The guy wearing the blue shirt pointing at the screen, is that Oleg? Can anyone translate what he is describing?

No thats Ilya.

Oh

Nope, that's Ilya Shevchenko, or Luthier as he's known on here.

One thing that surprised me.... Oleg has shaved his moustache!! When did that happen??? I loved that moustache...

lol that reminds me of this video I just watched recently... :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq89U1rUqHE

Gun Sight View

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo01s9iWWps

There are no problem at all using Windows 2003 for gaming... I've played a lot of games on 2003 server and I've recently had many good games of RoF on a Windwos 2008R2 Server (64-bit though as there are no 32-bit editions of 2008R2). Naturally my prime gaming rig is a window 7 64-bit but now we are discussing theory here ;)

maby because wip, but, nobody else thinks that the speed of sea waves is too fast?

The graphics here don't look good :(

Interesting. I'll have to educate myself on this operating system. Does this OS require a specific CPU or MoBo or special kind of RAM to use more than 3.5 gb?

Yes it looks as though the lighting is turned "off" or something, no shadows really. Maybe they are playing it on the most minimal graphics settings, and if so I would say it looks pretty damn good.

I think the Editor menu should also get a modern look.

Hecke, will you ever be sattisfied, or are you just like that???????

Will you ever stop spamming or are you just like that???????

true words, it wont help anyway

You really know what picture to choose from when you comment...
That picture looks like low graphic settings.

You really need a break.
The thing is almost done, Oleg does not need you as an advisor(you'd be a pitiful one btw.)
Do you understand that?
No one gives a flying fu** about your opinion, it's just annoying.
The game is the box, just some bug hunting left - END OF STORY.

However:
If you do find a thread where Oleg asks for input, feel free to post all your thoughts there.
thx.

I don't thnk so. All the i7 mobos I looked at for 1156 socket (P55 chipset) or 1366 socket ( X58 ) chipset were built for DDR3.

As for the new socket (next year I think?) I wonder if I will be able to afford it :)

Ther's another thread that focusses on questions regarding system specs:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=16401

I just hope it doesn't get overrun with off topic crud and remains readable.

wow! first of all, all these vids are amazing!
the graphics and especially the work on glass based lighting is amazing, first sim i have seen to get these in cockpit shadows correct, well done!

just one issue, and it may just be because this is WIP:
the waves in the ocean seem too big, it looks like the aircraft are RC aircraft flying over a pond... My thoughts? slow down the animation or scale it down.
anyway as i said that is my opinion, the game is turning out brilliantly. hurry up and release it :grin: :rolleyes:

You have to remember also we're looking at all of this stuff 2nd hand threw video cameras some I'm guessing aren't too good. The clearness colour and over all quality of this is nothing compared to what it will look like on the monitor but you all know that.

I really like the GUI shots we've had so far - looks really more advanced and slick with some nifty splash screens and backgrounds!

Awesome vid, I can't wait for it to be released.

The graphics look great (Nice shot of the messed up Hurricane) but will SOW feature anti-aliasing?

Of course it will. What game these days doesn't feature it?

Starcraft II, for a start. Also many games using the Unreal 3 engine, like Mass Effect 2. You'd be surprised :)

But yes, SoW will allow AA. Visible in the Spitfire & Beaufighter screens in this update: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=16862

I agree that in the video you talk about, the water looks strange, althought in an other video it looks very good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67kAczLHcXg



I’m also worried by another feature of BoB. I think that nobody noticed that point. The grass looks strange in some update screens as well as in the videos:

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/9245/grass2.jpg
http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/5640/grass3.jpg

WIP or low settings ?


I think that ROF does better on that point. This is also 3D grass:

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/6506/grass4.jpg

Well, that might be a trick, like the trees in il2, to get a good view from most angles with a affordable processor-load.

Redwan:

"will you ever be sattisfied, or are you just like that???????" (chiefrr73)

"You really know what picture to choose from when you comment..." (kedrednael)

"You really need a break.
The thing is almost done, Oleg does not need you as an advisor(you'd be a pitiful one btw.)
Do you understand that?
No one gives a flying fu** about your opinion, it's just annoying.
The game is the box, just some bug hunting left - END OF STORY.

