Hi Oleg,

Speaking of sun reflections off canopy glass, will SoW model such glints off aircraft beyond visual range? ie. the plane is far enough away that it can't be seen but a glint or flash of sun off it's canopy gives away it's position?

isn't both of these pictures incorrect?
Beginning from the coloring camo of the aircraft, then the sky, ground, water, how looks buildings, etc?
However as I think their goal was to make something like old films with distroted in time and from the beginning of that old time processes of film development colors. This like some auditory of users that do not interesting in simulation, but more in game itself.

Oleg Did you ever get that training session in with your son??

No, he is still sick with a temperature and computer prohibited.

That's too bad, hope he gets well soon!

Oleg, after the exibition in november, will you show us some photos of the event? please... :)

Ok
However I will be in a separate room. Not for all.

No problem in principle furbs, if we were in an ideal world with unlimited time and money. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm just a bit afraid of the disproportioned influence of noisy minorities, whose priorities are very far from those of the vast majority of the aficionados.

In short: the perfect is the enemy of the good, as Voltaire put it 250 years ago.

Have a nice day,
Insuber

The only place where WoP is winning is the city, looks great but in BoB it's just an IL2 style texture. Hopefully this is purely down to it being further away, WiP or due to settings. In all else BoB is superior.

Also, I appreciate that the BoB shot is at a different range but is it just me or are there some scaling issues there? Comparing the two it make the WoP shot look like it's an England populated with oversized fields, trees and towns?

WoP houses are enormous. That's probably the reason that they're visible at the height he's flying (1000 meters), and also why the town in the SoW shot is nearly invisible (looks like 2000m or so?). It looks good on the screen, but doesn't reflect reality.

+1

Well said, i totally agree.

In a few words, before give us the Double decker with drivers included, please give us England.

P.S.: We'll have different landscape (textures) for France and England?

This is IMO very good news. Personally i think that animated ground crew its more important that animated pilots or gunners. Because usually the distace between aircraft is too big to really notice the pilot or gunner inside other aircraft. But when you take off or land, that's when having animated human figures of ground crew and pilots become important and make a way more immersive and beleivable "living" world.
I understand that animated ground crew demands a lot of resources, and its more dificult to achieve this in multiplayer because it more object that data have to be send and receive, but i think its a key point, specially for single player, to make the world more alive.

People could like more the picture below, but its obvious much more realistic the first picture even if there still room for improvement.

Oleg

As i perceive it you are always in search for sources that have information on ww2 airplanes.
Two weeks ago is was in the Czech republic where I visited a sailplane factory.
This factory also manufactures astounding museum quality models if you would like to
Have the information on this plz pm me as I don’t want to state their url as such on the forum.
ill promise you wont be disappointed.

Cheers,

Niels

:( Both are awful as they stand at the moment.:(

1st: I watched it on 720p/fullscreen. Is it possible it has have micro-stuttering on fast moving objects? Almost made me vomit.

2nd: Those trees are a JOKE. Look at the red (beech?) at 2.13, I really dont need this crap.

To me the red trees look ok.

Of course i see them almost daily from our office window.
Actually what I'm seeing is even more vivid than those in the vid.

Pity they're really starting to shed they're leaves now as i was planning to take some photographs as soon I get my camera back from a CLA.

Well, you should try this game shown in the thumbnail instead , if it's good enough for you...;) release date on their website : april 2022
:grin:

Salute !

They are 2 dimensional!


http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/2056/treec.jpg :roll:

The cranky complainers and the fanboisie are united in one thing: waiting expectantly for the SoW to come out. We're all in it together, people. Both sides show massive enthusiasm even if they don't say so.

Hey I guess it's already out LOL


http://www.1888freeonlinegames.com/d...tain-2483.html

But surely the "User Reviews" should have been written by Tom, Dick and Harry
:rolleyes:

:eek: Darn , never noticed it.

Too much driving old racing sims.
They create a blind spot.

Not really.. not for us at least.. now WoP is best.. the old bird in the hand.. but once we finally get our mitts on SoW.... ;)

Some of the forum comments like "hedgerows should be darker" definitely imply people are expecting SOW to look like a polarize filter photograph rather than real life.

