Oleg there is a thread here about nightfighters.Have you changed your opinion of this and could we see a 'nightfighter/nightbomber' add on for SoW?

Oleg,another question! Earlier this year you came to the UK with Ilya for the flight sim conference at Birmingham.Do you have any plans to appear in Europe again soon?

It is. Posted right now.

Can't say you now. Maybe.

............
 

Thanks for opening a seperate room, Evgeny. It'll be easier to find all of Oleg's quotes in one place with out casting a net trying to get a minnow. (so to say.)

Thanks Oleg, (you finally did it, you finally modeled grass like you once talked about doing someday!) Congratulations!

Thanks Evgeny, the answers thread is a good idea :) (if you want me to compile past answers let me know).

Re: Flightsim conference, we should find a way to offer them a free holiday...

Thank you for the answers:

"a) Different people would have blindness for different time. Try to use yourself the light source in a almost dark room that to get the answer. Try with your friend. But don’t use too power light of camera flash for such experiments!"

This looks like a perfect place to use the capabilities of the new variation between individual AI in their capabilities doesn't it? ;)

thanks for the update oleg, have a good new year and christmas!

Thanks for the Update Oleg! I have a question concerning the damage model: If one of the parts shown on the pictures is hit, will it definitively be damaged or is a probability function used to determine the damage done.

For example:

Compressor is hit by a machine gun bullet:
In 50% of the cases the bullet bounces of and nothing happens,
in 10% of the cases the compressor will be damaged but still works with decreased performance and in all other cases the compressor will be completely damaged.

could we have some indication of release.. I am not talking about date here... I am talking about Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 -08.... or even -09?

For a project this size I gather there must be some kind of projectplan/schedule?

Oleg said somewhere here that he might be able to give system specs by summer. So Q1 and Q2 are out of the question I'd say.

thank you Mr. Maddox for up date

Yes thanks for the update :)
 

Merry Christmas and Happy New year everyone :)

Thanks Oleg and 1C Crew!

hey oleg, happy new year and merry christmas, thanks for these nice gifts :D

the new 3D grass looks great already !

hi oleg:

will we have windsocks at airfields showing us wind strenght and wind direction in real time ?

and air currents like cross winds, tail winds affecting our aircrafts on takeoff and landings ?

Question to Oleg Maddox
 

Question to Oleg Maddox regarding Storm of War - BoB

Dear Oleg,

My question to you is about how the new SoW engine will handle aircraft loadouts - outfittings and ordanance, like bombs, rockets, droptanks, tropical filters, cannon gondolas etc.

The current Il-2 engine seems to handle each loadout as if it was a different aircraft.
A 109 has different model if it has a bomb, if it`s a clean fighter etc. There are only pre-sets to choose from, and they work like a bit if they would a 'new' aircraft type, each pre-set loadout with its own flight model etc.

Will SoW : BoB feature more freedom to us in this regard - a modular selection of loadouts? Meaning, selection of individual components to add (guns, droptanks, bombs, all selected individually), instead of choosing pre-set?s

Shall we be able to select ANY mixture of equipments our liking, ie. say, I want to have a G-6, add a /U4 modification so it would have an MK 108, an R VI gondola kit for extra 20mm wing cannons, and as an odd selection, I also choose to carry a 250 kg bomb ? Add a tropical filter if I want? Or an external armored glass for an Emil or Friedrich ? Any combination of the above (within historical limits of the aircraft).

We can then check boxes when selecting the aircraft we want to fly, to select desired individual equipment modules, instead of just choosing from 3-4 fixed presets.

This especially applies to bombers, will there be only pre-set bombloads to choose from, or we can set up our own mixture (within historical limits of plane of course)? There could be a lot of combinations for these, and currently Il-2 only allows for only a limited number, not covering all historical possibilities.

I understand this is not so much of an issue for the BoB - fighters had very limited external stores, if any at the time - but in a later edition of BoB : SoW, as it gets expanded it will become more important.

Will loadouts have a historical date associated with them, ie. if a given loadout was not used before a certain date, then it would be only available for choosing if the date is proper? Say special types of bombs introduced in 1943 (in later addons) not being available for choosing for missions in 1942?

Thank you for your answers in advance!

good questions Kurfy.

Honestly I am not a friend of that suggestion, Kurfürst. IMO the preset loadouts are the best way - both from a historical and technical POV. I mean it's not like flying a Bf 109 G-6/R6 one day and have the techs reconfigure it into a G-6/U4 ten minutes before take-off. That wouldn't work in reality and so it shouldn't in game, either.
What should be done instead is giving more care to the selection of historically relevant loadouts - there simply shouldn't be loadouts which weren't used in combat (e.g. Mk108 gondolas on the 109s, Mk 103 gondolas on late 190s or 2 SC2000 on Ju 88 ). A broad range of loadouts is available for almost any plane. That should be sufficient.

sounds like load out expansion over time. 1940 load outs in '40. '41 loads in 1941 along with those from the 40's and so on.

Maybe a system with predefined loadouts as in Il-2 would still work well for BOB but not in the upcoming Korea sim and with some late fighter bombers/attack aircraft. In Il-2 the F4U-1D loadout list is already extremely long ( 46 entries) and still doesn't contain all possible, or even historical combinations. For example there is no option to have just napalm tanks and nothing else.

In Korea Corsairs could additionally carry light bombs instead of HVARs on the outer wing racks. However often not all stations would be used and planes did operate with just 4 HVARs or 5 100 ibs bombs and also asymmetrical loadouts were possible. Modeling this with the Il-2 static loadout system would result in much more than 100 possible combinations.

With the Il-2 engine it is apparently very difficult or time consuming to add new loadouts to planes. It's maybe more work to implement a flexible system as proposed by Kurfürst, but over the years it will save time and will allow us to exploit the full potential of all eventually modeled aircraft, within their historic limitations.

Good call Kurfurst. If its that hard for the developer to pre-define combinations of weapons, let the customer/server do it.

Perhaps offer a few widely used weapon loadouts for the Newbies, maybe depending on difficulty settings.

Kurfurst:: I think the planes under differing loadouts have the same basic model, but parts of the model like pylons are used in-game if a weapon requires it. Not sure. I think that's how it can work in the StrikeFighters.

