4.09 Final
 

This post is a repeat of one I started elsewhere,I think I should have posted
it here first.
Just a quick enquiry as whether a sea Hurricane could be bought into the 1946 4.09 final update ,ie Early model with tailhook and possibly the
seagladiator,as there are no early war RN carrier A/C for making convoy carrier escort missions for the early war.The Norway and Murmansk maps are in the mission builder but we only need the correct A/C to build missions around this era.
There are nice skins available that model both the Sea Hurricane and one that gives the impression of the Fulmar when placed in the Hurricane
folder and there is a version for the F4F-3.The U.S.A small escort carriers would fill the role of the carriers and there are many other Battle Actions where these could be used to simulate the Historic events.Not sure if the Sea gladiator had a hook.S!

6DOF and damage model
 

Okay, here's a thought. Perhaps rather trivial, but great for immersion :)

Will the position of your head as determined by a TrackIR device with 6DOF also be used in the Damage Model calculations? (preferably optional because of obvious advantages to non TrackIR users)

I was reading "The Big Show" by Pierre Clostermann and he describes that whenever he was attacking (ground) targets he would lower his head and basically creep behind the engine/armour plating . With 6DOF you can do the same. It would be nice to know it would actually help in the game :)

Posted this over at UBI BoB wish list threadh about views, and Fly by view to be more exact.

"A small silly thing one might think:

As i fly all settings, cockpit on and off, depending on mood, i wouldnt mind seeing a differant Fly by view (F6?)

The new one could be something like a small camera view from just behind the rear canopy framing (behind the pilot) or even infront of the pilot for that matter. When using the Fly by view u see the rear (canopy to maby) of your ac, with tail, rudder, elevator. The view beeing something like 30 degrees to either side and up and a restricted view on either side down.

Or something simillar to this without having to use a differant code for every ac in game...or something.

The benefitt of this would be more immersive view, (not a full blown view of everything behind u like now, including your own ac seen from the front), and u would still have WW view but essentially taking away half of its effectivness compared to now. A good comprimise i think.


I know, a silly thing looking at the big picture, but i think is thoose little things that will make a nice cake in the end.

To me it would look bad if pretty much anything looks femilliar from IL2.(No presure Oleg :))"

My wish list :

Life on the ground, beeing able to embark / disembark from the plane and control your pilot even if it's very rudimentary (Remember Interstate 82?)

Spits with no anti gravity pods.

Me 109 with real manoeuvrability, that means able to turn over 320 km/h.

This isn't a wish list. It is a genuine whining list :-P

Time schedule!
 

Hi! maybe u have answered this question already but here I go...

Can u tell when u think the game will be finished and when the final release will be? I can totaly understand if its hard to tell a week or month but in half a years difference may work?
reg
Mats Jonsson
sweden

A few more questions :

g, Will it be possible to fly night-time bomber missions with Luftwaffe bombers, using historical radio-navigational guidance systems (Knickebein, the most commonly used one; and perhaps even X and Y Systems)

h, What version of propeller system we will get in 109E, the Automatic prop pitch system (mentioned in 1939 manuals) or the fully manual one (which was still in use on some planes during Battle).

i, To what depth engine management will be modelled complex, and improvement over Il-2`s? Meaning here _not_ detailed startup procedure etc, but for example use of optimal combination of RPM, Mixture, boost to maximize endurance or range (as instructed by real life manuals). Like realistic characteristics of how engines work, a bit more complicated consumption than power x specific consumption gram/liter/hour/horsepower.

j, Will photo-reconnaissance missions implemented (recon bombers, later perhaps recon fighters) on a meaningful level - ie. good shots need to be taken of target actually ?

k, Will there be a good and and more realistic, and especially IMMERSIVE pre-flight briefing.. ie. briefing room, or briefing on the grass airfield, 3D models of the players aircraft warming up, being serviced by mechanics, shots of the target (taken from 3D engine) shown to player about target, with priority targets marked on them. etc.

+1

Thankalot Avimimus.Well, i hope he will, sometimes. The Thing with the ILS and similar avionics isnt of interest for me. I only want more "Fun Planes" like the Sukhoi, some aerobatic biplanes or STOL planes. Who Da Hell pays a lot of money for a Flying game and then let the autopilot/ ILS do all the work? :-)

Some very good ideas there Kurfurst. Imagine the tension of flying an unarmed photo recon fighter. I hope the engine will have suitable viewing range for that.

I once read in the accounts of a Spitfire recon pilot that they were flying high enough to take photos of factories in the Ruhr while still flying over Holland :shock: They used to say "When you flew so high and the outside temperature is so low, a lot of times condensation formed on the canopy and you could barely see outside. At times like that you always had the feeling the air was crawling with Messerschmitts".

Radio navigation equipment would be very nice to have as well and it was not that complicated so it could be modeled at some stage. I'd really like to fly blind bombing night raids with a He111 over London, or mark a target for Lancasters in a Mosquito master bomber later in the war.