There is also quite a difference between landscape photos with and without UV filters. UV filters remove a lot of the haze.

Of course the RAF flying goggles at the time actually had flip up polarizers so both views would in some sense be correct :D

http://www.flightgear.ch/Pictures/RA...%20CR%20P1.jpg

Wow, didn't know this. This was available during the BoB also?. If they were, it would be could to have them and be able to use them.

Please Oleg, do me a favor
 

Dear Oleg:

Is there a chance you could implement the option to set time of the cockpit clock ourselves? To real-life time.
[Or maybe take the real time from the OS/Bios]


When I fly at night, I usually play in the dark, so even the clock on my desk is worthless.
So, if I want to know what time it is I have to use alt+tab - but I actually got a clock right in front of my face in the cockpit, a useless one though.

Funny, whenever I am in the air, the ground looks grayish/blueish, without any fancy colors.
Picture number one comes pretty close.

oleg said some times that sow will be best than wop in graphics too. and, of course, in simulation.

but now i see that images... and ...
...
Ooh, it makes me wonder
...Ooh, it really makes me wonder

There's a feeling I get
When I look to the west
And my spirit is crying
For leaving...
:eek:
:-P

Lol...funny.

Already in IL2_1946


ONLINE:

In IL2 if you are hosting the "tod" command on the chat line will do that. You would obviously also need to have your map set to allow time to progress on the server rather than stay fixed at "eternal noon".

Clearly if you are just a random player in an online server you can not be allowed to change time of day for the whole server. That would cause chaos,



OFFLINE:

Starting times of offline missions in IL2 can be changed by editing the mission files. Either in FMB for static campaigns or the text files for a DGEN mission.

Oleg:
Will the height/mesh data of the terrain mesh be accurate? How accurate will it be approximately...anything like Real Scenery or VFR Scenery add-ons that are available for MFS? Is there a possibility for you to update/improve that data in the future (or for users/third-party to do it)?

Hills are relatively small in that region of England, so it would be nice to see them as accurate as possible, to give a feeling of realism.

http://www.chelmsfordyha.org.uk/news/IMG_0202-1.JPG

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

For those not familiar with the terms:

FAQs from Just Flight's webpage:

"Q. What is terrain mesh and elevation data?

A. The visual scenery you see when flying in Flight Simulator is all built upon a basic framework (a 'mesh') that represents the height of the ground at any point in the world. This provides the three-dimensional relief model of hills, mountains, valleys, cliffs, depressions, plateaux and so forth, upon which all other scenery objects and ground textures are placed. The vast majority of the area of the default relief model of England and Wales in Flight Simulator X is set at 76m between each reference point so this means that there are no relief detail changes between points 76m apart. This creates a very "soft" terrain where mountains that should be craggy appear as smooth rounded hills and individual features that fall between the points are lost completely. VFR Real Scenery includes reference points that are just 9.6m apart which provides a far higher resolution than the default. Even small ground features now become visible."

What town are you flying over in the Screen shot's it reminds me a littel of Southampton (well Sherly to be precise) I would love to see some shot's of Southampton mabey over the Guildhall or the Pollygon. or maby the airport (as it was back then) becaus that is where the Spits were made.

Wow that would be great if we could have some sounds etc so we can see what the sound engine can do.
Thank you

NICE PHOTO major set_back
Attachment 3718

Most pilots either lost the flishields because they were so fragile or pulled them off themselves. They are useful for putting up at, say, a 45-degree angle to block the suns rays, but other than that they affect visibility.
The goggles here are post-BoB BTW. The earlier variant of this series were used in the BoB though. These are mark IV'bs. Mark IV's and IV-a's were used in the BoB.
Also the microphone here is post-BoB.
But the mask and helmet are fine ;)

I like the fact your air is falling down to the cliff. ;)

Also I would think the vortex is somewhere else.

Not a problem! Every wind vortex in all of Southern England will be accurately simulated. You just need to upgrade your PC to take advantage of it. . .

