Hey look at the big indicator in the pic ;)

;) good luck

Oleg-

I have a question concerning the Mission Builder for Storm of War.

As a campaign maker, I find the single most limiting factor in Il2:1946 is the lack of Triggers. In case I am being confusing, by "Trigger" I mean a way to produce an event only when the player reaches a certain proximity to a marker

For example: A "spawn aircraft" Trigger is placed on an airfield. The "spawn aircraft" trigger would have options such as the type of aircraft, percent chance of the aircraft spawning, the AI's state and skill, and distance at which the trigger will be activated in relation to the players position- 1,000m, 500 m, etc

So in this example, the player flies close enough to the Trigger to activate it. The mission now spawns the aircraft type, at the skill setting and AI state that the Trigger was optioned for

Can we expect to see Triggers in the Storm of War series?

If not, what is the reasoning behind this decision? Triggers are badly needed by mission and campaign developers

I think that triggers have been confirmed in previous news updates. I also think that damage modeling on a "per round" basis has also been confirmed previously, but i don't know if the tiger moth screenshots are done with that method. For example, Oleg said the screenshots of a damaged spitfire a few updates back were not made by aircraft rounds but flak.

I have a question I'd like to see if Oleg can elaborate on regarding the Damage Models for SoW.

Can he give us an example (using, say the 109E4) and compare part of its DM and relative level of detail compared to the damage model of the E4 in IL2:46?

Thanks

You mean like, lets say the Spit compared to what we have in IL2?
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/1...2417c3ess8.jpg


To the details: I bet even if he knew for sure, yet, he'd give us more. And he's answered different aspects allready, e.g. stress on damaged parts will cause further damage, way more complex engine and mechanics failures, possibly even exploding ammo, etc.

Here is some food for thought for the FMB and the AI.

1.) In Il-2 ships do have a speed setting that the mission builder can set freely (within the limits of the ship, that is). On the other hand trucks, cars and tanks do not have such an option which makes "mixed columns" a pain in the rear to create. Usually the result is mayhem on the road with each and every group bumping into the next available.

Suggestion: Standardize AI control settings in the FMB so that all moving AI objects have a modifiable speed setting to allow for an easier creation of road traffic.

2.) In Il-2 road traffic is limited to either single objects or pre-designed columns - and several trucks/cars are only available as single item or as part of a column. This makes creation of non-standard columns considerably tough.

Suggestion: Allow the player to define variable sets of "personalized" road columns (perhaps via a txt file).

3.) In Il-2 all guns are considered "direct fire weapons" and require a direct LOS to the target. While this is true for AAA, AT guns, MGs and tank guns it is absolutely wrong for artillery, rocket launchers and mortars which are providing "indirect fire" by definition.

Suggestion: Have a separate AI mode for artillery guns, rocket launchers and mortars (and also heavy guns on ships if they are used in the fire support role). Allow them to shoot across hills and beyond their own visual range. (see next point for further suggestions)

4.) In Il-2 the mission builder is unable to direct and concentrate fire of artillery units onto specific points (i.e. an enemy position or enemy tanks).

Suggestion: Allow the mission builder to combine artillery units into "batteries" and allow the mission builder to define "fire zones" to bombard. Add several fire modes such as "harassing fire" (low ROF) or "salvo fire" (high ROF) and a way to time their fire.

The same should apply to all warships. Here I'd like to have control over the various gun types (heavy, medium, AAA) and their roles, i.e. I'd like to make a cruiser fire only its heavy guns at the enemy destroyers and keep the AAA for anti aircraft defense.

5.) In Il-2 ships have modifiable settings for AI level and ROF. Land-based artillery as AAA doe not have this setting.

Suggestion: Standardize control modules for all gun/artillery-type objects.

Translucent frame rails and Translucent Gauges?
 

Flying the HUD (wonder woman view) has never been much fun, and having visual ability further impaired by windshield frame rails (especially the big ones like in the FW-190) has never made much sense to me when flying full cockpit views. Flying the HUD the player loses all sense of situational awareness, and only after a lot of experience does the player get a feel for what to do next in air combat.

X-Plane has translucent cockpits, which is not what I'm talking about. It is close, but I'm not talking about seeing through the panel, gauges, or down below. Just translucent windshield frame rails, which normally block player viewing.

Translucent windshield frame rails would make a small allowance for player having no peripheral vision.

I've always thought it would be a plus to just have translucent windshield frame rails, then you still have the situational awareness. Player would still have evidence of windshield frame rails yet could NOT see through the cockpit. Again, player cannot see through the panel, gauges, sides or bottom of the aircraft cockpit.

I noticed in the last update we can expect translucent gauges for HUD view.

What would it would hurt to have only translucent windshield frame rails? All the rest of the panel and gauges would be just like regular cockpit views.

For ONLINE PLAY the translucent windshield frame rails would be considered the same as HUD for fair ONLINE play, yet it would help players to develop their skills before advancing into full cockpit views.

Translucent windshield frame rails always made more sense to me than the HUD with full unrestricted viewing, yet it has never been seriously applied in any combat flight simulator I'm aware.

Some one should go through Oleg's answers and compile some of the features...we are starting to get a lot of re-posted questions.

Maybe if I have some time later...:)

It's very interesting YOU have this idea. :grin:

Nearmiss

>What would it would hurt to have only translucent windshield frame rails?<

You won't need these (and I wouldn't want them) because in SOW you will have 6 DOF views and will be able to look around the cockpit frames.

At least you won't need these if you have many buttons or TrackIR with vector expansion ;)

Oh...your one of those.