However:
If you do find a thread where Oleg asks for input, feel free to post all your thoughts there.
thx." (swiss)

Exactly what I think each time I see a plane flying over the sea in IL2/SoW.

RoF uses the exact same method for rendering grass, just at this point it has more densely distributed grass objects (detail setting?) and the colours seem better adjusted to the underlying texture (which Oleg is still working on). So I don't think there's much to worry about here.

We've seen corn fields in BoB, so surely it's a graphic setting? It'd make sense, considering the memory issue.

Thanks for your comments about grass. Maybe it will look better if the density settings are higher.

Hecke,
Please don't talk in the name of the community asking me to stop to post here. It's just your own opinion and who are you to allow or not allow somebody to post here ?

Let me tell you one thing, it's not the end of the story and I will post what I want, where I want and when I want as long as it's related to the subject.

But finally I have pity of agressive people like you, who's master word is 'Intolerance' and I think you must be suffering a lot in your life to react like that. Maybe you should talk to someone to get you out of your problems and in the mean time take a bath with candles around and soft music after a good colon cleanse to feel better.

You didn't get it, right?

I wanted to show with what kind of crap comments I get flooded when I post things like you did in your post.
I am not the one who arrogates to shut other people up, I am actually pretty happy when people mention such things, but I get insulted when posting them.

I think there is a line, though. Some of the things you have asked for, Hecke, have just been way too complex IMO for the team to model; and Oleg himself said as such.
Don't get me wrong, I think posts where people point out inaccuracies or improvements is fine, but one has to draw a line somewhere.
Now before people say, "hang on, aren't you being hypocritical?" I would say, in my own defence, that any improvements I've ever suggested have been cosmetic. For example, the cloud shape to me is just wrong; and the recent videos have highlighted this. I don't think it would take a lot to change the model; as it is the model looks like Il-2, so perhaps it's never been tweaked?
And regarding terrain, the videos have made it look a lot better :D Considering any improvements that will come from updates, I'm more than happy. Not that my opinion matters though; I'm just throwing this out there. Ignore me :oops:

And how the hell shall I know what is too complex for these russian developers?
We are at end of 2010, I think almost everything is possible, it's just if the developers want it or not. So why don't you let Oleg decide what he thinks is worth an answer and what is crap.
I don't assume to know their skills, you guys do.

I noticed the same about the waves but with all the other great visuals, didn't want to whine about it. At the altitude most of the planes in the videos were flying and with the fair weather shown, the sea should look pretty flat. Perhaps the scale of the waves was increased for visual impact but I agree this makes the planes look smaller.

Noticed the same thing about the hurricane with the collapsed landing gear. The size of grass in that shot was quite big, making the plane look smaller.

Hmm, good point. In this situation, I think people who get annoyed should just keep it to themselves. This isn't real life (LOL if it was) and so if people get annoyed at this stuff then......
But surely you can guess that thousands of bomb craters 30ft deep would just not work?

I think people only get annoyed when you moan about the graphics. I mean you did post the one picture that showed bad graphics :eek:

That's some seriously twisted thinking and probably explains the demanding tone in a lot of your posts. So you seriously think that whatever feature does not make it into the game is because Oleg and his team don't "want" it or are too lazy to do it? As you admit yourself, you don't have an idea about the complexity of such a project, the required work and the limitations they have to overcome. Your conclusion that therefore it should be fine for you to expect and demand anything you can dream of is seriously flawed.

Welcome to the real world.

Thousand bomb craters :rolleyes:
30ft would be awesome, for my sake he can then limit it to 50 craters. :grin:
No no, you are right that's too much.

But actually I seemed to be the only one who was interested in whether it's just simple texture or a 3D hole.

I had asked if it'd be 3D before. But that was a while ago ;)

Actually, yes, if Oleg doesn't include a feature then it's most likely because he doesn't want to waste that much time for programming it due to what he thinks bad cost-benefit-ratio.


And what was the answer, if you got one?