Most important thing for me however would be a detailed engine management model. Right now we have aircraft that used manual systems perform fine with minimal management, while others which used sophisticated automatic systems perform better in a manual mode. This effectively penalises aircraft with automatic systems in some cases, due to the way prop pitch is modelled and the nature of the 5min resetting overheat timer before the engine goes dead.

It would be really nice to have varying degrees of engine damage due to poor handling, instead of the all or nothing affair in the IL2 engine. I'm not complaining about IL2, in fact i've bought every single incarnation of the game since day one, but the game engine is getting old. If it didn't Oleg wouldn't make BoB on a new engine, he would release it as an IL2 expansion ;)

+1

Good points here.

Not sure whether this has been mentioned before.

Cancelling a 'Bale Out'
---------------------
It would be nice to be able to cancel baling out, as recorded in some RL stories.
Also it's such a pity to see your plane fly away from you as you recover from a stall at the last moment :cool:

Hey Oleg, are you still alive?? Hello ? *sound of silence ensues*

yeah, a response every 3 weeks seemed too good to be true. ah well, like anyone here ISNT used to waiting?

all in good time I guess.

Release date
 

Ubisoft and IGN are still punting April 2008, boy what a laugh.
Assuming we have not even entered Beta stage, one has to guess SOW BOB will only see the light of day in 2009.
My guess is directx 10 and opengl 3 have pushed Oelg's baby back abit.
Of major concern to me however is will SOW support xp at all.
Lets look at Microsoft's desired or proclaimed intention of produce a new operating system every two to three years.
A projected and updated timeline would be highly appreciated.

One month since last update, maybe we'll get some news in ... oh, you know what I mean ;)

Okay what gives with SOW BoB?

Simple questions:

Has the SOW engine been finished yet, and I am just talking about the basic game engine here?

Has any of the flight modeling of any of the planes been completed?

Will it support core 2 and quad core cpu’s?

Does it support directx 10 and opengl3?

Geez, hes answered most of the improtant questions, give the guy a break and let him get on with the sim.

The posts which whine and moan about the sim not being finished make the authors look like little kids.

In university I'm supposed to report back every week about the status of my work otherwise I get in trouble, so are my professors childish? Don't think so.

Btw. it would be soo easy to fool the community, just feeding them year old screens. That way Oleg wouldn't risk any of his new features and yet would stop the cries for "updates".

...and as noone here knows where the development stands at the moment so he couldn't be disproved anyway.

Not really a question, but more wanting some feedback on something that has hit the community as of not long ago.

Oleg, as I bet you are more than aware, someone cracked the format which has now created things such as the sound mod, bomber mod, and various other mods that have opened up AI aircraft, among other things, to the public.

I understand your reasoning to completely locking up IL-2 from the majority of modding. It's mainly because you likely don't want this game to turn into games like CFS2 where people can mod the game to make planes shoot straighter than a pin, and be able to climb into the stratosphere in an ultralight, and no way to prevent multiplayer games from becoming hackfests.

That's where I think you're right, and from my being in a game development college, I can see where you're coming from. However, at the same time, I believe that this game has tremendous potential for expandability, and the speed of the number of 'mods' that came out shows how enthusiastic the community is to have it (the sounds themselves are perhaps the most popular), and now that the cat's out of the bag, so to speak, it's going to be hard to prevent the format from being hacked again and again. Now, the thing is, is that instead of blocking all attempts at modding to try to protect the game from cheating, what about embracing the community?

Since I also play other games, like first person shooters and real time strategy games, I've seen modding a fair bit. Now, how those developers dealt with it, is that in order to make a mod, you had to create a seperate mod file, which an ingame mod manager enabled in order to play it. Turn it off, and the game becomes stock. And, if you modified the existing game files, then the multiplayer game server would ban you. It's a way that has been done many times in many games, and it's a tried and tested method. And, they also use cheat blocking software, which in the end makes it mostly foolproof, and barely more vulnerable than even closed-source software.

I know of a lot of people who would love to finish the aircraft, ship, vehicle, and tank catalogs in this game, and do other adjustments. Although it would take some effort to develop and install a mod manager for a future patch, it would be worth it, because it would extend the longetivity of the game, even after BoB is released. Modded games have near-infinite shelf lives, and I know this because even today I play games like Total Annihilation (a game released almost ten years ago!), just for the mods.

How I think it could be done, is this: make two sets of files, one which are compressed, compiled, and very hard to reverse engineer for the core game (the SFS file format for example), and a modable version of an SFS file. Then, using the mod manager, you can load the mod SFS file(s) in order to load extra aircraft, sounds, etc. That way, when you join a game server, and you have mods running (or the lack of certain ones), it can prevent you from joining, citing the reasons.