I don't think the frame rails will become any less obtrusive in 6DOF. They don't get smaller like they do in real life, because your eyes are spaced apart and each has peripheral vision.

Also, I would think most people would prefer translucent windshield frame rails than the HUD. You talk about a departure from full real, the HUD is it.

I've often thought how much easier it would be to learn combat flying having the full cockpit, and having less obstruction from windshield frame rails. The translucent rails would still be there to be available for situational awareness, yet not so obstructive as to be a nuisance.

IMO, it would nice to have all the cockpit visable with only translucent frame rails. This would not be a huge departure from full real. It would be OK if flying with translucent frame rails was treated like the HUD for Online combat. Afterall, it would be an advantage.

I hate the HUD, but the huge frame rails in many of the aircraft I find to be a nuisance.

In fact, it wouldn't hurt to have translucent frame rails to provide the player a little edge that he would have, if peripheral vision were available.

I'd love to have translucent frame rails (not clear see through). I would say translucent like the way the new gauges Oleg showed to us in the latest update. I love the cockpits and enjoy them, but flying the HUD is the better choice in combat flying using some aircraft.

So... I don't see the harm of having translucent windshield frame rails. They make alot more sense than translucent gauges in the HUD.

Infact I am one of many kinds.

Nearmiss +1

I think it is an excellent idea. It would especially help newcomers who don't have a TIR. And the peripheral vision is a good point as well.

Well, I doubt it is as easy as making translucent gauges, but making it an option would be really nice.

My first questions:

1) Will Sow's sun be useful for bounces? Il2's sun "obscures" the enemy only then the plane is centered in it... otherwise the bouncer is really visible as the black dot and the sun is useless. IMO sun should be more powerful (something like to have all the screen white)

2) Black dots: planes were painted with light colors under the wings to have an inverse "camo" (terrain camo over, sky camo below)... in fact I read many times about bouncing enemies revealed thanks to sun's reflex on the wings tips or above all on the windscreen; in IL2 we have usually higher planes who can't see planes below but are really seen as black dots from those lower pilots (= no ambushes)

3) Engine's sound: Pilot shouldn't listen at the enemy engines on his six (if his engine is on, of course)... in IL2 it's like a radar and, again, you can't ambush enemy from that position if not firing from long-medium distances (instead of the 50-100m) or flying very fast. When they listen to a different sound the suddenly disengage (me too, I have to admit it... but it's not realistic IMO)

For now it's enough...

I still make my congratulations to Oleg and his team for this beautiful game that IL2 is: wishing SoW to be more realistic.

Bye.

I will clarify my comment above...In my experience here your a tad arrogant. Their was no reason for your previous comment of "It's very interesting YOU have this idea." You don't know everything...In fact you might discover that you have misunderstand some things.

I'm sorry you took it that way. I was just surprised about your statement, that you are willing to go through the lengths of collecting all available previously released information and salvage them in a compilation, while you were aparently not willing to look up what the status of the 4.09beta is, what bugs have to be solved and what content to be added.

I agree that my statement probably offended you. Please accept my apologies.

My question in the other thread was asking about what "you" thought was still going to be added to the patch, not what was said in past threads...I was responding to your statement: "missing out some maps and objects"....I was hoping that you would clarify your statement before I responded like a "know-it-all" and told you that their was to be no more new maps or objects (beyond what is already "new" in the beta)...I wanted to make sure I understood your comment before I chimed in.

I was actually thinking of just collecting Olegs answers in some sort of "feature list" (maybe also some of the stuff mentioned in the DVD)....

anyway...accepted and moving on.

I have a question for Oleg...

1) How complex will the "human damage model" be for "AI" (and player) pilots be ? How many internal biological systems will be modeled in the "human DM"?

Will the "human DM" be broken down into "basic" interlocking systems like vision, circulatory, right leg, left leg, and vitality? Or will it be modeled in more specific anatomical detail like modeling each finger on the right hand, the right wrist, right forearm, right upper arm, right shoulder, left eye, right eye, neck w/arteries, ect ?

2) Will the "one bullet, one hole" feature be applied to the "human damage model", and will it effect specific biological systems within the
"Human DM"?

3) Shrapnel damage in the left hand should effect the behavior of the "AI" in a different way then a bullet through the left leg. Can you explain how different kinds of "injuries" might effect individual "AI" pilots to behave in different ways?

Good questions!

There was no word lost on the human damage-model AFAIK, though this is a very important point of a simulation like this. IMHO a good and valid question for the next FAQ-round ;)

May have been asked before:

Will we have a checklist for each plane that we can open in flight like the chart? At least a list with the most important information for each aircraft like landing speed with/without flaps, compressor switch altitudes, best rate of climb speed, never exceed speed and so on.

Considering documentation of games released in the recent years, I doubt it. The times of Falcon and Janes are gone :(

I think you are not allowed to take such important notes with you on a operational mission. Imagine the enemy finds that paper after a crash and from now on knows your full throttle height or your best rate of climb :o

He could burn the manual when he's shot down online. :grin:

Granted! But in real live you would not fly 30 different planes in combat, the type of plane changing every day or mission. ;)

When there is a mission with planes I don't regularly fly I would be greatful for these handful of figures. If you have a speedbar you can as well have such a list. Furthermore it should be easy to implement.

That new Spitfire Mk.I
 

-I tpersonally hink that it should be implemeted in patch 4.09,i can wait a little longer on the pach for that.

SoW progression - flyables
 

Greatings all.

I'm the greatest fan of Mr. Oleg and his team - U guys have made a [biiip] of a job. The entire il-2 sturmovik game block and all of its add-ons is still the best combat flight sim, ever (got them all, from original to 46)!
This game just made life more interesting...

