Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Friday 2010-10-22 Dev. update and Discussion

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)

- - Friday 2010-10-22 Dev. update and Discussion (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=17054)

Those are some very old development shots.

Very old.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jocko417 (Post 192918)

The knob on the shorter one should be mounted on the outside of the lever, the long one has it's knob on the inside and is correct. I think the levers do share the same slot but slide beside one another, with the knob on the short one moved to the outside it won't interfere with the other lever. Good find.

No, it's not. And the pictures from your book do not show an original Hurricane I. And I thought there was a rule on this forum that prohibited the distribution of false information.

The knobs both need to be on the inside, and the levers both need to be in the same slot. The mixture lever (the "shorter one") is in the left half of the slot, the throttle lever (the "longer one") on the right half. The knob on the mixture lever is mounted on the inside in order to protrude behind the throttle lever, so that the mixture is automatically set to "rich" as the throttle is closed. And that is, as I have said already, wrong with the mixture control, as the "weak" and "rich" positions are in the opposite places.

A few more bugs with the Hurricane I cockpit
- it had no rudder bias control in the cockpit.
- it had no supercharger control, but a fuel cut out in its place
- it had a hydraulic pressure gauge
- it had a different safety catch for the hydraulic selector lever
- it had a hydraulic control lever

Furthermore, I don't think windscreen de-icing was on board during BoB, and the rudder pedals look IIish to me. But maybe it is supposed to be an Mk. II cockpit, and Oleg was just telling us that we will also have a Hurricane II in BoB.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadAim (Post 192949)

I'm sorry, but it's a simple fact that we all have to accept some compromises for the commercial success of this sim. I for one am quite happy with Oleg's 'uncompromising' approach to compromises.

I'd actually like to see Oleg make some money on this sim, he's bloody well earned it. (and it's the only way we will get more content too)

Edit: I'm not even sure that everyone here is arguing about the same bloody thing! I don't even think that there is anything to argue about to be honest.

+1

Hopefully he’ll make enough money to keep the sim growing for at least the same amount of time as IL-2. (My sons only 6 at the moment – by the time he’s 12 I doubt I’ll be able to compete so that gives me at least 6 years where he’ll think I’m an ace pilot ;) )

Still it's obvious that at this point of development we will get what we are given by the developers and there is not a lot that we can do about it. The initial release is probably beyond the point of major changes (hopefully???).

It is extremely hard to objectively criticise what we cannot see. And we will not get to see it until it is released and we’ve had a chance to play with it.

Out of 'customer loyalty' (Quite frankly I have enjoyed everything that Oleg and Co has thrown at me since I got Pacific Fighters – I tried the IL-2 Demo when it was first released but my PC was too slow at the time) I will probably buy the game as soon as it is released.

If I get half the enjoyment out of SOW that I’ve got out IL-2 it will be money well spent!

Cheers

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flanker35M (Post 192815)

S!

Pablo: the release date there can be whatever, has changed over the years ;) All we need to know is that SoW is now close to be ready :D

I find this discussion of the realism and what is modelled quite interesting. There is a camp that basically want the fiery furball action with minimal input from themselves, the mediocre that wants some more than just the same old fruball over a certain place of map and then some that could live with all the complexity of the simulator. The last group being propably smallest. I belong to it.

Why? First of all I do NOT challenge Oleg's vision and what he has said, everything due it's time and 3rd party. That was made clear by Oleg. All is just my own views of the issue. For me realism means going all the way, there are no shortcuts because something is not convenient or allegedly fun. I want to learn, challenge my skills to the maximum while I fly the sim. To see if I am up to the challenge! I want the experience reflect something from over 70 years ago, within the limits of a computer game can generate.

It is not being masochist, it all comes from my work! I maintain, repair, arm, refuel, do checks and inspections, change parts and lead a team to get things done within a schedule. And all this happens by following PROCEDURES to the letter, there are NO shortcuts or "I do not want to do it because it is boring or smears my hands". It is 100% by the book and regulations or nothing, you are responsible for the work you do, the pilot depends on your work.

What this has to do with SoW? Well, even I would be the 0.01% minority that enjoys starting the plane all the way, monitor temperatures and pressures, trim, do checks..I would do it! There are pilot manuals out there fairly easily to get and printed. I miss something during the procedures and the sim might punish me with a bad engine performance or even a malfunction. It happened IRL and and they had no REFLY. The manuals are there to make it safer and to make sure you do not cross the limits.

You have to remember that back in WW2 most pilots got training in plane systems(not in super detail, but something) so they would have an idea how the plane works thus giving them some knowledge what could go wrong and where if they abuse the plane or cut corners. SoW models systems and other things in more detail than anything up to date so I expect it to surpass IL-2's very simplified CEM for example. So realism is the only option for me.