This way, everyone wins, because that way people get their mods, and the illegal hack mods would be pointless to exploit (except for cheaters, and we know that your current system covers that already). It would make your life easier as you wouldn't need to make a new SFS format every time a new patch comes out, and it would make the game self-sustaining, which can put your entire team's focus onto BoB. And heck, if some mods are good enough, you could even impliment them officially into a later patch!

Anyway, that's my two cents on the whole matter. Now I'd like to hear your thoughts, Oleg. :)

(I don't want people outside of 1C staff from replying, as this is strictly for Oleg's Q&A)

Hello everybody!

Until now I have the feeling you guys in 1C are really paying attention to the learning curve the players of this kind of games have to go through to really be able to enjoy them.
I think this is the only way to ensure a future for the combat sim community.
I had read about the not so complex engine management procedures, mix, pith control, the fantastic Tiger Moth... but what about gunnery?
From my experience, to master gunnery is one of the most difficult and sometimes frustrating experiences that I had to deal with in this game.

Are you planning to implement some kind of option, feature (more elaborate that the arcade mode on IL2) to help with gunnery?

Waiting has not ever been so sweet.
Looking forward for BOB, enjoying every minute in Il2.
Regards, Solrac.

4.09 has work started on the on server application yet?

Oleg, what is going on with 4.09 ?? what is the delay ?

When we will have window to complete 4.09. It may happen only when we will finish one of our milestones for BoB. Currently all are too busy.

thanks for the updates on SOW:BoB Oleg!

There will be an option of difficulty settings: Special marker will show you the point where you should shoot. This marker will show optimal forestall place(point) where you should put your bullets (before, over, etc ).

This one felt like a nasty punch in the stomach. How exactly will you select them? Regular members on the forums or something?

There are enough people that aided to the IL2-Series for years and several of them have real plane flying experience. It's not about numbers of post in the forums, but knowledge what has to be done.

Yeah it's probably that. I can very much put up with waiting for BoB, but I don't think I'll survive knowing that some people are playing it, when everybody else still needs to wait.

How did the Il2 beta go?

I am Beta-Tester for the Battlefield-Series for some years, now. You know, new releases, Patches, Addons, Online-Stats and stuff.
As much fun as it sometimes might be, it's not at all like playing the game while everybody else has to wait. Sometimes you get builds that are so buggy you can reinstall the game each time you start it up and then it crashes and you can start all over again. Sometimes you sit hours about forums and INI-files to get it working. And then there's nothing like "let's play and have fun." Usually you are on Teamspeak with other people, you try to find bugs and exploits, ask other people to test things and see if it was just an incident or if it really is a bug you can reproduce, then you got to document, take screenshots and grab videos, etc. Sometimes you just stand there for hours shooting weapons at different objects and other players under exact reproducable circumstances to test weapons balancing and hitzones.

I can imagine that it is pretty much the same in the flightsim-business - if not even harder.

Thanks for the time, Oleg. Much appreciated.

Thanks for taking the time to answer questions, Oleg. You are appreciated here. (at least mostly) :)

I think it's very encouraging that the development team has taken heed of what the players would like to see. Since the game is already in development and you can't just add things midway without having an engine that supports certain game mechanics, it's safe to assume that they have been listening all this time and planning things in advance.

The new engine management and the modeling of early WW2 electronics that carries potential for a night bombing campaign down the road are the two most anticipated things for me. IL2 is still a very enjoyable sim, but the thing that mostly feels lacking in realism is the way engines and overheat are modeled. I'm certainly very glad it's included in their list of improvements.

I for one am very excited about all the new possibilities. Also, i don't mind waiting an extra month or two for 4.09 as long as BoB keeps going strong.
I'd much rather wait a little more for the new maps and have a video of a working BoB engine, or even things you can't show in screenshots/videos like completed flight models for BoB.

There is only one thing that worries me and that's how much money i will need to spend on a new PC to run this game when it gets released :grin:

My guess is that with it's phazed intoduction. The engine forever being improved, original specs will most likely be a top to medium range system now and slowly increasing.
Il2 worked fine on my old Geforce 2 card when I first got it and since then has kept most of my new cards running happily. I have a vore 2 duo and a 8800gt now and it happily shunts 1946 maxed out.
My guess is SOW BOB will let me run the game on medium to low settings without an upgrade.
But as we know most developers are given sneak peaks at hardware we have never seen or heard of before to make sure of compatability. But I serious doubt any current top range computer system will not be able to play the game. I guess 4.09 when it hits the the servers will give us our best idea of what SOW is going to need as a minimuim PC.

It was allready stated, that SoW:BoB will run with high details on a system that runs IL2-1946 at high details, too. Even more than with the IL2-Engine there are certain options, that will become finished and available as the product evolves and hardware meets the specifications needed.

IMHO this is the best way to please all sides of the market.

you mean SoW:BoB will run at low details on a system that runs il2 at high details well..........