But could someone plz tell/explain to me, which planes will be included in the Sow game and which will be flyable (plz the entire list)?
And will the SoW game cover the entire span of the WW2, just like the il-2 sturmovik game?

And plz include light and sun effects on planes (sunny reflexions on classy surfaces, like cockpit glass) which can be usefull when scouting for bandits in the horizont...


DK-nme

These questions have been answered already in the Oleg Answers thread.
But basically the entire ww2 will be modelled in the Storm of War series. This starts with the Battle of Britain in the first release. Expect to fly early model spits and hurricanes and early model 109's, 110 and German bombers. Some Italian stuff will also be flyable.
The game engine already has all the graphical bells and whistles you are looking for plus some extra and later in the series a phaze two will be implimented to further improve this.
Hope this helps.

schraege musik
 

hello,ruki werch!

-will there be fast ju88(G ,S series) and me110 (G series)heavy fighters?

-will there be the "schraege musik",the guns that were installed to fire when a bomber is OVER the plane via "lightsensor"?

-will there be the "EZ-42" aiming for the me262?

-will there be HS129 flyable?

-will there be ejection seats for HE162 and GO229?

please answer questions,otherwise gulag :)

You are aware that "BoB" means "Battle of Britain" means July - October 1940 ? Nothing of what you listed will be there ... neither initially nor for a long, long time.

Some really don't seem to know what BoB means....
Back to history class !

Battle of Battles? :lol: :wink:

Bang of Balls? :)

Thx mate, all I needed to hear ;-)

Couldn't find anything about is, as I'm new to this forum (a bit difficult to navigate through!)

DK-nme

когда же все таки выйдет в свет "storm of war " очень просто интересно. давно про нее ничего не слышно.
When will be published " storm of war " very simply interestingly. For a long time about it nothing is audible.
It is a site of our aviagroup http://www.iiijg77.ru/

Ain't it time for some news and pics? ;)

It's always time for more pics. Pleeeeeaaase let them be ingame this time

Steroescopic view
 

Will be avaliable in SoW series any kind of stereoscopic view e.g. anaglif view or by shutter glasses? I'm asking this because I think this is silly to use flightsim game without distance markers having no alternative to determine a distance. Thank you.

I have some questions concerning IL2.

1. Who do I need to ask to get permission to use screenshots as story board illustration in a book I intend to offer for commerical publication? Oleg, 1C or Ubisoft, or all three?

2. The Me-109 models in IL2 (4.09b) are these depicting the 601A-1 engine for the E-4, the 601Aa engine for the E-4/B and the 601N engine for the E-7 and E-7/Z?
Since we will be living with IL2 1946 for at least a few years more for 1941-45 (or '46) campaigning please, please I beg if these models could reflect differences in engine performance (particularly with the C3 fuel 601N), including rated altitudes and so forth, if the modelling does not already feature these differences (which is why I ask). And drop tank options for the E-7/Z would be nice, since you've modelled it based on the E-7 airframe (I've read many were based on the otherwise unmodified E-4 and all were listed simply as E/N[GM-1] by the Luftwaffe).

Thanks for a great flight sim series. Good luck with SOW, I'll buy it when it comes out if only for the new level of detail and gaming engine (but prefer the later era campaigning).

I would like to see some video clips...please.

1) I would like to see a clip of the damage model at work...maybe a Spitfire being hit by flak or raked with machine gun fire.

and

2) I would love to see a clip of London alive with life...maybe a time elapse clip of traffic crossing Westminster bridge, with barges on the Thames river as the sun sets (both day & night)...and maybe some burning/fire effects from bombs.


Please... :) :)

4.09
 

How long do we still have to wait for it?
It seems we have waited quiet a while and nothing...
Now I would love to hear more about SOW and what is happening but frankly I am sure we are still years off release and I would like to enjoy the benefits of 4.09 soon.
Not having it released one month before SOW.
I know you are all busy hard at work on SOW but surely you can spare an intern to jack together 4.09 and ship it?

Vent over regarding 4.09
Now to SOW - The all seeing Flak, will the ai be able to identify planes through clouds and at high altitudes as is currently the case in Il2 or will it be more realistic creating friendly fire situations.
This would be very reaslistic especially when air bases are under attack or nearby air raids are taking place.
The same goes for gunners in planes, will they be prone to firing at anything that moves the more nervous they get....?

This comment is my own feeling on the subject (and its not based on anything Oleg has said), but I kind of look at the 4.09beta patch as "THE" final patch... if or whenever I do see the final 4.09m patch I will have a nice pleasant surprise for myself, but for now I figure the "beta patch" already contains "most" of the changes that will be in the "final 4.09m patch" (this is based on some of the things I have read from Oleg)...so I'm not complaining.

The "friendly fire" issue is an interesting one (it seems like I HAVE, on occasion, been hit by friendly fire in "IL2 1946", or maybe not)... I'm sure that you already know that Oleg has said that the "AI" flak & AA gunners will not be able to see through clouds (and "AI" airplanes will have different "profiles"_if I can call "favorite combat maneuvers" a profile), so I think its reasonable to "assume" that we could see a friendly fire feature in the "AI" (it would add to off-line play)...the "player" usable flak & AA guns will already add to on-line game play.

If 1C doesn't come up with something big soon the modding scene will have taken all their momentum with no interest left for BoB...

Yeah who the hell would want SoW when they can fly a B17 with a B25 cockpit :rolleyes:

You are obviously missing the point. People are drawn towards active and productive communities.

The modding scene has already introduced a lot of stuff that will be featured in BoB (planes, maps) and while doing so stays in-touch with their "customers". Along with that, they have widely extended the Pacific scenario and are in progress to import 3D into the game engine.