It`s not really a question of pre-set/modular loadouts, and it could be very well done with modular layout. It`s only a matter of setting certain flags, and programming the engine to understand them. It`s not even more work to do, since it`s the same time wheter you set these flagseach and every time you add a new plane (ie. set attributes for a 109E with droptanks, then the 109F with droptaks, then the 109G with droptank - instead, it`s much easier to set attributes for droptank only once, since it`s the same on all aircraft and then just refer to this set of attributes later)

If certain equipment was historically permanent, then, during campaign, on the plane you have (as I believe SOW will keep track of the player`s aircraft log - engines, airframes will be worn out etc) it remains constant and cannot be added/selected; but for purposes of dogfight servers, they could be set to be freely choosen/removed any time by the player.

Here is how I imagine - there would be a seperate txt file (like current Il-2) describing the available loadouts; files describing aircraft FM woud refer to these files, and take them into account. Any combination that isn`t ruled out by incompatibility of loadouts (ie. you can`t have droptanks AND bombs on the fuselage rack at the same time!) can be selected with a selection box.

The advantage is that this work only needs to be done once - you describe, and later add new modules to it as development progresses, and it`s much easier to overview and debug for the developer as well; it also frees the developer to make each and every time all combinations of aircraft loadout. Ie. what is easier, having fixed preset loadouts, basically a 'new' aircraft model for every variation such as :


Bf 109G-6
Bf 109G-6 with droptank
Bf 109G-6 with 4 small bombs
Bf 109G-6 with 1 big bomb
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb type SC 250
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb type SD 250
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb type PC 250
Bf 109G-6 with 1 cluster bomb
Bf 109G-6 with 1 droptank

Bf 109G-6 and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with droptank and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with 4 small bombs and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with 1 big bomb and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb
Bf 109G-6 with 1 cluster bomb and tropical filter

Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and droptank
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 4 small bombs
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb type SC 250
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb type SD 250
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb type PC 250
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 cluster bomb

Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and droptank and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 4 small bombs and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb type SC 250 and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb type SD 250 and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb type PC 250 and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 cluster bomb and tropical filter

Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and droptank
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and 4 small bombs
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and 1 big bomb, type SC 250
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and 1 big bomb, type SD 250
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and 1 big bomb, type PC 250
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and 1 cluster bomb

Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and droptank and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and 4 small bombs and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and 1 big bomb type SC 250 and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and 1 big bomb type SD 250 and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and 1 big bomb type PC 250 and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and 1 cluster bomb and tropical filter

etc. etc.

Then do the same thing for G-2, G-14 etc, oh and yes, you will have to adjust all of their FMs every time you tune the single base aircraft`s FM...

OR as selectable checkboxes, valid for

General
X tropical filter (or in case of a 109E/F, here could be an external armored windshield, too)

Centerline rack
- 4 SD 50 small bombs
- 4 SC 50
X one SC 250
- one SC 250
- PC 250
- One AB 250/1
- One AB 250/2
- One AB 250/3 etc.
- One 300 liter droptank

Underwing pylons
- 2x21cm rockets
- 2x20mm cannons in gondola

You can select exactly the same combinations, and more...

Which one is much easier for the developer in the long term, gives much more combinations to the player to choose from, and which one makes more sense..?

;;109EFGK_centerlinedroptank
text : An external 300 liter droptank used commonly on LW fighters during WW2
type : SPcamp_selectable; MPcamp_selectable; DFser_selectable; centerlinestore
date : 9_40
ammo :
belt_customizealbe :
weapon weight : 7.5;220;0.0;0.04
drag : 0.04; 0.005
jettisonalbe : YES
hp : 1; fueltank
incompatible : 109centerline_store
designation : addnothing

;;109G_U4_MK108
text : The MK 108 was begun to be used on the Bf 109G-6 from 1943 onwards; it was a permanent installation, meaning that only aircraft which have been built as such in the factory had them; such planes received the additional designation of /U4
type : SPcamp_fixed; MPcamp_selectonce; DFser_selectable; permanent_installation; motorkanone
date : 6_43
ammo : 65
belt_customizealbe : yes; MK108_viermot
weapon weight : 58;40;0.5;0
drag : 0.0
jettisonalbe : NO
hp : 10; gun
incompatible : none
designation : addfirst_'/U4'

;;109GK_gondolas
text : The 20mm gondolas were commonly used on the G and K series, and all aircraft were factory prepeared with wiring etc. to mount them; adding/removing the gondolas before mission to a plane was a matter of a couple minutes. Adding the gondolas did not change the aircraft`s designation - the, ie. G-6/R6 designation is wrongly used, such plane was still a G-6, carrying the Rüstsätz VI (ie. gondola field kit).
available : 109G-2; 109G-6; 109G-6late;109G-6/AS;109G-14; 109G-10; 109K-4
type : SPcamp_selectable; MPcamp_selectable; DFser_selectable; wingstore
date : 5_42
ammo : 135; 135
belt_customizealbe : yes; MG151_nonviermot
weapon weight : 135;80;0;0
drag : 0.0135
jettisonalbe : NO
location : 109FGK_winggondolamount1; 109FGK_winggondolamount2
hp : 10; gun
incompatible : 109G_R3_2x300liter_DT; 109GK_21cmrockets;
designation : addnothing


;;109F_gondolas
available : 109F-4
text : Some 109F-4`s had gondolas as well, however it was only available to aircraft prepeared in the factory for them; these aircraft were historically designated F-4/R1, so we have the same gondolas, but only for the F-4, and this time add designation, too!
type : SPcamp_selectable; MPcamp_selectable; DFser_selectable; wingstore
date : 1_42
ammo : 135; 135
belt_customizealbe : yes; MG151_nonviermot
weapon weight : 135;80;0;0
drag : 0.0135
jettisonalbe : NO
location : 109FGK_winggondolamount1; 109FGK_winggondolamount2
hp : 10; gun;
incompatible :
designation : addfirst_'/R1'

- name : this shows it`s the MK 108 engine cannon for the Bf 109G series for the programmers, mainly

- text : Here a short text for a 'floating help' can be entered to give information for the player when he puts the mouse pointer over the selected loadout)

- available : this loadout module can be selected on the following aircraft (can you imagine the list for a GP purpose bomb, say an SC 250, used by almost all aircraft, how much time this can save?)