Whatever the system requirements might be, forcing people to have a Core 2 Duo/quad + 8800 series to run decent graphics wouldn't be smart in such a niche market.

Same with FSX, people just kept flying FS2004 because it looked better then FSX on their systems.

Still many months/year to go before release, an 8800gt by then will be old.
One has to assume the game is going to be Vista friendly and most likely optimised for Directx 10.
But like most game it will support Directx 9 and XP. But the pendilum will swing as Vista becomes faster and less bloated and XP like windows 98 will fade into the unsupported category :(

Well, if you want to run IL2-1946 4.09beta with all details set to maximum, you need a damn fine machine to keep FPS above 30. If you fly above cities and zoom in, you can be lucky to have above 10 FPS even with stuff like Effects=2 disabled.

But if you look at games like UT3 you can easily see what can be done with modern engines using modern hardware to the edge and not with workarounds on a 10 year old program. And UT3 works on pretty medicore systems in full details.

Oleg always posted that it is useless to upgrade prior to the release and that many people will be surprised how good the game will work. It was that way with IL2, too, as he also stated in another interview. You never needed a 1000$ PC to run the game on full details.

I don't know if this as been changed but Oleg stated that BoB will NOT be DX10.... he is sticking with Open GL....

I, for one, would certainly be loathe to install Vista on my machine, it breaks too much.

Well, if he's really said so then we have no reason to worry.

It's true that they have a good track record with IL2. I'm running 46 on a 3 year old system (AMD AthlonXP 2600+, 1.2GB RAM, Nvidia 6600GT 128MB) and while i can't max out everything, i can still run at 1024x768 on high detail settings or 1280x1024 on medium.

I will need to upgrade either way but i'm holding out on it because i'm leaving for 12 month military duty in May. So, when i get back and get a new PC it will be better than what i'd get if i upgraded now and probably run BoB even better.

As for Vista, we can't avoid using it in the long run but we can postpone it until they fix things. Due to Vista's issues many gamers stick with XP, so after the initial "no XP support from now on" there's word of a Service Pack 3 for XP around the corner. Vista also had the SP1 Beta released recently. In fact, not only gamers stick with XP, there have been rumors about big companies in the PC industry installing Vista in their offices and rolling back to XP within a week :grin:

XP had its issues too, but with SP2 it's one of the most stable windows versions ever. So i guess the same will happen with Vista after a while. And since we can have a new SP3 to keep XP up to date, this wait will not be a big deal. The thing is that they rush their projects and that's where most problems come from. I didn't upgrade to XP immediately because of that (i was running win98 2nd edition till the release of SP1) and i'm not upgrading to Vista for the same reason. But if Vista goes the way of XP, in a couple of years we'll have a stable system again. So i don't see this as too much of a big deal.

By the way, is the effects=2 trigger something i missed (i don't know what it is) or is it in the 4.09 Beta? The only thing i remember changing in the conf.ini file was the water detail level and i think there was another trigger for trees. Can someone give me a list of the most used conf.ini settings that alter graphics?

Effects=2 enables more 3-dimensional looking smoke and explosions. Very nice to look at, but a huge hit on your performance. As Oleg posted again and again: Wait until BoB is released, if you consider an upgrade for BoB. Who knows what hardware will be available then... :(

No... My statement was that Bob _will_run_ on the system on which now Il-2 series run at highest detail... But it doesn't means that it will run on high detail on that system... This means that probably it will be lowest settings...

Correct in terms if you don't play any other games... or waiting for other games that will be released more early than BoB.
Anyway, I personally plan to upgrage my home PC only _after_ release of BoB.

There are other games worth waiting for? :grin:

Sorry I got your quote wrong about the performance relation, but thanks for clearing that up. I remember getting shot down dozens of times, while I stared at the visual details in IL2 - I guess I will be easy prey when BoB will be released with all the eyecandy. ;)

To recap the interview with Oleg by Mysticpuma:

*SoW will be multi-core capable, from what I can gather Intel released the updated compiler that Oleg was after in Nov07.

*Oleg stated that SoW will be OpenGL, but had no problem running it in DX10 under Vista.

Also I bought Vista 64 Ultimate just over a month ago. I have had NOT one BSOD yet. It's been the most stable Windows OS I have ever used to date.

I'd like to know if ingame-voice coms will be redone for SoW. I think it is one of the most important features for a teamgame and it surely adds to immersion as well. AFAIK there are a few developers allready in contact with the developers of Teamspeak2 to incorporate their new release into their games.

Hello everyone
I am new to this forum and I came to make a request
OLEG I know you are with all the attention directed to the BoB
But it would be possible that you refizesse the flight model of the P-36 and MS-406 and 410 and becomes flyables them?