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/1077/bluegenel.jpg


Hope you can afford the electric bill required to run IBM's Blue Gene!

***Serious Time***

Xilon_x: you do understand that a lot of the stuff you are asking to be included in a COMPUTER GAME! Are commonly found being simulated by giant arrays of PC's so that companies don't have to rent out wind tunnels? Are you 12 years old or just really dumb? Even with a language barrier (translation troubles) I can't imagine anyone normal really expects this from a COMPUTER GAME.

To be fair, what he's asking for could be faked without modeling complete weather systems. I have no idea of SoW's internal workings but I'm sure if ridge soaring was deemed important enough, it could be modeled without requiring super computers.

I'd be happy with turbulence while flying behind larger aircraft, through or below clouds and mechanical turbulence over trees etc. near airfields.

Actually his next request will be to replicate the REAL thermals and winds occurred during the period. This is a serious simulator, not a game, Oleg should not take shortcuts on such key elements.
After all it should be quite easy to recalculate the historical internal energy and motion of every single air molecule, starting from today's state and applying simple and well known physical laws. Boys, THIS would be a serious simulation! :\

:grin: :grin: :grin:

+1 ;)

I know there is a setting in FSX where you can visualise the thermals. I never used it though. This video looks like it shows that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXqmlLz31m8


Thermal discussion (breakdown):

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbfs/sho...Soaring-in-FSX

Nice gliding!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEjqJ1skEqM

.
.

Found this - Creating ridge lift in the mission builder of FSX:

http://carrier.csi.cam.ac.uk/forster.../dev/lift.html

"FSX has great tools for the creation of ridge lift in the mission editor, so you can design ridgelift boxes working in a very realistic way. Here's a screenshot within the Mission Editor using a development visualisation model: "


"A RidgeLift object is used to simulate the effect of a hill slope on the wind."

http://carrier.csi.cam.ac.uk/forster...gelift_fsx.jpg

http://carrier.csi.cam.ac.uk/forster...sage_thumb.jpg


From that link:

"Here's a list of rules to make your thermals and ridge lift move realistic:
Thermals:

1. A lift strength of 5-6 knots (2-3m/s)would be a good day in most of Europe or the eastern USA.
2. Make them the kind of diameter you can circle in, but not much larger. I'll try and quantify this...
3. Thermals should NOT be designed to go above the cloudbase. Normal cross-country flights involve climbs to cloudbase and no further. Typical cloudbase in Europe and NE USA is 6000 feet.
4. Plant more thermals but make many of them weaker. Real gliding involves sampling and rejecting many more thermals.

Ridge lift:

1. Wind of 16-24 knots is good for ridge lift
2. Lift at ridgetop is typically 5 knots, so you can cruise at 100 knots without losing height.
3. Lift extends to 1000-2000 feet above the ridge but reduces in strength. At 2000 feet above the ridge you might be able to maintain height at best glide speed."

does anyone know the release date for this game?

lol, lol.

i thought i read somewhere that november was the release date.

i built an overclocked i7 rig with gtx 480 to max out this game @ 1080p and judging by the pictures the graphics are on par with birds of prey so it should not be a problem.

November? Not likely... If the release date was november the game would need to gold master probably this week and be student to distribution from there. It doesn't sound like a gold master is likely in the short term.

You'll probably be well served by your new system, however, Birds of Prey although good looking almost certainly will not have the same level of requirements that Storm of War has. Storm of War is significantly more complicated on the physics, AI, damage, etc. side (Birds of Prey is just a pretty IL-2 behind the scenes - even simplified from what I can tell) which will eat considerable RAM and CPU resources.

Graphics is huge for so many games in the industry but flight sims are pretty much the only products that truly stress the other components.

WoP/BoP has, in my opinion, tiny maps and simplistic FM and DM Models. I think this is why it can be run on even modest systems with good fps and excellent-perfect graphics. SoW will have a next-gen FM and DM model which should blow anything that's ever been made before out of the water. The main map will be quite large too.
SoW will also have many more features over WoP, so considering this I think it will require a pretty amazing system.
However, you're system looks great so if that can't run the game, it'll be a while before anyone can really ;)

nar...i think they should look darker because thats what they look like when i look out of my bloody window. :)

To those of you building new systems for SOW.

