last long.

How did you start the engine? Press "I"? ;)

and that sure was a solo flight, right?

I don't see that tracers should be a difficulty option. Historically some planes had tracers, some didn't and there was a lot of choice, even between aircraft in the same squadron. Customisable (historic) loadouts would therefore IMO be a much better way of doing things.

I think the operative word there is historic. It will get very tiresome very quickly online if it becomes stuffed with goons who find it entertaining to load 100% tracer and pretend they have laser cannons.

Of course.

Otherwise I'm going to take a Spitfire, load up all 8 guns with de Wilde ammo (maybe 2 inner with mixed tracer/de Wilde) and watch as everything I shoot at immediately bursts into flames ;)

I think Oleg already said there will be a number of loadout options for ammo, which to me would imply being able to select from preset options (hopefully historical), rather than full customisation.

I'd prefer full customisation myself, even to allow non-historic loadouts.

The way to "control the goons" (for those who wish to do so) is to make the ammo selection settings controllable by the server host, imo.

That could work, something like a switch that allows fully customisable/historical only ammo loadouts.

On the other hand, if someone does want to load up full tracer, good for me/you, bad for them. They will do less damage, alert every player within miles to the fact they are firing and probably have a hard time seeing what they are shooting at.

I'm going to have to agree on both counts. With the amount of customization that's being talked about, maybe this is the best way to do things.

Just as the IL2 multiplayer host enforces certain realism settings, the SoW host could enforce realism, loadouts (this is already done in IL2 as well) and even mod settings. It would streamline things considerably.

For example, since modding support is said to be built into the engine, it won't be necessary to alter core game files to mod things. Instead, what will probably happen is that you'll have some extra folders with your modded effects that override the defaults, or extra folders with the 3rd party aircraft that are separate from the core game files.

So, instead of having to have 3 different game installations and version switchers to be able to fly on all your favorite servers, you would be able to join everything with one installation. Upon joining, the server logic would be like this: All mods off by default, unless individually specified as on by a "flag".
This way the server's configuration file would include the appropriate flags and we wouldn't have to keep different installations on our disks. Hope i'm making sense.

Do you realize that the artist who painted that picture is a forum member here? He has posted in this thread.

do you mean Dietz...?

Yep!

I had a rummage through his work a few years back , its top draw stuff , he really knows how to capture the moment , would be nice to see some old fashioned artwork such as his adorning the new box....

His admirable aviation work:

http://www.jamesdietz.com/gallery/me...l?id=11&step=2

Question about movie making.

Oleg said that BoB has special features for movie makers so I wonder if we will see the hands of the pilot in the cockpit views. It would be sad to have such nice cockpits and not being able tu use them in movies because they are empty.

Another feature was missing in Il2 but present in a simulator like Lock-On: The camera shaking. Very important for the realism !

I also hope that it will be possible to walk around on the landscape or drive a car (like in FSX) even with simple phisics.

That Dietz's work is a little busy for my taste...But honestly I cannot wait for this to come out even if its in a brown paper wrapper!!!!

James, I am not sure Oleg realizes what kind of artist you are. Maybe someone should point him to your work. SOW BoB with a Dietz cover would be fabulous for both of you....what do you think? Ok maybe I am dreaming, but why not? :-)

Had no clue. I just know what I like.

So I guess I better take down my avitar..I don't want to look like a suck up.

I think Oleg's on the ball when it comes to aviation art. He aproached Glen Angus a while back to work on the GUI for SoW. Sadly Angus passed away before this came to be

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i3...6043_large.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i3...3809_large.jpg



- also notice the background splash screens shown at Igromir - they are not screen grabs. Far from it.


http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i3...shko33/034.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i3...0137329170.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i3...0137188144.jpg

Glen Angus work was evocative and always impressive, it was a sad loss.

Some more of his work:

http://features.cgsociety.org/newgal..._submedium.jpg

http://features.cgsociety.org/newgal..._submedium.jpg

http://features.cgsociety.org/newgal..._submedium.jpg

http://features.cgsociety.org/newgal..._submedium.jpg

Cool art.

EDIT - Am I going nuts, or does it look like the horse has six legs?

To me it seems the GUI images are heavily edited screen-shots, not from-scratch paintings. ( all the more credit to the artist if it is actually a painting).

Must be where Cameron got his idea for the worse movie ever made.

Odins horse Sleipnir had eight legs, if you take the shadows in the background to be extra legs we may have a match.

Cheers!

Eight legs. Probably Sleipnir.

----EDIT-----
Not fast enough:D