I don't recall getting an answer. Anyway, it negates the fact that Oleg has now said they will be 3D which is awesome.

I think it wasn't Oleg, it was a russian at the sukhoi forum.
But the translation of it imo wasn't that clear.

But 3D craters is really awesome and a huge step forward.

You can do great 3D grass when there is no realistic damage model for the game engine to calulate...

:rolleyes:

I get p*ssed off when I hear people complaining about the graphics, saying they "should be better". Maybe some people should stop comparing SoW graphics with i.e Gears of War, Crysis and such. Don't you understand that those games are extremely scripted and things like A.I and DM in those games are almost non-existant. You can shoot a bad guy in those games in the head, arms, legs but that's all there is, just a few hit boxes. Sure, they can run for cover and try to flank you but even in a few games where it actually works it's nowhere near the sophistication that a flightsim requires. Even IL-2 at it's respected age still today has better A.I AND DM than most other games coming out these days.

I'm actually surprised -by the vids we've seen so far- that the game actually seems to perform so well DESPITE having all the nice bells and whistles. You want "better" graphics? buy H.A.W.X or some other Michael Bay esq. game.

P.S I like Kinder Eggs...

It's all about the gameplay and I've a feeling this game is going to do things no other sim will match for a very long time. The feedback on the screenshots has been useful for Oleg & crew I'm sure, but the big reveals start from here on out.

dduff

+1 Feel of flight, first time I felt it was when I played the IL-2 demo all those years ago, it was so worth sitting and downloading it all night on that lousy 56k connection. Swooping down flying almost ground level, I'll never forget that.

What damn are you talking about? Are you joking us?

Look at the second video, 1'30'', when the SE5a pilot died. Bullets hit the fuselage and soon after the pilot, killing it. You can also see the holes. Rise of Flight's physics is wonderfull, and i really hope to have the same in the BoB.

http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewto...p?f=49&t=14498

I'm drolling myself for the Battle of Britain, but Rise of Flight is a work of art, no more no less than a work of art. Don't touch it.

Do the planes still bounce off the ground when they crash?

Do they still fly in formation with wings twisted almost off or with half of one missing?

If you shoot into the floor of the cockpit from below are you now able to kill the pilot and or gunner? Or even damage the engine?

When last I flew RoF there were big problems.

*Waits for the now trite reply..."Learn to shoot!" :rolleyes:*

Sorry don't want to turn this into a thread hijack.

*Now waits for Jason to show up as well as the rest of the rabbid dog fanbois.*

And no I 'm not going to re-install it to see how it has improved, because I don't have an extra $100 US lying around to get all the planes I would need to be competitive online.

When will you see something better than RoF damaged models and physics, BoB included, tell us about it. Thank.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe8OOw5tRcY

Wow! Rubber planes! I love that! :lol:

it's still superb to any other flight simulator currently existing today, people like Elaurus are form the old breed of RoF critisisers, too bad for them really, they're missing something which is called "Fun".

Anyway, back to the news, BoB is really coming together in those videos:), someone mentioned the grass still being ugly or something, I don't think so, it looks good actually.

...


BTW, I don't think this "Spitfire ditching at sea" animation is doing much better than the above "Crash Test videos" of RoF.


Crystal wings with Iron Man fuselage. :rolleyes:

Watch at the very end (1'20") of this video .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67kAc...eature=related

Where do these wings go ?

...

DCS Black Shark is better. There, I said it.

The game as it is today is not the same as when you apparently flew it. But what do your comments have to do with comparing its grass rendering with SoW's?

LOL, btw, at your invoking "fanboi (tm)" as a preemptive argument! It's a standard tactic in gaming forums after all...

IL-2 Sturmovik was a technical masterpiece for its time and is still a very fun and exciting game to play despite its age. Rise of Flight is a technical/graphical masterpiece and is an excellent WW1 Flight Sim, much respect to the computer wizards/artists who made this game. Storm of War is a technical/graphical masterpiece and will be a benchmark for other WW2 flight simulators to follow and will be a very fun and exciting game to play...