Single video card is the best way to go . . . UNLESS!

1. You are going to be playing at some crazy-huge resolution. Say around 2560x1600 or larger would be a good example of this. At these resolutions your single video card is going to be lagging because there is just too much area to cover itself. In an instance like this, having more than one video card would be beneficial.

2. You have More than one monitor. Lots of the extreme simmers like the idea of having three monitors to give them better peripheral vision. This is basically running into problem #1. Lots of area for one card to cover, and the new problem of maybe not having enough places to plug all them in.

In 90% of the other cases (single monitor, reasonable resolution) buying a single video card will be better than going the Multiple/SLI route. If you look at video card development, it usually only takes a year or so for a new card to be able to outperform two of the previous kings in pair. Buying a single card not only results in better performance (if you wait) but also it saves you a lot of money.

Just some food for thought.

Hi Oleg,
It sure looks like a phenomenal flightsim that set new standard again. Thanks for the updates and your interaction on the forum.

You mentioned NVidia in one of the posts a couple dozen pages back: will SOW be in any way 3D Vision ready when release?

3D Vision is independent from the game, it's dependent on the driver of the graphics card.
The game-engine only gives the depth - information to the driver, independent if its 3d-display or not, the driver must calculate with it anyway.

It's way too early to predict hardware requirements.. But your guess is as good as any ones ;)
Don't forget that like with many other games you can probably tweak alot of visual settings in SoW. Also you will have the uncertainty how the game will run on CF/SLI/Hydra systems on release.. It might need a few months maturing with driver updates from AMD/Nvidia. So, your average midrange to high end GPU will not hold you back from experiencing the game.. Though it might hold you back from running it with all visual effects turned on and maxed out.. But who knows, I sure don't and Oleg ain't telling at this stage.
Further, getting two new Fermi GF104 GTX460's and running them in SLI provides you more GPU horsepower than getting one GF100 GTX480.

If you want to upgrade for SoW I suggest wait until there are some reviews out and it's at least been flown by a good bunch of the community before deciding how to spend your upgrade money.. It could turn out that CPU and RAM is more important than having the highest end GPU.. Who knows?

I want to ask - what is the best equipment to use with something that hasn't been made yet?
Reply for any question you like; and any answer will do.
But I neeed to know!! :-)

necessity is the mother of invention, we will find a way

What I'm getting at is that SLI/Multiple card setups are really only logical for people with multiple monitors or people playing on 30" Dell screens at full resolution. You get more horsepower out of two cards, but you waste a lot of money and efficiency if you're playing on a typical monitor at regular resolutions. If you get the two G460's you spend "x" amount, if you wait 4 months you'll be able to get a card for that same amount or less, that will run the game better (at regular resolution on a single display).

Anyways, I'm going to wait about 6 months after the game is released (buy it on the first day still) and then build my system to play it. Given the way the market goes, waiting 1/2 a year is usually enough for a new flagship line of cards to be released and the previous "front-runners" who can still run the game all maxed out to drop in price dramatically.

When I play SOW I want it to look as good as it possibly can (at 1600x900 resolution).

like i said, i built this i7 / gtx 480 rig for the future games. i watercooled it's components with a corsaid H50 on cpu and the new Coolit OMNI on the gpu for silent running because i do not like loud systems. it's also sporting a mild overclock on the cpu and gpu.

i built this system specifically for final fantasy 14 (too bad the game sucks right now, jesus!) and storm of war. it completely maxes out final fantasy 14 including 16x AA, Dof & AO enabled.

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/i...GH28/omni3.jpg

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/i...GH28/omni2.jpg

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/i...GH28/omni1.jpg

the graphical fidelity of this game pretty much the same as wings of prey, although it will have more geometry and better damage model. i know wings of prey can almost be maxed out with a 260 GTX and the GTX 480 is over twice as fast so i am confident that it should max the game out. maybe oleg will state what the recommended system specs will be to play the game in ultra to high settings at 1080p?....