- meaning you can`t remove or add it in the SP campaign, you can add it once to your aircraft in a hypothetical MP campaign to allow players to costumize their planes, but only once then it 'stucks' (ie. like the player would pick an G-6/U4 ship when replacement planes arrive from the factory),

- meaning it`s available for selection, where selection is allowed, from say, June 1943 etc.

- number of times weapons can be fired (counter), per gun

- flag if the weapons belt combination can be set by player; default belting, in this case, historical Luftwaffe belting used in the Western front against heavy bombers.

- Weight of the loadout it adds to the plane (58 kg); second number showing additional weight of ammo, which can decrease; third at which point of aircraft`s the Centre of gravity, front-back, left-right(this may be important for GM-1 system, rear tank of Mustang etc., where CoG was important)

- drag : the amount of drag that is added to the aircraft`s FM, until loadout is not jettisoned; second number, after loadout was jettisoned (ie. bombrack remains)

- jettisonable : yes or no; gondolas, fixed rocket rails cannot be, droptanks, bombs etc. can be jettisoned.

- predefined locations at which the SOW engine should add the external model

- Hit points the loadout possess before destroyed, 'gun' is type of aircraft part for special attributes (like inflammable or not, damagable by schrapnels etc.)

- incompatible : showing if you select this loadout, which others you can`t select before you remove it

I hope you see what system I`m thinking of. Really, it`s much better for everyone, developer and user alike.

Hmmmmm ...
 

The problem I have with this is that people will mix armament variations with bomb loadouts and vice versa - which in 99,9% of all cases would be ahistorical and technically impossible (real life, that is). Unless there's some "watchdog" keeping the user from glueing together what can't be glued together it's a suggestion that promotes dweebery, gaming-the-game-style behavior and erodes yet another layer of historical relevancy.

Sorry to say this but when I look at various boards (especially those of online servers) I usually see the big "BOOM-BOOM" loadouts (e.g. SC 2000 on Ju 88 ) while the historically relevant loadouts collect dust in the hangar because they don't offer enough instant destruction. I, first and foremost, am interested in flying "history-style" and this includes realistic loadouts. Most people simply don't know about them or do not care.

I don`t think you`ve read the above post of mine in which I describe how it would/should work in my understanding; if you`d have, you`d have noticed that there are settings which PROMOTE exactly the things you are asking for :

- that equipment has attribute to tell the ENGINE from what date a given loadout CAN be used from, ie. no more selection guns and bomb types that only become operational two years later...
- that equipment has attribute to tell the ENGINE with which other loadout CANNOT be used with/mixed.

Plus I believe you have an improper understanding of the working of these kits. These were meant to be modular in the first place, they could have been combined. Droptanks were combined with rockets, gondolas, bombs. HISTORICALLY. Some were common, others were not so common, but possible. '99,9% of all cases would be ahistorical and technically impossible' - sorry but you`re 'painting the devil on the wall' without too much basis I am afraid...

Especially in bombers there were a lot of combinations possible with bombload. It is simple a matter of programming to set certain bombloadouts incompatible with others, or that simply mix the best of the two systems - for example, you`d have pre-set bomb loadouts selectable like a trop filter, but you can still combine this with a tropical filter, a Kutonase, electric turrett etc.

Let`s be frank about it, Il-2`s original loadout GUI was NEVER meant to handle such insane amount of aircraft and loadouts... it was meant to be a sim for the Il-2 attack plane, for which the player could select a well defined number of loadouts... then Soviet fighters were added... then why not have opposing German fighters... why not have German bombers, too... why not Western Allied planes..

Currently we have only 2 British and 2 German fighters in BoB SOW, plus a couple of bombers. Yes, loadouts can be done in the old way, ie. presets and no ability to modularly fit only droptanks, only bombs, or rockets, or a combination of these... already that 3 is so many combinations that will make your scrolling-finger ache if you need to select these from pre-sets... not to mention programmer`s work, it will be many times the work for EACH aircraft. What if when we will have 50 aircraft? I tell you : it will consume so much work that de-bugging and FM-fine tuning will be much more difficult, since you will have to do it for each..

Basically, you want to limit every other player to what they can use and what they cannot; this should be a tool for server hosts, not an artifical limit imposed on most players by a small, hardcore minority (and yes, I like historical settings, too, but I don`t want to ruin the fun of those who just enjoy playing in other style).

It has nothing to do with method of selection the loadout, pre-set or modular; incompatibility between sets can be easily set, which would prevent impossible/ahistorical combinations. There are not too many of those, since aircraft were limited by takeoff weight and space/attachment points, and to some extent, Centre of Gravity. If the engine is well written, there should be problem with this - realistic physics take care of the rest - you can`t take off too much overloaded,

Pray tell me what is soo realistic about the current loadouts. That I can`t have a historical droptank for the 109F, because that loadout wasn`t made? That I can fly a Ju 88 with the SC 2000 AND full fuel load? That I can fly bombers overloaded, since nothing stops me from having max bombload and max fuel load, even if in real life it was either full fuel or full bombs.

That I am limited to those pre-set loadouts the developers given to me, even if there were other combination historically used?

Having SC 2000 on a Ju 88 - again, it has nothing to do with the method of selection. The problem can be easily solved if the server`s owner gets ability to set the availability and quantity of choosable equipment.

2, People are using big bombs because they only have targets - tanks, buildings etc. - that require big bombs.

Sure, people are not using a more historical loadout for say, a Ju 88, which was many 50 kg small bombs carried internally, and/or a couple of 250 kgers externally. And why are you surprised with that, what exactly should they bomb with 50 kgers - which in real life were used against soft targets, primarly infantry, by far the most numerous target on RL battlefields...

Now how many infantry do you see in this game? Is there a detailed DM for trucks and such that would allow fragments from small fragmentation bombs leak the engine, fuel tank, tires of a truck..?

You can`t expect real life tactics to be mimiced if the game does not mimics real life targets. Most of the time, we have tanks, guns and such as target - even in real life, they used bigger bombs against these...

And you missed my "message" - what I was trying to say is that people will sling a SC500 under a Bf 109 G-6 (I am still not convinced the 109s ever used bombs greater than a SC250 BTW) and add two MG 151/20 gondolas under the wings for more firepower. That is the kind of combo I want to prevent because it is ahistorical and a serious overload for the aircraft. In real life it would be a serious overload and would certainly put quite a dent into the aircraft's performance - no sane pilot would dare to fly that crate.