Let us respect the work of these artists by not pretentiously pointing out flaws or demanding changes or enhancements while having NO clue as to what kind of work would be necessary to achieve these demands and having NO clue how difficult or impossible it may be. Instead be grateful for their efforts and admire their artistic brilliance...

They never promised to build us the Matrix people.. They simply set out to build us the most gorgeous, realistic and fulfilling wwII flight simulator that has been created to date.. and they are well on their way to achieving their goal. ;) Peace.

^ What undercut said. +1.

It seems to me that most of the nit-picking, whinging about colours or the shape of clouds, and complaints about things tha 'must be included but aren't' on this forum come from people who don't have a clue about the complexities of software development. Tedious...

Truth be told, i didn't like a lot of RoF's decisions and trying out the demo (on more than one occasions and several months apart from each other) highlighted most of the flaws ElAurens pointed out. However, i'm not going to go on a campaign against it (not saying that ElAurens does by the way) just because i don't like it because frankly, its design choices made it a game that didn't appeal to me enough.

Translation being, i cared a lot when it was close to release and got in a lot of heated arguments trying to tell people they would lose customers with the choices they were making, but i don't actually care about it anymore.

However, there are a few things i liked about RoF and i think it would be cool to see something similar implemented in other sims, SoW included. For example, having the ability to define and save custom views separately for each aircraft is a very nice feature.
Also, while RoF doesn't feature full start-up sequences and uses a single-keypress engine start method, that "engine on" toggle is neither instantaneous nor guaranteed. You can see the appropriate switches turning on in the cockpit and the ease or difficulty with which the engine springs to life is dependent on proper mixture settings by the pilot, maybe even on atmospheric conditions at the time. That would be cool to have in SoW as well, so for example on a cold day even if i pressed the engine on key it would struggle to start compared to starting on a hot day.

Now, having the CFS3 modders that did over flanders fields jump to the SoW engine would be something i'd really like to see, as they have a much more historically accurate approach and completeness of theaters/airframes to cover as much tactical situations as possible in regards to WWI simming, but they are limited by the outdated engine they are using.
I used to have the free phase 2 edition before it went payware and while the base CFS3 engine was terrible compared to IL2, they managed to make wonders out of it. Proper squadron positions and movements, realistic mission objectives, realistic opponents (no Fokker DVIIs when you are flying a DH2, which is what happens in RoF sometimes because they don't have enough planes to cover all the time periods yet), even historical weather from WWI records, it's just a terrible pity that they were forced to use CFS3 as the foundation.

I'd be easily willing to part with 50-60 Euros for a WWI sim made by those guys on the SoW engine.

Is there any chance of doing that in real time or just with recordings?

Great work you all and cant wait for the release!

Hecke, even more important factor is balance. Even if Oleg's team had all the time in the world, there would be missing details simply because there's a limit to what today's PCs can handle. So in the interest of keeping the game playable on current PCs, certain details wouldn't make it to the game even if Oleg had all the time or resources in the world.

For instance, I recall Oleg mentioning that they had actually implemented grass in IL2 back in 2000 but it never made it into the released game due to performance reasons.

Just because you don't see a certain detail in the game doesn't mean they can't do it or don't want to do it.

Exactly

Just looking at the web store tonight, to get the 14 aircaft I don't have would cost $106.68, three times the cost of the original sim.

P.T. Barnum was right.

To be fair there were things I did find to my liking about RoF. The 3D models are excellent. The FMs by and large are believable. The dogfighting was fun. But for me the pluses did not outweigh the minuses, and coupled with a totally hair brained business model I could not see continuing my support of a sim that I orginally had very high hopes, and large support, for. Lots of others feel the same way I might add.

And I was correct about the attack of the zombie fan boys. All too predictable. And sad really.

I only just bought ROF recently (the ICE edition). I am not allowed to talk about my previous experience with the game, but I will say my opinion has changed and I think that the new version with Eight planes and it's current level of sophistication and smoothness is a fair buy.

I was also not very impressed by the business model either, but have since changed my mind. WWI is not conducive to the add on style that Oleg uses, the only way that they can have continuing revenue for game development is the model they are using, and they are developing and improving the game, and everyone gets the benefit of that.