Can't remember asking him for any pictures either.

lol, this thread is for talking about dev update, but a water cooled pc? wtf? :grin:

Nice rig, I woudn't worry about what some say. They can't help it they ride the short bus.:grin:

Nice set up, ARGH. I especially like that case and am interested in what you think of the vertical fans. Who makes it? Thanks.

guys need to show their babes :D

I´m rather sure the water cooling is a bit overkill without serious overclock. I have i5 750 clocked to 4GHz on air (noctua nh-D14) and GTX480 in a very well ventilated case http://elements.thermaltake.com/ (the model with side fan). I have the upper fan set on 5V instead of 12V to lower RPM. With such configuration it is no more noisy than a mid range notebook. And yes, it can max out Rise of flight with mostly 60fps and 50-56fps over very large cities. and also fly pmdg J41 over 40-50fps

:) If it is not a rude question what sort of price range are you looking at for that please?

Questions that to understand what is important for you:

1. Stylish colors in game with overbumped textures
2. Unprecise models and cockpits (most part of which are direct port from old Il-2)
3. Simplified comparing to original Il-2 FM, DM, AI
4. Non historical use of aircraft
5. Absence of realistic weapon
6. non interesting online.

or

1. Correct pallete and more close to real things colors at different time of the day and canges with alitude with modeling of physics for these processes
2. Precise models and completely new precise cockpits that will set new standards in industry of military fligth sims how it was done by original Il-2 in 2001 for a years ahead
3. More complex in calculations comparing to original Il-2 FM, DM (as well as its visuals), AI (that will do many things that were historical)
4. Historical use of aircraft and its loading (and its modeling in principle)
5. Realistic physics of weapons
6. interesting online


My opinion:

You try to name the best the game that has other target auditory... Say from 12 to 16, that is of course great part of players. Yes, it is very good game based on ortiginal Il-2 with better or say better some modern graphics features (mostly effects) than the original Il-2... But simplified in general in many ways.

In the oher hand we are doing for the 12 to 100 age... that I'm in hope will be again the reference for comparison like it was Il-2 for its time. But 100% sure at least with some of the most important for the combat fligth sim features it will be really reference for comparison for a long time.

Still even Il-2 series is a reference for many things. There is a lot of things that was present for the first time in the world and on the sim market. Still many things that makes this sim playable by many even no after so many years.

Lets will return back to this speech after a year of BoB on the market.

You tell 'em Oleg!! Hehe! I have no doubt that SoW will "set the bar" for many years to come.

Just something I need to ask you Oleg - I fear that it may already have been answered before ... if it has, I'm sorry!

It's the AI that SoW will have - in IL-2 one's squadron/section often/usually leaves one way behind in spite of one trying to maintain a gradual and reasonably fast ascent - not wanting to test the ol' Merlin too much before she overheats!!

In SoW will the AI and the individual player's airctaft be "closer" performance-wise. I understand that the AI in IL-2 was near-perfect (perfect trim etc) and that's why guys like me couldn't keep up!

Keep up the graet work - it gives so many of us so much pleasure! It must really make you feel good!

BoB on the left, WoP on the right :)

http://stilettorevolt.com/2009/08/re...-before-after/

basterebbe come punto di riferimento il-2 sturmovik 1946 e analizzare cosa manca cosa si puo' migliorare e cosa si puo' aggiungere come nuova idea ma soprattutto come puo' essere migliorata la giocabilita' online dato che tutto il mondo partecipa a un conflitto virtuale.
BoB dovrebbe esere un ottimo simulatore ma deve avere dei collegamenti che permettano di poterlo ulteriormente migliorare e sviluppare ne corso degli anni che verrano.
la cosa molto importante e che un aereo si comporti come un aereo e non come un ufo rispettando le leggi della fisica terrestre
bastano poche cose pochi aerei ma ignorare i comportamenti della fisica mi sembra sbagliato.
Ad esempio il-2 gli aerei che vanno sugli alberi non esplodono
gli incendi non si divagano i fumi vanno dritti verso l'alto un aereo incendiato che sta nel mare non si spegne ma sparisce.
questa e una mio pensiero sul nuovo simulatore non e' una critica so che OLEG MADDOX e un esperto e so che a lui piacciono molto gli aerei e il volo.
Grazie signor Oleg Maddox.