I don't want to take a side here, but 1C is loosing ground to a written off product, which might satisfy quite a bunch of people who in turned will not see the point in buying SoW:BoB too soon. And that is what counts, initial sales. If these will not suffice the requirements of the distributor, I highly doubt 1C will get support for further development of the series.

This is the kind of thing that bothers me when it comes the modding scene...

I think its cool that the AAA community is trying to maintain a level of quality with the mods they post, and some of the maps look pretty cool, but the "Holier than thou" attitude make me feel like a traitor for trying some of the mods, and I think thats b^!!Cr@p.

The hackers have opened up the game and "the genie is out of the bottle". Any argument that their may have been about weather or not the hack would ruin the on-line gaming community is over and the hackers have won...Its their world and the rest of us just have to "suck it up" and fly in it.

But thats not the end is it?... now Oleg has to "give the community something big" or the modding community won't see the point in buying "BoB SoW"? (part of me wonders if anyone could possibly be that dumb :) )

I guess that I'm just getting old because I don't understand anymore...I guess the "modders" are the hip young rule breakers who give the people what they really want (and get all the chicks), while Oleg is working away on the next great game, and is slowly loosing touch with the gamers and his place in the community?

Well good night nurse... ;)

Well I would for one...

For me, it's not so much about the mod, it's about the content - BoB has always captured my imagination more than any other stage of WWII history.

So you can have your modded B17 :) I'll stick with what I'm interested in, thanks

I said that it might lead to people not buying SoW right away. They already got a Spitfire I, early Emils and Hurricanes are in the works, plus three different BoB maps. That will keep people entertained.

Yet, if the initial sales of SoW will suffer from that and lead in turn to a rapid drop in price, I'm sure they'll easily sell quite a few copys, but that will only harm the reputation of the game and the loss of income could be crucial for the continuation of the series.

Don't forget, SoW:BoB will cost you at least 40€ + upgrading your system + nerves due to new bugs and fixes caused by the screaming community.

So, why not stay save and sound with a beautiful looking BoBish IL2? ;)

Roll eyes is sarcastic :rolleyes:

I don't really know how big a deal this is and i'm undecided on the whole issue. Generally, when a developer is moving away from a title to focus on the next project, it makes sense to encourage the community to modify the game, as long as it's done with a good purpose. That's the problem here, ensuring that modding will not be used to exploit and cheat.
It's not as if they are modifying something that will receive any new expansions and patches, but the aim should be to make the game last longer, not turn it into a bunch of cheats that will drive everyone away.

As an example, take a look at another of Ubisoft's series, Silent Hunter 3 and 4. There is a very active modding community there and the best mods get compiled into super-mods that totally turn a 3 or 5 year old game around and make it worth playing for a couple of years more. People who worked with Oleg have worked on some of the mods and the results, at least in the visual departent, are stunning. I saw some screenshots of a 190 cockpit with higher resolution textures and it was like i was sitting in one in a museum.

I think Oleg knows this and that's why they already said they plan to increase 3rd party support for BoB. Why? Well, it's very simple. Even if your game stops being the best, there will be people who will keep it among the best in its category for free. Then, when someone for example wants to play the Grey Wolves Expansion pack, he will have to buy Silent Hunter 3 and the developers still get money from one of their older games, money that funds their next project. Everyone wins.

In the end, i think the attitude towards the IL2 modders is negative because they started doing it while IL2 is still awaiting a final patch. Oleg and team are striving for accuracy and they are rightfully worried that if loopholes are discovered, accuracy might get compromised.

However, i'm sure they see the benefits of a modding community and i guess they'll make BoB modable in a way that ensures it's not exploitable. I think that's their main issue, IL2 is essentially a "closed off" product, so to mod it you need to essentially "hack" it. If it was a product open to modding, people would not have to look for ways to "hack" it because they would have tools provided to them, hence there would be less danger of using the knowledge of the code for malicious purposes like cheating. If people can make the game they love better, without hacking it, then they'll have no reason to delve into the darker aspects of manipulating the code ;)

For me, the best thing would be to have a detailed physics/world/game engine that will be able to "sense" an object in the game world and calculate the flight/damage model on its own. For example, let's say i model a spitfire Mkv in a 3d suite to make a channel front addon. I would then use a tool provided by the game (let's call it a properties calculator) that will calculate the damage and flight model, according to the 3d object i load in it and the rules of the game engine. Everyone will be able to load my Spit MkV in the properties calculator and see if it's accurate, so i can't cheat. If i give my favorite ride a 500HP non-historical advantage, other players will be able to see it and call me out on it. This way, people can add new things into the game, but the game engine reigns supreme over the properties of each object added.

Of course, this sounds like a lot of work and it probably is, but it's the only way i can think of that will allow seamless integration of new accurate/historical content into the game without the need for constant coordination with the developer team. Imagine for example if we could tell the properties calculator what kind of material is used on every part of the plane. You would load your 3d model in it, mark/select areas of the airframe and select the materials from a drop down menu, let's say aluminum alloys for wing spars, fabric covering for ailerons, steel for armor plates and so on.