I'm only talking about ROF on this forum because I feel that it is a complimentary product, not a competitive one, and that comparisons are valid. (I will concede that while I consider the damage model to be superb, a hard crash kind of looks goofy. There are limits as to what can be done with a computer)

I won't comment on this any further.

I wish people would stop quoting Hecke, so I don't have to see his banal and senseless posts. I wish the Ignore function on this forum extended to quotes, so that I can completely eliminate my contact with people that are just too stupid to deal with here. I have to deal with idiots all the time at work and I'd just as soon not waste my free time on them.

Come to think of it I wish I had an ignore button at work.......

But what does any of this have to do with the original point that RoF models 3D grass and wouldn't it be great if SoW did too?

What's sad is your repeated use of this logical fallacy.

The reason I pointed out the post about the grass in RoF is that RoF is held up as an example of a very good piece of work, and frankly it is far from it IMHO.

You like it, and that's fine. I don't, but for some reason that's not fine with you. Curious double standard you have there.

I have never purchased a flight sim just to help support the genre, except for RoF, and after my total let down, I never will again.

Now, I am done jousting with you fan boys about RoF.

Have a good night, and on to better things.

I'm just curious, what did you not like about RoF?

Off Topic discussions are prohibited in Update threads in order to promote productive discussion and comments between forum members and the developer. Discussions that are of considerable interest to both.
If you (the poster of this Off-Topic discussion) made this posting, you must edit or delete your posting. If you persist to violate the policy “No Off-Topic discussion in Update threads” sanctions will be applied in other ways on an individual basis.
Alternatively, discussions about IL2, SOW, War, Air Combat and Flight topics are allowed within the non-sticky threads. Off-Topic discussions aren't enforced as they are in the update threads unless a posting is reported.

This Spitfire is probably traveling at a speed of at least 220 mph so as soon as he hits the water the ripped off wings will catch tons of air and be braked. The fuselage would carry on further. The wings are back behind the Spitfire.

Exactly what? What Vladimir said about "rubber" planes? Please tell us where you see rubber planes here or "realisitc DM not calculated":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j3UcSELlqo

Simple you say something that's not true.

Landscape and grass in RoF are really great (at least at low altitude), and you don't need DX10 or a Goldrake's PC to run it. In spite of this, you can also calculate advanced FM and DM.

SoW will be better? Probably it will, but it will be probably also the best sim ever.

If you think, this is realistic, you, probably, haven't seen even a model plane crashes, leave along real wood+fabric planes.

It really makes me laugh, seeing a 500-600 kg plane hit ground almost vertically with at least 80 km/h speed and stops immediately, just some wings and tail bend a little.

IRL, in the same situation, you'd find a piece of tail, may be some outer wing pieces and a lot of very small debris, which were fuselage and centerwings, in a crater, made by the engine, while the engine itself will be somewhere 1-2 m under the ground. And this is in the case, the fuel wouldn't ignite by impact (possible). Otherwise all the above would form a nice smoky bonfire.

Verdict: rubber planes

I think these physics in RoF look great...If you want to experience true to life plane crashes go to your local flying club, take an introductory flight.. and crash the plane into the ground. :D

Well, this is a really good advise for anyone, who thinks, the crash physics is realistic in RoF...

Not me, apparently...

Banal and senseless posts? That's exactly what you do all the time.
And that you pick on me permanently just shows that you are the real stupid idiot.

First of all is better is we say this to ourself: probably we are asking to much from a simulation.

However about your quote, i can answer this to you: i've seen (thank to an italian "KIA body pilots recovery association") what did happen when a fighter crashed in my area (around Bologna where we did have a lot of dogfights in WW2). There was a sort of "drill engine effect" when an aicraft crashed from high altitude. Wings were cut off but engine, pilot, and fuselage did penetrate terrain for some meters (this was due probably also to the farmland terrain). We'll see it in SoW? I doubt it....it would be really too much. Realistic in a flight sim, is always an hard and questionable statement to say.