Curtiss P-36A,or Hawk 75A3

Propulsion

Powerplant: Pratt & Whitney R-1830
Horsepower: 1050 hp

Performance:
Range: 830 miles (1336.00 Km)
Cruise Speed: 250.00 mph (402.00 Km/H)
Max Speed: 313.00 Mph (504.00 Km/H) ___(in il-2 434km/h)
Ceiling: 32700.0 Ft

Curtiss P-36G, or Hawk 75A4

PERFORMANCE:

Engine(s): 1 x Wright R-1820-G205A Cyclone piston radial engine generating 1,200hp.
Maximum Speed: 322 mph | 518 km/h | 280 kts ____(in il-2 459km/h)
Maximum Range: 650 miles | 1,046 km
Service Ceiling: 32,349 ft | 9,860 m | 6.1 miles
Climb Rate: 2,500 ft/min (761.6 m/min)


ARMAMENT:

External Hardpoints: 1
Armament:
4 x 7.62mm machine guns
2 x 12.7mm machine guns

Morane Saulnier MS 406

Performance
Maximum speed: 486 km/h at 5,000 m (290 mph at 16,400 ft) ____(in Il-2 is 440km/h)
Range: 1,000 km (620 mi)
Rate of climb: 13.0 m/s (2,560 ft/min)
Wing loading: 141.9 kg/m² (29.1 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 260 W/kg (0.16 hp/lb)


In the game it is slower than i-16 type 24, mc-200...It is horrible
Without mentioning that the MS-406 which is a turtle
One more detail:max dive speed Hawk 75 is 600km/h and Hawk 81 is 760km/h
Remembering that the wings are identical, the only thing that changes is the engine

You probably have to wait years until you see these changes.

Work on IL2 has stopped and the number of planes in SoW:BoB will be rather limited compared to what we have in IL2-1946 now. But as they will be way more detailed, I bet they'll be much closer to what they were in reality, than we have it in IL2-1946.

I only say one thing
Will be D-520 and Bloch-152 at the BOB?

I'm sure I'll love it, but a missing element for me is the freaking pilot! We should at least have the option of looking down and seeing arms and legs! Not like the planes flew themselves. Only thing IL2 I really don't like (oh, and bring back high gore).

I thought it was allready confirmed we will see a pilot in SoW?:confused:

oh, I must have missed it! - I guess I was more reflecting on IL2, but will be happy if they include the pilot in the next one :)

Well, I am not that sure, but I think I remember a statement about that being planned.

THX for answer Oleg!

Very sad :(

Actually Erpr.Gr.210 started Battle of Britain, were the most successfull Bf110 unit during it and in nov40 - jan 41 were "the only day bombers", continued flying antiship operations over the channel.

Bf110D-0/B or D-3 could add some more really interest to the game.
Production:

"Caesar"

Bf110C-1: 195 from 1.39 to 2.40
Bf110C-2: 359 from 9.39 to 7.40 (some of them received MG-FF/M on summer 1940, "converting it to C-4")
Bf110C-4: 155 from 4.40 to 9.40
Bf110C-7: 39 from 7.40 to 9.40

"Dora"

Bf110D-0: 83 from 3.40 to 8.40
Bf110D-0>D-1: 21 from 7.40 to 8.40
Bf110D-0/B>D-3: 18 from 8.40 to 8.40
Bf110D-2: 73 from 7.40 to 9.40
Bf110D-3: 254 from 7.40 to 3.41

"Emil"

Bf110E-1: 334 from 8.40 to 8.41

Anyway, I appreciate all the choise.

Complex Engine Management we need variations

It is amazing how many Online servers allow only CEM. I do the Online for enjoyment and going through all the processes of CEM is just a nuisance. Afterall, we are flying a computer.

Currently, I have an X-Keys (macro programmable keyboard). I simply have macros that set the prop pitch according to % throttle. I have my little macros set efficiently to do as good as I could do for most part. Afterall, I make several C.E.M. adjustments on the basis of other adjustments, i.e, raise prop pitch when I raise throttle, or lower prop pitch when I lower throttle, open cowls when I'm high throttle too long, etc.

I suggest a toggle for allowing NO CEM, but the toggle is a very competent automatic CEM management system. Let people that want to go through all the keystrokes do their thing for CEM, let people like me that care less for all the keystrokes. I want to do well online, but I don't care to make it so complicated.

I fly WW2 sims, because I like things more simple. I don't fly Falcon 4.0 or other complex sims.

Are you thinking to have C.E.M.
1. For those players that want to make all the keystokes,
2. For those players that want automatic C.E.M. that is pre-set very competently by the sim
3. For those players that want automatic C.E.M. that is just O.K.

I'd rather have more realistic CEM as opposed to the fairly generic system we have at present...let it be modelled for each individual aircraft/engine type and have a realistic effect on performance.
Realistic fuel systems including the need to switch fuel tanks and modelling their effect ona planes COG would be nice too :)

There are complex games now that answer peoples need for the complex,i.e, MSFT FLight Simulator and X-Plane flight simulator. You can do all the buttons, controls and complex navigation. You talk about getting with it, you can even fly virtual airlines, with all the ATC, FAA approach and departure charting, along with complex flight plans, etc. You can in fact build a flight plan you can fly in the real world and execute it on the on of those flight simulators without ever leaving the ground.