Bottom line for me is - history (and not just tech trials at Rechlin - frontline availability and use count as much and even more!) must be the fundament for the technical details. In Il-2 there are a load of ahistorical and useless loadout selections (Mk 108 and Mk 103 gunpods) which were never issued to the front and therefore misplaced while others, historically relevant loadouts (can you say Pb-1 and Pb-2?) were omitted because of time and ressource issues of the developer. Right now I see the system in Il-2 as technically fine - just the loaudout details need a revision.

@csThor

but kurfürst did say that such combinations as you quoted would make an aircraft unflyable in the sim.
And he did also reason why there have to be non-historic loadout to handle a non-historic target-environment.
Where couldn´t you follow his reasoning?

To be honest I did not read anything that would indicate such limitations in Kurfürst's words. If I indeed missed this intent then I'm sorry.

But don't we all know that "people" wouldn't bother with reading documentation? They'd come here, or to some other board and whine and b*tch and moan about whatever comes to their mind if things didn't go according to "their way". Maybe I'm a cynic but I have stopped believing in the ability of people to understand what rules and regulations are for. I've read so many whines about planesets, loadout limitations or similar stuff that I no longer have any illusions about what a lot of people really seek in a combat flight simulator - instant gratification. And since I am some kind of "purist" I am rather weary of such mechanisms. :)

i just have to agree with you

I don't understand why the attitude of people that want to play "air quake" should have any influence on the features in BOB. A simulator should try to model reality as good as possible. If people have problems with that they should try another genre.

As Kurfürst said the current system in Il-2 is just extremely cumbersome. It only works well for aircraft with a rather limited capability to carry air to ground weapons.

I see no reason why overloading aircraft shouldn't be possible. If your bombload is too heavy your plane will simply not be able to take off or the climbrate will be minimal. If a station can't handle a SC 2000 bomb it simply wouldn't be selectable. If the BOB engine can simulate changes in fm and weakened substructure due to battle damage, it can handle the negative effects of carrying too heavy bombs as well. Thus flying an overloaded aircraft will be a very unpleasant experience.

... and then - what?

First of all, available stores can be simply listed for the plane. If the SC 500 is not on that list, because it was not available for a plane type the player is not able to select it in the first place.

Again, historical accuracy has nothing to do with the method wheter you choose your aircraft`s loadout from a rigid preset or put it together from single pieces.

Secondly, incompatibility with other loadouts also is simple to program as attribute; simply you give it attribiutes that if player chooses Loadout A (say, droptank) he can no longer select Loadout B (say, an SC 250), but he can select something else, like an external armored glass, tropical filter or such.

So, in a practical example, there`s nothing preventing the developer, should evidence arise - other than your belief that it wasn`t if I may add - to that the 500 kg bomb could not be used with gondolas, then he could simply add a line to the section describing the gondolas that once they are choosen, 500 kg cannot be choosen, and vica versa; or to add a line to the 500kg bomb that it cannot be used with certain plane subtypes (because it is too big for them).

Again, if you`d have actually bothered to read what I`ve written, you`d stop having the false idea that I propose that every plane should be able to choose every loadout, 109s with SC 1800 and the like. That is NOT what I propose.

What I propose is basically a streamlining of the GUI to a much more user friendly one, which is easy to overview, and perhaps easier to develop in the long term. Otherwise, when you will have aircraft with 2-3-4-5 attachment points, historical possibility for rear tanks to be filled, extra ammunition, you will either have to spend a lot of time having either

a, an EXTREME number of loadouts listed, with high probability that something will be overlooked and bugged
b, simply not having several important, and historical loadouts available to the user

PS - 109K was the first one to have been officially cleared for the 500kg bombs, and I suspect it was possible on late versions with the long tailwheel - it was a ground clearance issue with bigger bombs, not a takeoff weight issue.

Dear Thor, it is you who think it`s 'ahistorical and a serious overload'. It could be easily demonstrated that you are wrong in this - this is not the place, or time for such - but basically you want to dictate what people should be able to fly, and what they cannont, and I am not 100% you have a solid base to decide over that.

I am not in favour of 'purist' players dictating 'casual' players what they can fly and cannot; he majority of the customers are not 'purist', nor for the matter of fact these 'purist' have the right idea always; often they only have just some strong-headedness. Not that historical accuracy should be sacrificed, not at all - it should be available to the server HOST as a tool to decide what equipment does he makes available, and to what extent (ie. no rare/experimental loadouts allowed, limited number of plane types that saw service in small numbers etc.)

I've written that down clearly in my previous post, it`s a pity you don`t bother to read them.

Now, if one would want to fly in a 'purist' enviroment, he is free to create his own server or join a server made for 'purist' players with full real settings. But others should able to select more casual simulation experience.

The limitations of the plane are written down in their manuals. The manuals are available.
It`s easy to sort out what can be fitted to each plane and what not.
It`s also irrelevant from the point of historical/technical accuracy, wheter you choose that from a pre-set list or 'build' your own loadout from given modules (bombs, rockets,etc).

The advantage of a modular ordonance system would be :

- ability to use any and all historical combinations, not limited by the amount of resources spent on it by the developer
- much simplier and less work for the developer on the long term
- and actually easy-to-use GUI, thinking ahead when we will have dozens of planes with hundreds of loadouts.

Overall, you completely miss the point and simply do not get what I propose.

In theory it`s a fine idea. Question is, where do you stop? OK, you say the MK 108 was not available in big numbers until 1944 (in the big picture), so let`s not make it, a loadout, unavailable. OK, that`s fine.

Problem starts when you have to apply it to all others - eventually, there will be hundreds of loadouts, and dozens of flyable aircraft.

Will you do the historical research on availability for EACH and EVERY aircraft, bomb type and so on? How many FW 190s were available on June 1942? How many droptanks for them in September 1943? How many P-47s had paddle props in March 1944? How many gondolas were issued to Bf 109 units on November 1944? How many SC 1800 bombs dropped by Stukas in 1943/

You have any idea how difficult would that be?

You keep arguing that somehow choosing from a preset would guarantee historical accacy; YET the current loadouts, choosen from exactly that kind of preset are in many cases ahistorical.

And again, it has nothing to do how the loadout it selected; the adding of the MK 108 gondolas had nothing to do with how the loadout was selected; the lacking of Panzerblitz rockets have nothing to do how the loadout is selected. Historical accuracy has nothing to do how the loadout is selected.