+1

Initially when IL2 was first released there was no flyable Stuka…
Go figure can you believe it?
This was modded after the game release and installed as a free add-on in patch 1.2 for IL2 by Oleg and crew.
So being community and mod friendly has always been a hallmark of IL2 and Oleg’s success.
The IL2 engine has been pushed as far as it can go. Its life span is over. Yes people can make BOB mods and they will do just great on online servers and in single player but once you experience SOW it will be like drinking three week old coffee, do-able if you have to but not something you will enjoy.
Storm of War is a complete product, not just a new flight sim engine that will bring more realism and immersion than ever before but attached to it are data and stats recorders, reworked network code and a 180 degree shift from what was IL2. Better damage and flight modeling are just a few of the improvements.
As Oleg has said you can man guns on the ground, tank tracks move, vehicles and troops are modeled. Even grass is modeled all animated effected by the wind.
So your argument that people will stay with what they know is very shortsighted. I joined the Il2 community many years ago and Storm of War is the Holy Grail, everyone has talked about it, dreamt about it and will buy it.
All flight sims will be compared to it for years to come. Il2 will die a death, not immediately but fast enough to make some shake their heads. Six years from now Il2 will be a distant memory available as a bargain basement game for non-cutting edge computers.
Remember SOW BoB is only the first of many incarnations of the series. A phased improvement of the engine is scheduled halfway through its life span. My guess is Theatre of War 2 will use the engine as well.
If you had been around in pre-Il2 day you would understand the difference SOW will make.

+1

IL2 will become like EAW has. A foundly remembered sim that was well ahead of it's time. Remember we all tend to look back through rose tinted glasses. I still think EAW is great but it cant hold a candle to the original IL2 and what IL2 has become. I loved EAW, currently still loving IL2 but as sure as night follows day, SOW will take over.

Isnt this supposed to be a questions thread to Oleg ??

All I see is inane chat about modding IL2 1946.

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

Here's my question.

Re: BoB SoW: Will payloads be able to be dropped singularly especially the heavier bombs as at present they all go in pairs including the torps, individual release should be employed.

Regards

Good request.

I don't think that an aircraft can fly well with a bomb under one wing and not the other, but they could be released at a configurable salvo interval (say, 0,1 seconds to 1 second). Also for bombs dropped automatically by the bombsight, a salvo interval should be configurable.

Maraz

I agree, but I wonder how historical it would be? Any bomber fundi know whether it was possible in WW2 to drop seperate or individual bombs? Tried to google it but found nothing. I have always wondered why the H111 has to drop both torpedoes in a anti-shipping attack. Always thought it must have been historical, now I am not so sure?

Level bombers had some "keyboards" or similar devices, to set delay between bomb drops. I don't know about the He.111 torpedoes, but being near the centerline (not wongs) it seems feasible that they were dropped in different moments (maybe short time one after the other with slightly different angle?)

Maraz

Google is not a bad way to research for such things, but its certainly not the best way either.

Torpedoes were able to be dropped singularly where two were carried and the heavy bomb pylons were able to be fused and dropped separately also.

I know this picture isn't relevant to BoB SoW As this is a He111H-6
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/...%20lt%20f5.jpg
But it shows the point that payloading should be looked at correctly .

IL2 1946 dropping ordnance ie: 2 x SC 250/500's out of a bomb drop of 4 x SC 250/500 should be configured for BoB SoW so you get 4 x SC 250/500 single drops or where the relevant payloads are applicable.

Now Im not sure what BoB SoW will exactly have when its first out and later additions, but I hope my question is relevant to their payload configuration.

Regards

Flight Characteristics
 

Hi Oleg and the team

Ive read elsewhere that il-2 uses a lookup system to determine the characteristics of each plane in flight, like a table of values common to all aircraft to determine behaviour at altitudes, speeds, aoa etc.

Will SOW use more accurate on-the-fly physics calculations (based on the shape of the wing, airfoils and such), the same system as il2 or something in between?

Love your work and looking foward to SOW's release

Chris from Australia.

IL2 Movie Competition
 

An IL2 Movie Competition has just begun. Details are in this Post at the Official 1C Forums. http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=3134

I believe this competition will result in more excellent IL2 Game Engine movies, meaning increased positive publicity for 1C and IL2 and potentially for SOW:BOB.

Would 1C be willing to offer a Prize of some sort to the Contest Winner? I would suggest a copy of one or more of 1C's products...or maybe even a commitment to send a copy of SOW:BOB when it is released in the future.

Thanks for giving this suggestion your consideration.

question for you, mr maddox.

Can you or will you enable for players the abillity to lean over the side of the cockpit? This in both the first version of SOW and any later addons. The reason behind this question is that if you implement carriers in the Med, I'd like to hope that people will actually check their surroundings before releasing the chocks, locking the tail wheel and gunning the engine.

Any idea how far from closed beta we are for the SOW BoB? In a previous post by Oleg he said they would only release the 4.09 patch after a milestone had been achieved in SOW-BoB. Being a betting man I would assume that the milestone would be the closed beta... Just wondering how close we are to the milestone :)

The release mechanisms will be properly modelled in BoB (this has already been announced).
I've actually seen photos of He-111s carrying a single (asymmetric) 1600kg bomb into combat.

The german name for such a device is "Zündschaltkasten". As far as I remember you could set bomb delay, salvo or single mode, delay between bombs in salvo mode and switch between dive and level attack - at least in the Ju 88. ;)

A lot of these things were implemented, it depends on the plane in question. I remember playing B17 The mighty 8th (the second game) and you could set salvo internals on the norden (so i guess the same goes for B25s, B24s and anything with a norden bombsight).

Personally i'd like to see "personalized" systems according to what each aircraft had in reality, instead of a single system for every bomber. I'm also eagerly waiting for night time nav aids that will allow bombing blind, for example in a He111 (i think the system was called knickebein).

"The release mechanisms will be properly modelled in BoB (this has already been announced).
I've actually seen photos of He-111s carrying a single (asymmetric) 1600kg bomb into combat".

Any idea where this was announced ?