Considering some shoots (terrific) of WW1 crashed scouts, we can see aircrafts like collapsed and somentimes the pilot killed still inside, so not too much different from what we have seen in RoF. Some more piece of fuselage would be better during the crash, but i think we could say that realistic or not, RoF DM is good enough for our PC, at least for now.

This video is very sad, please look at it with respect, but it's also a document about crashed WW1 aircrafts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63-Jg...embedded#at=44

Title of thread:
Friday 2010-10-29 Dev. update and Discussion

RoF forum is somewhere else,and if people want to argue with each other,thats what PM's are for.

Sorrily i cant watch the movie because of the censorship of the DRM-mafia

Just an observation but it's interesting to note that generally the folks that don't like RoF really don't like RoF and are strangely vitriolic toward it. Sure it isn't perfect but most of the criticism levelled at RoF tends to be either woefully outdated or inaccurate to begin with. I do admit that I don't like having to buy new planes, and have yet to do so, but I've been spoiled by Oleg and his many freebies. The game is updated regularly and the design team seems determined to stand behind and continually improve the game and also does a good job of communicating with the...err...community. Although WWI air combat isn't really my forte, I look forward to seeing what RoF's future holds.
________
Wendie 99

+100

Is there a moderator here that could cut this thread down to a manageable 20 relevant pages?

And a serious question (if anyone can find it) Can someone tell me if Oleg has a 'cutoff point' of say 2 days or 10 pages which he just doesn't go beyond, trawling through all the irelevant stuff looking for our questions? We could hardly blame him. If so I won't have to waste my time reading through them either.

<bookmarks page 89 for tracking purposes>

Sir,

If you wish me to delete my posts kindly say so, and it will be done.

RoF was initially brought up in order to compare what that flight sim does with grass rendering vs. what we are seeing in SoW. The idea was to encourage Oleg to do something similar. It was a valid point in that context. There was no intent to start a general discussion about that sim here.

Unfortunately, it then veered off topic when one member started making inaccurate statements about RoF. Normally, that could be ignored, but as this is a flight sim forum and there is always some cross-interest in other sims, it needed to be addressed. His overall condescending and insulting attitude only fed the discussion.

But I agree, one's personal feelings about sims other than SoW have no place here. And, unless we are comparing what another sim does to what is done in SoW, they have no place here either.

My father was examining magistrate during his service time.
He had two fatal aircraft crashes(both) were venoms if I remember correctly.
Sure those are jets, therefore a little faster than ww2 fighters.

But: The largest piece of the aircraft the could find was about 60cm, they found it 1m under surface (alpine meadow)
They remains of the pilot were collected in minigrips...


Back to the question: What are you asking for? Pieces dug deep in the soil?

You really believe that?
Wow.
That's actually pretty sad.

But even if you were right - what makes you think he could change his mind based on your criticism?

Anyway, I suggest you download some benchmarking tools, 3dmark or vantage, that should give you a clue how little it takes to bring your (2010! wow!) hardware to its knees.

Don't worry mate, i've been myself in military rescue (Firefighting, F-104), so i know what you say.

We were talking about how realistic could be a crash in a sim. I wasn't asking for nothing, but simple saying that RoF DM is good enough for me.

I don't complain about the Spitfire crashing on the sea, is ok for me.

Serious? Thats bs...

ElAurens, at the risk of padding this thread even more, I just got fed up with trying to find a needle in this haystack. It's a discussion about the 'Dev update' and I reckon more than half of it has become about other issues. Please forgive me if I don't trawl through it again to see if your posts are on-topic.

I suppose I'm expecting too much on an open forum where some people can't resist the temptation to repeatedly argue that they are right on every point (like we didn't understand them the first time) and then throw in their off-topic garbage of choice. I've chaired enough meetings where they would simply have been censured or kicked out, but forums don't have chairmen.

<sigh> Maybe I'm just getting too old.

Lol
 

It's been a long time. Hope to see you this post someday, as I did.
We've got to consider the explosion which occurs whenever every bullet gets fired. Of course momentum things still working.

Trajectories of bullet look not good and seem to be laser beam.