It`s purely a practical question of GUI and development. This decision must be taken early, as later it is difficult to revise it.

Disagree. It may have been sufficient when it was developed and all it had to do as to select 1-2 bomb loadouts for available for a single plane. In the long term it won`t do, and it will burden the development team to spend it`s resources to far more important task.

It`s simply inflexible, limits your choices to those that could be done in a limited amount of time, and later there`s usually no big change - new developments taking away resources simply.. for how long do we lack vital loadouts for the 109F and others because of this??!!

The other thing in the GUI that would be definietely useful with over time is a FILTER function for PLANE SELECTION.

I.e. ability to show only FIGHTERs, BOMBERS, ATTACK aircraft etc; this combined with some advanced, multi-lever filtering (ALLIED + BOMBER + MID WAR for example).

Again, it`s not an issue yet, but it will be when there will be a lot of planes.

I´m so happy we have such a genious here Kurfurst! Im sure your advices will be noticed by 1C. Actually I think those Ideas are now #1 on their what would we concider list. I´m so happy!!

Usually I take my whole family to hear what has been written by you. You should see how thankfull and impressed they are!! Our life has changed. Thank You and Merry Christmas!!

at least is HE not writing pointless posts like some other people

Good ideas Kurfurst. Thank you. http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d1...eys/thumbs.gif

There are uses also for non-historical loadouts in any computer game -- if I read you correctly, non-historical loadouts would still be counted in the FM calculations over mass, drag, inertia, etc... In my original plan for Eastern Front dynamic campaign, where the Luftwaffe conducts strategic bombing, the Soviet PVO may keep RS-82 for the interceptors. I heard that the rockets were popular among some pilots and they wished they were available for fighter use after 1942, but the "higher ups" way high in the command or above, decided to stop rockets as air-air weaponry. I don't know anything more about this. But if LW heavy bombers flew high overhead to the Urals, I would like a campaign variable that may, or may not, allow RS-82 for things like, say, MiG-3U or I-185.

Me, I would just like to see RS series rockets for the Pe-2...

As for the idea of releasing five expansions, one for each year: I like it! :D

Mission Builder Tool
 

Oleg, are we going to get a competent mission builder tool in BOB SOW equal to the old MSFT CFS2 or Jane's WW2 Fighters Mission Builder?

I can see both POV's on this and both are valid to a degree. I think the key to making SoW a success would be flexibility. I would like to see the following when it comes to load outs for both offline and online:

Historical option:
Have the ability to lock ordinance. This would mean if it wasn’t used historically it’s not available period. No mix and match ability.

What if option:
Have the ability to mix and match ordinance but with historical limitations, i.e. if the ordinance wasn't available at that time or in that theatre then you can't use it. While still using historical ordinance, you have the ability to load a G6 with gun pods and a SC250kg.

Free for all option:
Have the ability to go nuts. Here you could use whatever ordinance will fit no matter the historical side of it. Load Mk-108’s in the FW-190 A1, 2 or 3. It’s not historical but then again it’s not meant to be.

With all of these options, however, there is also the user’s setting of the FM. Obviously if you select full real then there should be a an indicator like a bar that climbs to the a cut off where it's simply say’s your too heavy or it’s unsafe to fly.

Flexibility is the key I think, anyone from the single player to server mods should have the ability to choose these options. After all how historical are labels and padlocking? ;)

A question for Oleg.....Did the "hack" of IL-2, slow the development of SOW Bob?.....in general, you have been silent on this issue, please comment if you would

The answer is that the 4.05 hack did. It lead to extra work being allocated to adding protection for the 4.06-4.08m series. The second hack then partially bypassed this protection but Oleg had moved his team to finishing Bob by then and Oleg decided to make no "move to parry it" (so it shouldn't have cost the team time).

Oleg: Will you be making everyone that worked on the recent map pack Beta Testers for Bob? I would like to nominate them (after all they know enough they could even help test the map tools etc.)

S!

thanks for the beta Oleg and co, a great gift, better than the socks I received :D

Small question from me here: Will it be corrected?

I noticed kind of bug on maps with water above 0m in perfect mode, water=2.

The waves with the reflections appear to be at 0 meters, although the surface of the lake is much higher. One can see through the landscape, so to speak.

Thank's, but the question was not for you to answer....lol

slipball
 

I think the fact that the moderator here, Evgeny has asked that the hack not be discussed on this board pretty much answers the question...I don't think it did 1c any good - but telling us all just exactly how much extra work it caused or created might only encourage some unfortunate persons - and yeah I know - no one asked me either.

Thanks to Oleg for taking the time to address questions related to the SoW:BoB - it is appreciated

Roger that!....I must have missed that request from Evgeny

WoW - this board is as active as the UBI one ever was....nice!

hope you are having a great holiday Slipball! party on

Oleg,I don't know if this question has already been asked but here goes:
In il2 online most servers have skin download set to 'OFF'. Now we have some great new default skins with 4.09 patch, but sometimes the skins do not fit with a particular map/scenario.
Would it be possible to have more than one default skin per plane in SoW?
For example:
default 1= Winter skin
default 2=summer skin
default 3=desert skin
etc.

I have been hoping to see something like this for some time now only with a few twists....

1:Make the default aircraft definable. That way custom skins could be used as the default skins.. whatever skin you had defined as the default on your PC. If there were multiple settings set on the server side.... 1)Skin download on or off 2)Defineable Default skins on or off. That way a server host could set what he liked.... and on the client side 2 skin assignments as default set with a switch. This is doable... It would be better if it were done by 1C.

2:Set by making the default skin assignable. With the final say so on the server side... say if the server has skin DLs off... then it will go to the #1 default (the stock one) regardless to where you have your PC set.. but if it is set to default 2 it will go to the assignable default..... unless you have skDL turned off on your pc then that would overide the dl option on the server sider for your pc. With the server setting default 1 or 2 it would eliminate guys putting neon skins on all the bogies in full immersion servers...

Yes. But, if the answer is known and you find it satisfying then this saves time and gives you a chance to try for getting another question answered. Some question that only Oleg would know... or this is how I think of it.