Regards

Good question. I'm pretty sure that this one comes from the interviews (as opposed to forums).
Try: http://www.simhq.com/_air8/air_265a.html
If that doesn't work try: http://www.simhq.com/_air6/air_223a.html , http://www.simhq.com/_air6/air_220a.html , http://www.simhq.com/_air10/air_310a.html

It is difficult flying C.E.M. when the stick is in the way full cockpits. It's even more difficult flying C.E.M. in the HUD.

The Slip and Ball is best tool for targeting enemy, and RPM gauge is necessary for C.E.M. management of the prop settings for sure.

The LA-7 both the Slip and Ball and RPM gauge is obstructed by the stick that does absolutely nothing.

Sure I realize after you become accustomed to the sounds of the aircraft you can pretty well guess about the C.E.M, but you sure can't guess about the SLip and Ball, because there is not way we can sense the YAW that takes us off the target.
-----------------------------------------

I haven't checked out the BOB SOW planes to see if instruments will be obstructed by the stick.

What do we need the stick for? Do we need pilot legs, sticks or sticks with hands on them... NO!

I think these things should be considered

Airfield Layouts
 

I searched the thread for 'airfield layout' and no joy, so....

Oleg,

will BoB have reasonably historically accurate airfield layouts, at least in England. Born and raised in the '11 group area', playing on bombsites and knowing these airfields, it would be a big disappointment if they were all plastic generic types. Here's hoping.

I did say 'reasonably accurate' - as in general layout. I wonder if you ever got the photos I sent of the 'standard' layout for RAF domestic sites?

Looking forward to SOW:BoB.

Agree and disagree at the same time. Yes slip and slide are important and so is engine management. Oleg has already stated that 6DOF will be modelled for trackir users making it easy to see all instrumentation. Hopefully a lean left and right can be modelled for non trackir users as well.
Hands on joysticks are better than floating sticks with invisible hands and the latter is better than none. Next you will be saying no rudder pedals...
For that matter why have a cockpit at all? Just easy to see instruments!!!!
If that is what you want it is already modelled. Some of us however like realistically modelled cockpits even with viewing restrictions.

Your logical thinking is screwy.

I realize I can move the stick aside abit in the LA-7 and see the RPM gauge and the SLip and Ball, funny thing is when I move the stick to see the ball I move the ball. LOL

Straight up, why do we need a wiggling stick that serves no purpose. I could care less if we have moveable pedals in the cockpit either, but they don't obstruct the view of the panel.

Face it, all I have to do is know what my feet are doing to know where the pedals area... then the joystick is right in front of me as well.

I'd rather Oleg took the time to improve some things that make a difference rather than screwing around with a worthless cockpit stick.

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

I've spent most of the day trying to get a handle on CEM for flying the LA-7 Online. It was a complete lesson in futility. I doubt most aircraft are as screwed with the stick blocking necessary gauges as LA-7. The LA-7 not being a very popular aircraft maybe why more complaints haven't been made.

THe LA-7 if flown with CEM does let the player get higher performance than flying the AutoCEM. In fact, I think it might be considered necessary in some combat.

I guess the answer to this is - just outmanuever your opponent. Now it's fixed. LOL

>What do we need the stick for?<

It's a nice touch in terms of eye candy but it hinders more than it helps. 6DOF TIR will help me but what about everyone else?

Easy solution here is to make the 'stick visible' an option for the payer in setup.

I assume someone has already asked for compasses we can actually read? (Sorry I didn't trawl all 88 pages).

Hello, I have a question regarding BoB.
How will navigation be modeled ? Currently (in Il2), we have either a super-precise GPS system or nothing at all on the mini-map. The "nothing" part is the most realistic, for sure, but it's too much of a hassle for most players to do their own visual and dead-reckoning navigation.
How about and intermediate system, in which ownplane's position would be signalled on the map by a circle of uncertainty of variable diameter. For example, flying straight and in view of landmarks would give a fairly small circle, while flying erratically (or fighting) above clouds or the sea would produce a greater circle of uncertainty inside which your plane actually is. Of course, if you then fly in view of a landmark (or have RF navigation systems onboard) the circle will then reduce.

I would reply to that : Why do we have a big metal bar in front of the gunsight in the FW190 ?

Will flight modeling in SOW take into account real life aircraft limitations… Currently playing in IL2 ADW I am tired of dog fighting I-16’s at 8000m plus, a totally unrealistic application for an open cockpit plane with no oxygen. The pilot should literally freeze to death at least or suffer some negative effects preventing him staying so high.
It seems the IL2 engine models theoretical more than practical flight applications. I hope SOW rectifies this trend and brings aspects such as cockpit condition and oxygen supply into play.

Thanks...
Lets just say I disagree with the removal of the joystck, that does not mean I do not agree that an option should be allowed to remove it.
My own solution would be to allow non-trackir users the option to tilt their heads and adjust their head position to their liking making instruments they consider important visible without disturbing the eye-candy. or the immersion.
Yes we all have joysticks and that stick plonked in the middle only emulates what we are doing already.
But once you start deciding what should or should not be in a cockpit you start losing immersion and heading towards an arcade sim.
The off-set gunsights in the 109 and the 190 are a classic example of sticking to realism.
I may still push Shift F1 to remove the offset but I apprecieate the detail.
But yes an option to remove the joystick is not unreasonable

And the LA 7 is an incredibly dangerous opponent to dog-fight.
Its main flaw is poor dive performance. Engine management is all about listening to the engine and comes with experience. Playing with it’ fuel mixture and engaging and disengaging superchargers are all part of it’s charm.
Whenever one shoots me down, I feel that I have been truly outclassed because I know the pilot has had to work for his kill especially in a protracted engagement.
The first time I flew a Lagg I thought I had blown an engine before I learnt about fuel mixtures.
They take long to master do the Russian planes but once you do they are sweet and deadly.
So stick with the LA7, it is the best Red fighter mid to late war.