suffice as a point of reference at IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 and analyze what is missing something you can 'improve and what you can' add as a new idea but also how it can 'be improved gameplay' online as part of a worldwide virtual conflict.
BoB should exercise a great mortgage, but must have links that allow it to be further improved and developed it over the years to come.
The very important thing and that a plane behaves like a plane and not a UFO while respecting the laws of terrestrial physics
Just a few things a few planes but ignore the behavior of physics seems to me wrong.
For example, the-2 aircraft that are on the trees do not explode
fires are not amusing touches the fumes go straight to the top of an airplane that is burned into the sea off but not gone.
My thoughts on this and a new mortgage and do not 'know that a critical Oleg Maddox and an expert and I know him really like airplanes and flying.
Thank you, Mr. Oleg Maddox.

3D Trees on the fields in original Il-2 are graphics features. That was done as a wish of users when the graphics cards were not able to render such things.
So they were done without clipping model especially.

Yes, In Il-2 is some things that look NOW not like we want (however let say that a fuel from aircraft in the sea may burn on the surface). And... with different difficulty settinmgs a lot of things in Il-2 changes in different aspects of the game. You should try maximized...

hard to understand electronic traslation....

Can't tell you all details of AI. I would tell that it is more humanized in principle and doing very similar things to real things.

How's the boy, is he feeling better yet has he lost his temperature?

Its Ok, thanks, but I personally have no time at the moment to sit near him to play.
I just did for him several new simple missions where he can win with his entry level experience :).

Glad your boy is feeling better Oleg, how is moscow, getting cold yet?

And also...is there a chance of a sound update this week? :)

Good to hear that he is on the mend, as that is the most important thing. Thank you also for taking the time out of your busy schedule to chat as well as it is much appreciated.

Oleg, great speech, a tune of land-of-hope-and-glory in the background and it would be quite stirring.

Oleg; it's interesting what you say about the colours changing throughout the day.
have you ever looked into this, out of curiosity? ;)

http://www.windwardmark.net/products.php?page=windlight

zing!
inclined to agree with you thor. the having to log in online to play aspect was a pita at first, but tbh i don't even notice it now. having said that, i have a reliable connection.

the pay per plane thing is, unless you manage to catch a deal weekend where they go for a couple of dollars, a mistake. i think there's an update bundle going for $90. for a game.

paid updates, with maps, missions and planes? fine

not single aircraft though.
except oleg's posts, this is the best in the thread.
seriously? cotton balls. the shading looks... overdone as well tbh, but is pretty good in comparison to say stock il2.
glad he's on the mend, and the training regime goes on - maintain interest with gradual increase in difficulty is the best way.

A pretty good video to see...

A great looking G2
Pilot size for the 109 up close
Views of England from the air.


http://s1200.photobucket.com/albums/...andEngland.mp4

nice vid! and good view of fields of england :)

Oleg, you have the patience of a saint in the way you handle some of these nonsensical questions. I eagerly await the release and in the meantime some more of your updates. Take your time and release when you are happy, it won't affect my purchase :)

And I'm surprised nobody said it in already but it's quite obvious that the SoW shot is better than the BoP one even though there is nothing to go on but that single shot. Are there some people here that have compound eyes?

Some more comparisons:

SoW:BoB - WIP 2010-10
http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/9885/bobcompare2.jpg
Battle of Britain II v 2.11
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/6...2comparev2.jpg
IL2
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3...2comparev2.jpg
Wings of Prey
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/6...pcomparev3.jpg

I vote for SoW:BoB even though it will surely get a better palette/shading etc. The important thing for me is that it's the only where the Hurricane can be mistaken for a real image, the other ones are not even close - and this is about aircraft - isn't it?