Yes, a very good point

Dear Oleg
 

Dear Oleg,you are requested to answer the only question.
Does the version 4.08m comprise the propeller position?
I am not interested in the level of that mentioned.
I'm only interested in the fact if the version includes the propeller position.
http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthrea...=48188&page=16

It would be cool if "BoB SoW" had mission (RAF) briefings that used animations with the look and feel of this picture...

I would personally prefer a single paper map and notepad on a blank surface. The biggest enhancement I can think of would be to allow for scripting decisions into the mission briefing.

One could use a text interface and decide to ground a tired pilot or make a minor adjustment to the waypoints. Even, if one isn't in a position of command, then one could ask questions or point out things to the commander that might have similar effects. This could all be third party, Oleg simply has to build in the capability.

*whoops sorry! I thought this was a new thread. I already proposed a similar idea here and this isn't the place to have discussions. S!*

I don't know if this has been answered already but i'm wondering how you will see the cockpit in BOB. in IL2 it's more like you have only one eye, 2D, can't see what's behind bars etc.

will this be 'fixed' in BOB so you see with 2 eyes in 3D ?

Yes, Bobby. SoW:BoB will had the ability to see around bars. You'll lean into the gun sight. You can look over your shoulder and see around the headrest armour etc etc.

SoW:BoB will incorporate 6 Degrees of Freedom.

For a good idea of what to expect check out a few Goggle videos from the Shockwave game Battle of Britain:Wings of Victory. See Vee has posted a few 6DoF videos.

Hi Oleg! Love Sturmovik et al. I'm sure you are under a lot of pressure in getting BoB up and running. Also heard that you are a big BF-109G fan. I have this idea, perhaps you can fit it in as an add on level for 1946 much like you did with the add ons to Sturmovik. What I was thinking of, was the IL-2 "1948" expansion pack for 1946 that includes the Israel War of Independence. Here is a link about the 'Avia Knife' (knife, German for 'Messer' for Messershmitt) that was first in service in the Israeli Air Force. It would be cool to see such an add on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avia_S-199 as well as

http://101squadron.com/book.html


Another 'wish' I have wanted is to show off my flying skills to people who do not own a copy of Sturmovik or Pacific Fighters or 1946 without having to create a big movie. Is is possible for you to create a 'viewer only' program that would allow others to see things when I send them attachments. You will probably quadruple your sales if you did.

Just advice them to buy 1946 Jack. Oleg can quadruple sales that way without spending a lot of time, and at the same time the people you send the tracks to could enjoy the best flight (combat) simulator in all it's glory.:)

Either tha6t or send them here: Flightsim Machinima. I sold more copies of FBGOLD when I worked at best by by looping tracks and running films I uploaded to store PCs than any amount of talk...

Big Jack does have a point though, it would be nice to have a view mode of some sort so that you don't have to spawn into the game to view it. I quite often show up when my squad is in the middle of co-ops, and it would be nice to pop in and watch the festivities while I wait for the mext mission. I can think of several other uses as well, such as movie making.

I know it will have 6DOF. I was thinking more about having "2 eyes" then a bar wouldn't block out as much vision.

I've always thought the cockpit bars in IL2 were too big. There's too many places for the enemy to hide behind. The cockpit for the Me 109 (E3 or is that E4?) looks to have more realistic bars and struts. (or at least won't obliterate your forward vision like some pits do.)

I understand what you mean now. Stereoscopic vision. One poster a long time ago suggested to have the cockpit bars 'blurry and more translucent' as you get to the edges of the bars for IL2 cockpits. This would mimic stereoscopic vision.

We are still dealing with 2 dimentional objects on a flat screen, sadly. It would be nice if something could be arranged like that.

Hmmmmmmmmmm. SoW:BoB the first combat flight simulator to come with 3D glasses and 6DoF.

Exactly!

I don't know about 3d glasses though, that together with a cap and the track ir device it would really look like i'm trying to contact mars :grin:

Its an E-3 (as it turns out E-4s were actually E-3s). In anycase, the SOW:BOB cockpits will be definative: http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/IL2BO...Transition.jpg

I've always liked that shot. Good to see it again.


Bobby, do you have the DVD that came with IL2 46? If you have it check out the pictures of the developement team. There's one guy with a Track IR reflector that looks like a mini Tea Ball hanging to the tip of his nose. I'd hate to forget I'm wearing that and am down at the local watering hole.

(I gather he made this devise before 6 DoF was released by Natural Point. Not sure what he'd devise for that....LOL I thought it was uniquely ingenious, myself.)

THX Oleg & 1C!

For news and this forum, and for making us junkies all these years...

The place for news of SoW.Forget the other forum.

2 Questions for Oleg:
 

(1) What i'd really like to know is if there will Custom Squadron Insigna/Regimentals for Coops and Online gameplay. Also will there be online squadron command & control upport in the interface like current pilot rosters, killbaords, pilot records ect. for online squadrons. If not could these things be added by 3rd party.

(2) If i resend you the Regimental Files that i gave you after Pacfic-Fighters was realesed...could we mayby get at least the 58th Fighter Group 5th AF coded in the game so the regimentals for thess squadron's will show in the FMB & Coop Screens? I know that there is little time but it's been over 2 years now. i still have the file if you want it.

thanks Oleg :cool:

Oleg: I know the game engine will feature dynamic campaigns, but will there also be any sort of static campaign following the historic events for each day as they can be read in history books (with the approximate numbers of raids and the targets for those raids - airfields or London etc.)?
Will there be historically accurate weather for each of those days (I mean will there be ex. fog/rain/clear on certain days in the campaign)?

i agree with everyone else. il2 is a fabulous sim, but to me it seems that all the flyable a/c and AI a/c are in some kind of hyper mode.

Oleg I thought I would pass on this idea,

Dynamic weathering (already used on aircraft) + complex weather = dynamic snowfall?

It would be neat to have ground textures, as well as weather conditions, varying on a daily basis. It could be done in the rendering instead of using separate texture files...

I'm not asking for it as it may not be feasible, but I thought it was a 'cool' idea that you might find amusing...

Are you kidding? I sent half of Hollywood to that site last year!

At least she knows what a BORG is. She can't be all that bad. ;)

May be that this has been suggested allready, but did not want to read all 57 pages just to find out...

Could the online player/scorelist be "adjustable" by server? Meaning that you could leave it as it is now or set it for example like this: Players can see who is playing on wich side, but not the types of the planes used.