Interesting. ---------------- thanks for your response

I agree listening to the sound of the engine is about all you can do to get the Prop pitch and pwer setting correct. I haven't worked with mixture much, but I was trying to catch a 109 the other day and he was extending and pulling away as we got higher. I wasn't sputtering, but the LA-7 was definitely running out of power at a 12+ degree climb rate as we got higher.

I enjoy flying the LA-7, but that wiggling stick is a distraction I have a hard time accepting. Oleg, has been so good about things like that. Blocking the Slip and Ball, and the RPM gauge just doesn't fit with Oleg's penchant for flying C.E.M.

The visual is great from the LA-7. I hate the visually confined cockpits,i.e., late model Spits, FW190,BF109s...I hate the HUD more. Therefore I fly the aircraft with the least restricted cockpit viewing with as much of the right stuff as possible.

Will the weather visuals in SOW be comparable to this?

http://www.realenvironmentxtreme.com/

Looks awesome

We're long overdue for some new BoB info. Oleg? New admin guy? Anyone?

Hi Oleg,

will the dynamic campaign in BoB include...
- AI activity with unarmed cargo planes shuttling supplies and personel to forward air bases ?
- truck convoys with supplies on the roads to the frontline and airfields (fuel, munitions, plane parts etc..) ?
- civilian road activity, like buses on country roads, civilian cars (postal trucks maybe for ex)
- and new squadrons of replacement airplanes being flown to our airbases to replace the destroyed/lost aircraft ?
- construction crews activity (trucks, buldozers, cranes..) at an airfield to conduct repairs after it has been bombed/damaged by an enemy air raid ?

the problem is right now in il2 new aircraft can still spawn at an airfield even if that airfield has just been completely destroyed by an enemy air raid 60 sec earlier. on those destroyed airfields right now we can also still obtain fuel and new ammunition (by landing there and using "refly"). this reduces the "immersion" effect of flying in the il2 virtual world.

in the "Mig Alley" flightsim (almost 10 years old now) you could starve forward troops and airbases by destroying truck convoys, bridges, railways and and trains that were providing supplies to them, and weaken the enemy and cause the front line to shift.

will this be possible in the BoB dynamic campaign to ? for example ....
- when flying over enemy territory and spotting a ground vehicle, we have to make a better effort at identifying it as military or civilian
- when flying over friendly/enemy airspace there might be unarmed supply planes ferrying personnel or cargo etc..
- if we destroy all enemy planes on an airfield, then the enemy should not be able to spawn from that airfield again for X amount of time (till new replacement aircraft are flown in), this means if we keep atacking that airfield we can force it to stay closed and push the enemy airbases back further.
- and if the fuel dumps on that airfield are destroyed then they should not be able to refuel from there either (till a new truck convoy brings fresh fuel)
- if a runway has been bombed and damaged, then that runway section that is damaged should be unusable and if we land on that part (or taxi onto it) it will damage/destroy our aircraft
- before we land on a damaged airfield we should be able to get a msg from that airfield tower stating the status of the airfield (we can already speak to the tower in il2 and get a vector). the tower should be able to say "limited fuel available", "runway 1 damaged, use caution", or "all runways severely damaged, fuel and munitions destroyed, use alternate airfield" etc...

dear oleg i hope you havent missed this:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=3165

posting it here in case, it has been a lot of work from me to reach this idea as to not to reach the person who can make it posible

I'm pretty sure they hit a major snag which completely ruined their schedule. So better not expect any news before summer break.

Hope no one minds, but I thought I'd repeat one more time this request for minimal Sponsorship of the IL2 Movie Competition.

Wow man THATS AWSOME

Will the new engine allow for the subtle sun reflection "glints" on exposed metal, painted finishes, and glass?

Its come up before on the boards that the lighting is really a key to the realism of the graphics.

Also, will g-loading be reflected by subtle shifts in pilot perspective as the shockwave simulations use?

Oleg:

Will planes now stand a chance of catching fire if they belly land on concrete or tarmac?
Will oxygen supply be modelled? If so, can the oxygen bottle be hit, leak or explode or lead to pilot asphyxiation at altitude?

In SOW will ground reloads and refuels for pilots be available in online play. Say map last an hour, will a pilot be able to land reload and take-off again without clicking refly as it currently is in IL2 1946?

My question is about the atmosphere, or 'feel' of the offline campaign. The answers I have seen about the campaign have been rather vague, so I'm hoping there has been more thought about it by now. What will you do to give the player a sense of immersion, a feeling that they are part of the Battle of Britain and that their personal efforts can influence the outcome. How will the campaign AI manage the strategy elements of the Battle? Will it be coded to repeat the same mistakes as Goering, or will there be the possibility that it chooses to continue attacks on RAF airfields instead of turning on London? How will you address some of the criticisms of the IL2 campaign engine (lack of atmosphere, personality or story line, strategy elements)? IL2 campaign building tools were great - will you make it easy for the community to build their own dynamic or scripted campaigns? Will the campaign be playable from all sides (Britain, Germany, Italy)? Flak accounted for a huge proportion of the kills in the Battle of Britain, but has always been under modelled in other BoB sims (eg BOB2 Wings of Victory) for reasons of playability. How will you model flak in the offline campaign? And finally...have you considered modelling an alternative ending for a Luftwaffe campaign that (if the player succeeds in damaging the RAF sufficiently) sees the Luftwaffe covering an invasion fleet for Operation Sea Lion? This 'what if' scenario for a BoB flight sim has never been executed to my knowledge, shouldn't be too difficult to enable, and would dramatically differentiate Storm of War from previous BoB sims.