I do CFS2, IL2 and the BOB II. Just keeping up with all the different keystroke commands is an exercise in memory management. Then you poke in C.E.M. and to be honest I'm overwhelmed. I just don't want all that complexity to have a little fun.

In fact, I understand there is a new X-keys programmable keyboard that will allow keeping files of your keystrokes. You can effectively create a file for Il2, a file for BOB II, and a file for CFS2. Then the keystrokes on the programmable keyboard can be programmed for the same functions for all sims. All the user has to do is remember one set of keystrokes and the macro files sort out the memory wizardry.

http://www.xkeys.com/

That makes a lot of sense to me. Then of course there are some variations on things in the sims that don't quite work the same, but for the most part there are enough commands that do the same thing to make it worth the effort to build the files.

I have three large file case size boxes full of combat flight sim games. I mean I've got all the Jane's stuff, EAW, RedBaron, etc.

So, maybe over the years I've become an overwhelmed player. I mean memory wise. I would love to go back and play some of those old games that have been upgraded, i.e., Longbow, Enemy Engaged, EAW, USAF, Jane's F/A-18, Falcon 4.0: Allied Force, but it'll take a couple weeks just to catch up on the keystrokes for one of those great old sim games.

SO... yes I have a reason for wanting to inhibit some of the complexity that others seem to enjoy. I don't think I'm alone in this, because I recognize alot of the nicknames, like mine that have been hanging around flight sim forums since...the old DOS Jet game. LOL

@nearmiss
As more complex as better -> it trains the situational awareness when you have to fight
and to control all aspects of the plane.
Then you can profit from the automatic systems the german planes had and the allied didn´t, like the automatic prop pitch in the 109 or the motor management unit in the 190.
That is very important in a semi realistic sim of ww2.

robtek, you fail to see the point: yes, it's almost unreal that Oleg and his crew put all the effort to model CEM. But the big let-down is that you can't simply fly most of the planes without fiddling waaay to much, while online.
More than 90% of the online servers require CEM; there should have been the users' option if they want it or not; give me an OK-ish automanagement and I'll be happy to join in. If you want to personally manage the engine, great; but I don't want, yet I'm forced to.

With optional automanagement, the game would still compute the inner workings.

I think when people say CEM in BoB, they don't mean complex starting procedures and engine warm up. What they mean is correct use of throttle, pitch and mixture combinations.

I would like to see this modeled as well and Oleg's latest answers somewhat confirm that they've planned something like this, probably according to aircraft manuals of the time.

Of course, some people would not like this. Well, the solution is simple. It should be a realism setting just like black outs, realistic gunnery and so on. Maybe have more than an on/off option, say something like no CEM, simple (AI aided) CEM and full complex CEM.

However, in an online game it wouldn't make sense to allow an on-the-fly switch between CEM modes. It should be a realism setting that's enforced by the server. Why? Well, for the reason robtek mentioned. If i go online and fly an aircraft with an automatic system, i obviously want an aircraft with an advantage in engine management and trade something else for it. If i want good maneuverability i'll fly a Spitfire, if i want to have carefree engine handling i'll fly a 109.

It would make absolutely no sense to allow multiple CEM realism settings in the same server environment, as this obviously becomes an advantage for those using AI assisted CEM and also forces everyone else to use it too. In a high/full real server and such a server's admin and player population these things obviously matter.

Imagine for example flying in a locked cockpit server. Does it make sense to allow people to choose if they want to enable external views with the same ease they can switch the speedbar between metric and imperial units? Of course it doesn't, because then even those who wanted to fly a cockpit-only map would be forced to use externals to make up for the other player's advantage.

Make it a setting in the realism panel and there will be servers that run with simplified CEM and complex CEM, so everyone can take their pick. If however people who want to fly with complex CEM are forced to compete with people who want simplified CEM, then they will be rightfully annoyed that someone is essentially dragging their intended realism settings down.

@bomath
i can only agree to the post from blackdog_kt.
I think it is you who misses the point.
Obviously the majority of online players want cem on or it would be turned off by the server providers.
So if you want to compete on a level you also have to use it on a server where most of the people want it.
Just see it as a challenge. In a football game they also don´t change the rules just because someone complains.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...5641027835/p/1

Yeah, the Zoo can have useful info too. But the problem is that whitin a game/sim you don't get any feedback about how you set up your engine; the classic example is propeller pitch, which *sounds* like the engine is running suboptimal while in fact you get more power. It's simply weird to have memorized pages and pages of technical sheets just to be able to fly effectively; where's the much-appreciated „flying by the seat of your pants”?
One more example: radiator settings. It's counterintuitive to have higher temps with the cowls open (because you don't get the same speed, mainly). How can a game simulate that?