At the moment you can see what planes people are flying with and you can anticipate their actions. For example if you see that there are plenty of bombers, you would take gunpods with you and head for the most likely direction of incoming bombers.

Not knowing what enemies you have against you would add some realism and make sorties more exciting.

CH

Online aspects of game
 

I am not sure if these questions have been asked before, but here goes…

You have mentioned the network code is being greatly or even totally reworked. At present Il2 1946 is one of the few games that can be played with pings ranging from 0 to 500 plus quite easily.
Will the code of Storm of War be as accommodating?

Secondly, will Storm of War allow moving objects (tanks and ships) during online play? This cannot be done in online play with Il2.

Being a regular flyer on the ADW servers, I was wondering whether Storm of War would accommodate similar statistics and online play?
Also mission times are limited to one hour segments in ADW (Il2 Commander), will Storm of War allow longer online missions, even perhaps a persistent online universe?
And I second the suggestion from CH Kurkio above that the online plane lists should not tell people what the enemy is flying...
A bomber squadron without escorts would be slaughtered, while a large gaggle of flighters would be ignored...
Knowing what the enemy is flying is unrealistic and that information should be found out the hard way, and simply not by pressing the S key

Lastly being a huge fan of the Red Baron 2 series, I was wondering how interactive and immerse individual pilot careers would be depicted in the single player game. Would it say be possible to say tangle with a top ace such as Galand, maybe even down him or fly alongside Bader, Johnston or Sailor Malan to name a few?

Is it possible to desync La-5/7 APIT(Armor Piercing Incendary Tracer) ammo rounds like this:

Shvak1 -– APIT-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-APIT-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE

Shvak2 -– HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-APIT-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-APIT

For now Shvak ammo belts on La-5/7 looks like:

Shvak1 – APIT-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-APIT

Shvak2 – APIT-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-APIT

APIT rounds fired two at the time with huge intervals (~1 second) between them, thus making harder to correct burst by tracers, and less chances that single APIT round hit the enemy plane...

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2519

Trainer Airplanes?
 

Hi Oleg

A few months ago there was a rumor in the SimHQ forum that there will be a Tiger Moth
and a german trainer airplane( Bücker Jungmann or FW 44 Stieglitz) flyable in SOW.

Is that true, and if... what will be the german one? Pleeeeease tell me that it is.

A couple requests please
 

Dear Mr. Maddox and Team
May I offer a couple of suggestions?

Firstly: Would it be possible to set up the Joystick Controller Interface so that one button on the joystick can be used as a shift key, thus doubling the number of functions on ones Joystick, as is done in this game. 'link enclosed'. I believe it would be greatly appreciated by many users, if this could be implemented, in your Far Superior Game. I currently use a MSFFB2 Joystick.

The second thing which I would like to ask is that multiple profiles be allowed for joystick configuration. I fly on both open pit and closed pit servers. On the closed pit servers I like to use Trac IR4. when I fly this way, I use the hat switch for trim functions, on the open pit servers, I use the stock key mappings for views, and not use Trac IR4.
Or might It be possible to start with a completely blank profile, and have the option of blanking out a command, without having to re assign preassigned buttons to a different command, as is now the case?


Currently, to be able to do this, two different pilot profiles must be set up. An off line game must be started, using the profile which one might wish to use on line. the game must be closed, then the online game started.

Alternately, a person could go in to the Users folder and set up two different profiles for the two different modes TIR or not, again one must go into the ofline mode to choose the profile.

The point I wish to make is that this is time intensive and frustrating for some people.
Most people today, as I believe you know, don't want to bother with going so deep into the program. Ease of use = more sales I believe.

I love this game, thank you so much for your efforts, and thank you for your time, and consideration.

334th_Gazoo0
http://www.334theaglesquadron.com


https://fighterace.ketsujin.com//default2.asp

You should give Autohotkey a try. IIRC it gives you the ability to map keys and macros to any input device. (even DirectX-buttons like the BU0836 and similar devices for homebuilt cockpits)

I got my CH Fighterstick (gameport) shortly after the initial release and I had a config mapped that used the Pinkie-Button with "Shift". That included some remapping in the game, but it was pretty easy to use and in the beginning it was the most easy way to program the stick.

Thank you Feuerfalke. I will most definitely use this program!
I don't know if it would be possible..not being a programmer, but could this program or something similar be ported to IL2? If practical, it might save money. It would save a lot of frustration for noobs.

4.08m
 

http://papuasoff1.diinoweb.com/files...et_dannie.djvu
Hi Oleg!
As we (Russian players) are not able to contact you on the Russian site because of your being noteasy of access.I'm trying to rnow until you are heard.
I'm still iterested in the question concerning the propellers step.
My question given now in other way.You might have misunderstoodme, if you had got me message.
I found a book,titled "Now to get the best flight data on Yk"1947y.
It say on page 26, that if to put the radiator's shutter "forward the stream", it will give more positive effect when flying horizontally at the maximum speed than flying with the shutters being closed.
Dose the game include this effect or is this set in the game IL-2 ver. 4.08m?
The next question is given to be answered.
Dose the game include the, climate temperature calculation I mean 'summer-winter'?
According to the characteristic of the aircraft YK with the engine VK-105PF it is clear, the maximum power of the engine at altitude till 2000m can be reached with the 2600 RPM.The curves of Zhukovskiy have not cancelled by anyone yet(page 54,55).This the curve of Peno when referring to the book.
It is also says,that incereasing of the shutter step with the reducing of the 150 RPM leads to the reducing of the characteristic of the engine high-altitude being at 450 m.
Dose the game include this effect or is this set in the game IL-2 ver. 4.08m?
The total questions now.Is there the incereasing of the effect of propeller operations(К.П.Д.-rus) while the propeller's rotations are being reduced at a low altitude inthe game IL-2 ver. 4.08m?These are page of the book I referred to p.35 .

These are the questions in which we (all the Russian players) are mostly interested.
http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=50065
http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthrea...=48188&page=16
If you confirm the presence of all the games terms,your arguments will prove the autheticity of FM in the game wth IL-2 ver.4.08m.

This was something that was also a known benefit in the P-51 (i.e. having the radiator open actually created greater airspeed than having it closed) that is NOT modeled in this sim.

The "Meredith effect" wasn't just pertaining to the the two above mentioned aircraft.

Its not modelled in IL2 1946 across the board "afaik".

Many aircraft would benefit from this "effect".