Will the final terrain most likely use the tiles that have been seen in development screenshots to date?

Oleg,

will "Use3Renders=1" in BoB allow the use of widescreen monitors ? and will it be possible to use a combination of widescreen and 3:4 ratio monitors as well ?

the problem right now is that "Use3Renders=1" only allows 4:3 monitors, and all 3 monitors must be the same ratio, we cant use widescreen monitors at all.

since many of us have now upgraded to widescreen monitors, we often still have some smaller older monitors available that we could place on either side of our main monitor to increase peripheral vision. that is the inexpensive way to use "Use3Renders=1", without having to buy several very expensive widescreen monitors. otherwise only very rich kapitalist pigz can enjoy good peripheral vision in BoB :)

Oleg,
I assist in the running of 3 very popular IL2 servers. We have been frequently asked why we do not lower our CRT value to allow the use of mods, or use them ourselves.

We have refrained from doing so on the basis that we believe in assisting the use of mod's we may be in breach of our software license, and certainly wouldn't like to bite the hand that feeds it...

Can you possibly spare the time to let us know what the official line on this matter is, so that we can draw it to a close on our forums.


Thank you for your time,

Wardy

My question is this: Why do you keep asking questions here? Oleg appears to be "busy" and hasn't answered a question for a dog's age...
With that in mind all I want to know are the lousy computer requirements so I can finally dump my old rig buy the best I can get now with it able to be compatable with Oleg's BoB of some future date('08?09?10?) and at least I could play Il-2 1946 at full settings while waiting or Silent Hunter4 or even god help me:BoB WoV! I believe the original release date for SOW was Christmas 2006...the 07 ...now 08. I'll be patient but it the very minimum throw me a bone & give us the PC specs...I think it far more relavent that some of the more obscure details that are asked about her for the last 100 pages or so...
In quiring minds and all that!

Oh ...a few more screen shots shouldn't be too hard to manage either...

Okay here is some simple advice for you in terms of Hardware Specs... It's pretty much safe to say you should go with the Fastest CPU in existance and the fastest GPU in existance now and you should be able to play the game at reasonable FPS with certain settings.

The fact is even Oleg doesn't know what you should buy. He is building BOBs new engine based upon scaleability. What does that mean? It means that he's going to aim next gen hardware as best as he can. The fact is when IL2 first came out the fastest machines of that time where at 800mhz so go figure. Here we are with Quad Cores and super effencient ones at that running at 4 Ghz plus. How do you plan for that? Well the simple truth is technology will change and so will the game. Software lives and breaths over time and as things are added I'm sure he will do his best to support the latest technology provided it's main stream.

So with that said get the fastest machine that can run Flight SIM X and you should be okay.

+1

good advise...

The only other thing I might emphasize is that you could keep one eye on the components your computer contains, you could think about what the future holds for the hardware (specs) in your rig...Q: will your socket (CPU), memory, GPU, ect...be upgradeable for some time to come.

Stereoscopic support
 

Hi,

I would like to know if SOW is going to support True 3D, i.e. stereoscopic mode: shutter glasses or iz3d stereoscopic monitor, or other type of stereoscopy. In IL2 has been (and there are) some problems (flashes in perfect mode and trees and other 3D stuff bad depth placed, or double image for dots (planes at horizon) because they are, I guess, 2D images bad depth placed)

Actually, similar to Triplehead2Go technology niche (which is confirmed to be supported), stereoscopic support only asks for a minor change/consideration in the code and the benefit is very important (in fact IL2 works almost pretty well in stereo-3D without stereoscopic intended coding!). It is not needed to make the code specifically for stereoscopy or to modify the code to create both images (left an right), actually this is created by third party drivers (iz3d, nvidia, etc). What is only needed to do to the code is mainly place 3D objects in a correct depth (coherent with the rest of the virtual world), not to use 2D images for "simulate" a 3D object, or if done, then to place them at a correct depth, and some other minor details.

The effect in 3D when in cockpit (95% of playing time) is astonishing, (and I'm not an eye-candy fan child). I don't exaggerate at all. Only people that has not tried it (or people not very sensible to 3D) thinks that is only eye candy. But it isn't. At side that seeing the cockpit, cockpit glass, levers, buttons, propeller, etc at correct depth like if you could touch them, you get the feeling of altitude, distance to runway (which helps a lot to landing), you can see also when a plane is hidden by a cockpit bar, you can see it with one eye, losing the 3d view, but still seeing it, in other words just as real life pilots did, you can feel also the distance to other planes to fly in formation, which is a REAL help, etc; overall it's a superb immersion factor and of course, a very very nice one too. Not to speak if seen in a DLP projector and 3D, at 1:1 scale. No words.

There is a fast growing community in the net, which focalises people interested more and more in playing games in 3D: there are several sites but maybe www.mtbs3d.com is currently the main site. They help developers professionally to make games 3D compatible, with, normally, very few and simple work to do in the code.

Sorry for the "long" explanation. It's a pity that a superb game, as I think it will be, and specially a long lasting game as SOW is intended to be, will not support a so useful and nice effect, specially considering the growing interest in 3D (Samsung 3D TVs, 3D cinemas, Mitsubishi 3d tvs, etc)

Just in case; I'm only a fan of Maddox games and IL2. I don't work neither have interest in any company related or eventually related to 3D, stereoscopy, or any kind of entertainment company.

Thanks