You know, the term „overmodelled” can have an equivalent: over-simulated. It aplies when one game simulates the feature X while it can't give a sensible feedback on that X setting...

In real life you got most available engine power at maximum boost + maximum rpm (which is 100/110% boost and 100% rpm in game).

See this diagram: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/merlin3curve.jpg

It shows that maximum power for Merlin III (blue line), which is achieved at 3000 rpm (maximum allowed rpm for that engine) and 6 1/4 lbs (maximum boost for 87 octane fuel) or 12 lbs (maximum boost for 100 octane fuel) respectively.

So every setting below 100/110% boost and 100% pitch gives you less engine power in real life.

The "only reason" to reduce engine rpm is "to treat the engine with care"; 100/110% boost and 100% pitch is only allowed for 5 minutes in real life.

Do that with the Me 110, and your engine will burn within 15 seconds....

just because the manual systems of the DaimlerBenz engines (where you control the propellerbladeangle direclty) and the system of a ContantSpeedPropeller (where you control the engine rpm, the propellerbladeangle is actually controlled automaticly) both are naming "this" thing pitch.................................

im still ooking forward what kind of propellersystem MAddox will programm in SoW:BoB
->
http://www.franky.fliegerhospital.de/AutopitchJG53.jpg

I had the Merlin III in mind, sorry for the confusion.

In DB60x its the same rule: Max Power is at max permissable RPM and Boost. The only thing is that in DB60x the pilot has to control the prop angle himself (in manual mode) to keep the max permissable RPM.

That's one of the main questions for both "sides".

Maybe we have to choose between 2-pitch (Hurri, Spit) and manual variable pitch (Bf 109, Bf 110) ... disputable which one is better.

2-pitch allows easy flying without much thinking about engine RPM (except for power dive) but you will have suboptimal power output while climbing or in combat. (The "fine" setting was only allowed for take-off and landing, not for climbing or fighting)

Manual variable pitch requires constantly attention on the engine rpm and adjusting the propeller pitch, but when set properly gives you optimal power in any situation. If set wrong you get suboptimal power in the best case, but in the worst case it kills your engine in a few seconds.

Or we have constant speed for Hurricane and Spitfire and automatic for Bf 109 and Bf 110, then not much will change to the current situation. Propaby damage from overloading the engine with high boost and low rpm with the constant speed unit.

Hello Oleg

I fly mainly on-line on the Warclouds server where each side has assigned tasks of hitting ground targets and/or covering the attacking group or covering the targets. This works well with groups of 20 to 40 people on the server.

In BOB SOW On-Line servers it will be impossible to get realistic type BOB missions with so few human pilots. I would like to see the human bomber pilot be able to select 5/10/20/or100 etc AI bomber pilots to follow him on take-off or airstart. They could either follow him and drop bombs on his command or the human pilot could select a target and waypoints for the AI to follow. With an ability for the human pilot lead to be able to divert the formation to alternate targets while inflight. Human players could jump into any one of the aircraft in the formation at any time. This could also work for formations of fighters, where one human pilot could takeoff as leader of 2 to 12 AI fighter pilots who would attack at his command. The amount of squadrons would have to be limited by the server because you wouldn't want each human pilot to take up a squardron of fighters. Again human pilots would be able to take a slot in the fighter formation at any time.

I know you are modeling the ability to jump into other aircraft on the fly but not sure if you are modelling the human pilot to control a flight of more than one aircraft in an on-line situation.

~Salute~
Chivas

What...is your favourite colour?

............
 

Red. No, blue. AAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aah!

I'm colourbliiiiiind. :grin:

I am curious - how gunners weapon reload will be realised?

Will it be possible to change cartridge clip of MG 15 for example?

Aslo: MG-FF/M, mounted on Bf110C-4, had 180 rounds per each cannon. But cartridge clip is only 60 ruonds each, and actually gunner was those who changed it.

What if he will be killed? Will be reload possible in that case?

.
 

Oh you're really screwed then, Feuerfalke. :D ;)

My dad really is colour blind. It's sometimes funny to watch him try to decifer between football teams with similar coloured uniforms. (or between colours he can't differentiate.)

He'll think the Defensive Back makes an interception, and it turns out to be the opposing team's receiver. D'oh!!!!!

He's gotten quite good though on keeping the teams seperated, but still on ocassion he'll get flummoxed.

:grin:

Well, I'm not colorblind - that is actually what the guard says, when he falls in that movie (At least on the German synchronization). But I know the pain to be colorblind from a friend of mine.

....
 

LOL. Been a while since I saw MP&tHG. I shoulda remembered though.

You must get some laughs outta that sometimes Robert :lol:

Yeah, MP has his own humor, but I just love those movies. One of the best part in that movie IMHO is the one with the historican. It's just so absolutely senseless - LOL :grin:

I think the french are overmodelled in HG :)

...
 