Any chance of a WWI game
 

I love Oleg's WWII flight sims. I wonder, however, if it might be possible at some point to get a WWI game? It hasn.t been done decently in YEARS, and I really think it's an incredible period to explore.

Vila, check out:
http://www.gennadich.com/
http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2407238#Post240 7238
S!

Not sure if this has been asked already, I couldn't find the answer, so if Oleg is still answering questions then I would like to ask:

Will Device Link or another type of interface will be available for SOW when online for simpits? I would like to use 3rd party gauges like the one in the link below when on-line.


http://gear.ign.com/articles/807/807903p1.html

Too Cool. Ill be buying them when I can afford. They would really help navigating the full switch servers!

334th_Gazoo0

http://www.334theaglesquadron.com

Request for BoB

That server admin be able to add additionnal skin (on the server side) that could be downloaded (and saved) on the player side for future use.

This wouls add to the number of skins available in a given server. These could be saved in a server specific folder (could be the server I.P.). This would means that eache server (and player) "default" skins would increase with time... and no loading screen freeze would happend (over time) as everybody will eventually have the new skins on their hard drive... Also having specific server folder would prevent having to different skins with the same file name from being copied over....

1) I hate to throw this question out now (hours after you posted questions for Oleg) but I was wondering if the "delay"(?) in the "SoW BoB" development had something to do with the delay of the "new" OpenGL 3.0?

2) I was wondering if the "RRG's" "Project Galba" had anything to do with the new "SoW" game engine, and if it was a "Korean War" fighter sim...

3)I was wondering if maybe you could "wet our appetites" with some of the details of dynamic weather?
3,a...will their be a historical weather feature (the weather will play out, day by day, as it did in historical records) that matches weather conditions in the game with that day in history?
3,b...will their be a mission building feature where the player can choose weather conditions that "play-out" (example...high pressure sunny day over south England with a "cold front sweeping in from the north") or will it be a "drop down feature" like we have now (clear,sunny,cloudy,rainy,snowy)...

4) To what altitude will the "game engine" be modeled...will the FM be accurate above 20,000 feet?

5) Will their be a "dynamic" nightime sky (changing/accurate star patterns and moon phases) so that we can navigate by the stars? Also this would aid in recreating night time conditions for mission building (full moon or new moon)

Maybe the star patterns and moon phases could be matched to the "day, month, and year" selected in the mission builder, and matched to where you are on the map...

Sorry these question are "last minute"... :) :) :)

This feature is present in Il-2. Except that on dedicated server. Each new skin downloaded automaticall stored on user PC... and then never downloads again if the same player plays with you with the same skin on his side. There is system of check and identification that is way more complex and that works better than you ask.

Oleg, thanks for your update on 1946 and SoW. Regarding 4.09, with it now being open beta, can you tell us exactly what is planned for the final 4.09m release? Any new flyable aircraft in particular?

any new SCREENSHOTS for SoW oleg? can you give us some more low altitude terrain shots please ? )

Oleg will post some news on SOW soon.

Thanks for the answers about BoB.

I understand it is a difficult task to answer our questions while having in mind not to promise too much and lay too many things open to the competitors.

I'm sure SoW will set a new milestone in the gamebusiness. Keep up the good work.

Thanks you for the answers to my questions Oleg...But to clarify one answer about atmosphere modeling...Am I right in assuming that you are modeling the atmosphere (air density and temperature) up to 10,000 meters (and no higher)?

Thanks... :)

I just stumbled over following youtube clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxCqInwQ790

I think it really would add enormous atmosphere if we had a bit more communication between the different positions in a bomber. I guess, as in IL2 there won't be four engine bombers flyable but even on twin engine bombers key positions will be the same. The difference will just be the number of gunner positions.

I think it really would add something. And it would be great to get a few different accents of actors.

Btw will it be possible to "feed" the KI navigator with a course and he'll give instructions on course? At least for offline playing?

Yes, it would, thats a wonderful clip. It might be possible to have the 3rd party do most of the work. If Oleg made the architecture open enough... ;)

Most of this conversation couldn't be reproduced but certainly it would be possible to have the rear gunner announce that the plane was "under attack" or that he had "shot down the enemy fighter" or warn of the danger of colliding with a "bomber at 3 O'clock low".

Similarly, having generic descriptions of ground targets like "3+ merchants and one destroyer" or "I see another destroyer", would increase immersion and situational awareness.

My hopes are, we will have multiplayer-manned bombers in dogfights, too, and hopefully BoB will also include a working VOIP-system, so you don't have to beg people to join TS to achieve basic teamplay.....

It would also be neat if one could set a timer so that a formation of AI bombers & escorts would spawn along with the player bombers (the option would appear every x number of minutes).

What would be great, too, is that you could hear the pilot's hard breathing while on high g. In some sims it is done this way and it adds a lot of immersion.

Nice to see some Pilot legs and hands, too, as much as some reflexions in the canopy and some imperfection in the canopy glas like scratches, ...

of course these features should be turned off by the user in order to get more performance if needed.

1 question to oleg

is SOW delayed because 1 its a complex game and 2 that you are also making other bits of the war like north africa and mabey some of the pacific missions so you dont keep us in suppence for as long as now and bring them out in like 2-3 month? thats just my theroy

Why can´t everybody quit nagging and suggesting things to oleg regarding this still unfinished project.
What i have heard about oleg is that he has very specific ideas how and in which way something should be done.
When HE has finished HIS product the way HE thinks it is well, then we can start to disagree, to nag or to suggest changes, if we have reason.
Then oleg will have eventually time to change HIS product.
If he starts to regard all the changes and wishes said here SOW will never be ready for sale!!!

Missing aircraft from IL-2
 

~S~ All Ty Oleg for an awesome game . Theres a list of flyable aircraft in Il-2 thats longer than my arm . My question is this ..Why are these planes left off the " list " F4U-4 Corsair , F8F Bearcat , and F7F Tigercat . These aircraft flew and were in combat squadrons . The -4 Corsairs were an improved version and did see considerable service . F7F`s also were deployed as nightfighters off Okinawa . As far as the F8F , they were aboard USS LANGLEY as the atomic bombs were delivered . Is there a reason these fine birds are not available in the game ? Thanks for your time . Keep up the GREAT work ~S~ VF19 NAPALM (VF19 Commanding Officer )