I hope image no 3 is ok here - it stands out as the least convincing to me so...

1940's Scenery
 

The picture below is a painting by well known aviation artist Nicolas Trudgian and is titled "Tangmere Hurricanes".
My scan does not do the colours of the original justice but that is not my purpose in posting here.

http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/u...Hurricanes.jpg

There are various elements of the scenery which have been much discussed in this and other threads on this forum of late.

The aircraft are over-flying what was in 1940 a typical Sussex small town/large village railway station. The station is served by a single track line branching into two lines to serve the station's up and down platforms.
Two terminating sidings would have been used for all varities of freight for the local area, (very little freight was moved long distances by road in those days). The goods wagon (van) in the siding appears to be being unloaded with freight for the RAF, (although I have never seen an RAF vehicle marked in this manner, I suspect poetic/artistic licence in view of the subject matter).
The level crossing, which has already been closed behind the recently arrived passenger train, is typical of all contemporary road crossings of the railways in the UK.
The steam engine and three passenger carriages again are typical of Southern Railways branch lines at that time, main lines had a third, electricfied, rail.
The single deck Southdown Ltd bus is again typical of the time and it looks like "Olegs MG" is dropping off/collecting a passenger.
The wheat sheaves and the horse-drawn cart are also how it was done then.
The church with its Norman tower and the various houses are typical of the Sussex/South Downs countryside, as are the stone bridges carrying the railway and road across the small river and the rolling South Downs in the background.
All in all a perfect example of southern England scenery in 1940.

apples and oranges mazex

SOW wins on everything to me (apart from just the colour palette, that goes to battle of britain 2, but thats just my personal view)

i notice a singe track line entering

Be glad I did not put in a banana in form of CFS3 ;)

"i notice a singe track line entering" Abbeville-Boy

Track splits to two just to the right, ie before, the level crossing.

Mine too!

Someone put up CFS 3 just for laughs. It probably out sells everything else by 100 to 1 for some dumb reason

Does anyone who cares about flightsims still have CFS3 installed on their system? ;-)

lol no, but the campaign was close to SWOTL, i didn t like the one in il2... but its only the good part of cfs3

Here's a CFS3 Hurricane over what I do not know.

Fairness shall be done as CFS3 (aka the banana) has been requested into the fruit bowl ;)

SoW:BoB - WIP 2010-10
http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/9885/bobcompare2.jpg
Battle of Britain II v 2.11
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/6...2comparev2.jpg
IL2
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3...2comparev2.jpg
Wings of Prey
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/6...pcomparev3.jpg
CFS3 v 3.1a maxed out graphics
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6...3comparev1.jpg

Had to search long to find my CFS3 discs and sorry, there is no Hurricane in the orignal version so another Hawker will have to do...

Any more to add?

EDIT: Had to add that it was a nasty experience to have a go at the CFS3 FM again while positioning the Typhoon for the shot... Shudders...

i prefer BOB is SUPER GRAPHIC.and good color.

I am delighted that the graphics are beautiful and realistic, but for me what counts is the simulation and game-play, BoP is beautiful but still a bad play and bad management of the damage. that is why I no longer play a WoP and I play a IL-2 1946 ( i love landing too ) and I've waited impatiently WOP.

I love this white tips on the horizontal stabs lol..Also the noses of the 109s in this sim always looked like they were missing their condoms. From the oil cooler to the spinner they were too long and the prop looked like it had a 50 foot arc.

Is there really any need to continue quoting the images repeatedly?

@Mazex about CFS3:

Yes, if you compare stock games. (guess that was the intent)
But the CFS3 community (and they still exist, small but hardcore, to answer Blakduk) has modded the heck out of CFS3 in the past 7 years. CFS3, MAW, and OFF (which are based on CFS3) doesn't look like this anymore, not even by far.
But as far as go stock games, fair enough....but then it should be added that all those games are from different periods....

Coming back to the screenshots, in my opinion SOW looks best, even now, and I am sure that the terrain is far from being actually finished, or rendered in the final way, as I said earlier.

thanks for the update oleg,did get to see it until now:)