I always got a kick from the minstrel following 'brave brave Sir Robin' and those rude French men as they tried to storm the castle. LOL

Engine Sound Problems
 

I have un-installed and re-install IL2 1946 more than 5 time in the last 5 days trying to isolate a sound problem. The problem is that every time I start / stop IL-2 and select a aircraft from arming when I start the a/c I may or may not have engine sound. Sometimes I'll have engine but it will come and go. Most of the times I lose the sound when the engine is between 1500-2700 rpm but sometimes I'll lose it between 500-1500 and it may come back in at 2000 or 2700. I have 4.091bm aI have UN-installed and re-install IL2 1946 more than 5 time in the last 5 days trying to isolate a sound problem. The problem is that every time I start / stop IL-2 and select a aircraft from arming when I start the a/c I may or may not have engine sound. Sometimes I'll have engine but it will come and go. Most of the times I lose the sound when the engine is between 1500-2700 rpm but sometimes I'll lose it between 500-1500 and it may come back in at 2000 or 2700. I have 4.091bm and .93 sound mod installed. I'm using a unified mod installer created by the 352ndvfg. No on else who has used the installer has had this problem. I'm attaching a pdf to show the error reported by 7 zip(rar) when extracting the file parts to my IL-2 Dir. Some time I can restart the game all the sound are all OK but not every time, thats the funny part is that it comes and goes at difference rpm ranges. Also 352ndvfg is using the latest mods is there unified installer. My system specs. are

p-4 3.0 Ghz
2.5 megs of memory
nvidia fx 7600CS card/w 512mb
160 sata hd with 91 gigs available
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 sound card (WDM) driver date 3/11/2004 /ver.=5.12.4.442

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

.....
 

Try installing without the hack to determine if that's the issue. Barring that, I'd suggest asking where you got the hack. My unhacked version works fine. ;)

Are you talking about the illegal hack/mod?? I wouldn't do that here....

Well well that is what you get from illegal hacks. And then they come and complain in Oleg's thread on his own company forum.

WE GOT NEWS ! WE GOT NEWS ! See this lovely 110 !!!! HAHA !

The grass looks interesting, but the real nice part is the super-detailed damage graphics (and I suppose that translates to detailed damage modelling).

I wonder if the game really calculates the surface damage when it does flight modelling; in IL-2 a tiny hole in a wing used to make your plane barely flyable...

110 looks awesome!

Sorry didn't know that 4.09b1m was and illegal hack.

"I have 4.091bm and .93 sound mod installed."

The sound hack is.

Fantastic new shots Oleg ! The aircraft look great, and the indicators are super.
I am looking so much forward to this sim !

Thank you---

...
 

Install JUST IL2 1946. try and see if your sound is okay. They the 4.08 and test sounds. THEN add the approved patch 4.09b1m and do the same. If all goes smoothly untill that point and you add the hack (.93 sound mod) then I'd think that was your issue.

Your Audigy drivers seem old. 2004 if I read correctly. Have you tried new ones?

Anyway, try the above a step at a time. If you have issues when adding the hack, your best source to fix the problem would be where you got the hack. I'm sure they have a tech forum there.


EDIT: have you used any of the new dll files that Crazy Ivan has been posting? Try WITHOUT upgrading those if you have been using them.

Nice pics Oleg, thanks. At first I laughed about the no-cockpit setup, then I thought it might be nice to be able to flick on some easily readable guages for a second or two while still maintaining SA. This may turn out to be a nice gift for your customers with aging eyes (a group which we both are joining ;) )

WIP Pics from Oleg
 

Thanks for the WIP pics Oleg - I liked the damage models of the 'Tiger Moth' and it was great to see the 'DO17Z' (sadly missed in IL2-though can't wait to see it flying in BOB).

The 'no cockpit instrument view' is much better than we have now, with authentic looking instruments.

Keep up your very good work - we will keep IL2 'happily going' until your release date for BOB Storm of War. Also special thanks to your staff who I am sure are all working on BOB with great dedication and devotion.

DFLion

C'mon Bad Aim, you do just fine with things as they are now!

Thanks for the up-dates, Oleg. It's clear that progress is being made.

Thanks for the update Oleg, very pleased to see the Do17 :)

....indeed, thanks! :) :) :)

Amazing pics... Damage model is that per bullet impact or a generic damage simulation.
In other words are you going to model each bullets tragectory into and out of the target or will a random algorythm be used to simulate the damage and respective damage model based on point of impact?

Glad to see the Dornier as well, will all seven gun positions be manable? and will the forward firing gun also be operational?

The terrian below the instument examples, is that SOW BoB terrian detail or a gerneric sampling? Also at what altitude were the terrain pics taken?

I'll try what you posted this weekend and report back with the results. By the way, thank very much for the help. Too-Cool