Therefore I find it amusing that many just want the "instant action gratification" and realism to a level that only is favorable for them. Even with 100% realism we lack a lot of the work load a real pilot had. Sure a limitation of being a game and lack of equipment(switches, controllers, you name it) but nevertheless with a sound approach doable to make a challenge.

End of rant. I patiently will wait for SoW and see. When finally can double click on it's icon on my desktop I will know how it is done. But I have faith and trust Oleg's vision.

My thoughts exactly! I love the idea of replicating the combat flight experience as close to the real thing as possible and keeping your aircraft's systems tuned and at optimal performance levels was a big part of it.

Having to spend time and effort getting to the scene also makes it so much more frustrating getting shot and therefore makes sure you are doing everything possible not to get shot! And this was a pretty important part of flying one would think.

And having this as optional would make sure that you're not getting too frustrated if you've tried to pass your mission 10 times without success you can start using 'one-click-start - takeoff - autopilot - accelerate time' methods. And it would also enable the 'quick action' possibilities for the the more arcade minded who want to get in to the action asap and chase the nearest bogeys in a furball without too much focus on 'doing it right'.

Flanker, I'm from Finland too.. maybe I'll fly your wing one day once SOW gets out and we can fly sorties as they're ment to be flown :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by zapatista (Post 192713)

thank you for focusing on that part, it is indeed the most important for 90% of us

this is MUCH more important then 2% of users wanting to go click click with a mouse on the screen

(C) SOW Community Stats Central

Preferred feature survey October 2010

Error Margin 0,02%

(7% Of the community will find this post annoying)

:cool:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadAim (Post 192949)

and that all of the intricacies that were common to all of the aircraft will be modeled (including all of those found in actual flight).

I do hope that includes simple system on/off functions such as for the electrical (battery) and fuel system. These were common to almost all aircraft and could be used in-flight (before crash landing to avoid fire) as well as being part of the startup sequence. Little things like seeing your ammeter spring to life really add to immersion IMO.

Anyhow, I agree it's too late to change anything, we'll get what we get and what we will get will be a heck of a lot better than what we have now. No argument there.:grin:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox (Post 192776)

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'm sure you're focusing on all the right things and as SOW will have a long future ahead of it the core functionality of the product needs to be one that stands in the test of time.

As I've mentioned in my previous posts atleast I am 100% ok not having these functionalities in the initial release or even coming from you. IL-2 has been fantastic without having startup procedures is still fun after years and years. For me it's quite ok to pay extra for this functionality from a 3rd party developer and keep you focused on the essencial parts for making SOW a commercial success for the masses.

What I am a bit concerned about however is that if there would be a 3rd party development like for example this startup procedure feature, clickable cockpits and extra aircraft or whatever does that mean that it would be usable in online servers running vanilla SOW?
Or will I be isolated running it locally or maybe with mates that have bought the same bits and pieces?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadAim (Post 192949)

I'm sorry, but it's a simple fact that we all have to accept some compromises for the commercial success of this sim. I for one am quite happy with Oleg's 'uncompromising' approach to compromises.

Commercial success of this sim I think is the number one priority for everyone here.
One thing that is a bit contradicting with my logic however is the fact that Oleg is already doing a lot of features that are not necessarily adding too many customers.

Having the diameter and shape of the carburator air intake modelled (I recall Oleg mentioned about this) won't change volumes much. However I love that level of detail and I assume everyone else here does too and it's what it's all about: a great simming / gaming experience with level of depth to last a decade. But I don't see startup procedures etc being too far fetched concidering the level of fidelity already being modelled.

I start to sound like a broken record but intend to raise no bad blood nor question Oleg's choises. The decision is made I'm happy either way and hope to get the extra bits from 3rd party one day. And getting SOW installed will be the highnote of my gaming career so far whether it has complex, simple or no startup procedures at all! :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnot (Post 192985)

I think what Oleg was implying yesterday is that he'd limit third party's ability to introduce features that would give unfair advantage and ruin online play while giving free rein in other less critical areas.

If I was in his position I'd be insisting that third parties use the standard flight model and gunnery model and I'd be verifying the flight characteristics of the new aircraft before release. On the other hand, I'd let them implement as many knobs and switches as they like since these are unlikely to affect the competitive nature of the game.....I believe any engine management features that are going to affect performance have already been provided by Oleg.

I think I found a mistake, if it hasn't been mentioned yet.

The landing gear handle on the Bf109 should be in a horizontal position (Ruhe). It should only be in the up position when raising the gear. It is then returned to the horizontal position when not in use.

If you don't know which handle I'm talking about it is the same one that Hecke is talking about when talking of circular abrasions.

See below:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...ion#post192504