Originally Posted by lbuchele (Post 150579)

Amazing.
Can´t wait to see this in DX11.

Originally Posted by NSU (Post 150583)

picture one: nice suns and shadow effects

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox (Post 150586)

I hope and think that we will have everywhere such good representation of lighting. We use real laws for modeling of light. And try to not overmodel some HDR and other modern features like I see overmodeled in some moder games.

Originally Posted by rakinroll (Post 150589)

Oleg, these pics are great. Thank you.

Originally Posted by HB252 (Post 150591)

Hi Oleg and teamwork guys!!! :grin:


Great work again.

Very nice JU 88.

Nice combat is next whit CR32 and indianers!!

The Cr32 look like got a fresh paint.

Good work!! :grin:

Originally Posted by Insuber (Post 150596)

Hi Oleg,

Are you already modeling the different weapons ? I'd like to avoid all the debates of Il2 regarding machineguns, cannons etc., and hence suggest you to use the "weapon effectiveness tables" of the quarry.nildram.co.uk site, by Anthony Williams, to balance each MG against the others.

Using a competent and public source will reduce the polemics, hopefully.

regards,
insuber

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox (Post 150586)

I hope and think that we will have everywhere such good representation of lighting. We use real laws for modeling of light. And try to not overmodel some HDR and other modern features like I see overmodeled in some moder games.

Originally Posted by ChrisDNT (Post 150600)

"Noticed improvements in the colours of ground terrain over the last few weeks"

In this aspect, there is still a good margin of improvement : feeling of flying over England is still "WIP" (concerning the colors, the impression of cruising over the good but old Yalta map).

Originally Posted by PeterPanPan (Post 150612)

1. Is that a seagull I see in the 2nd pic?

Originally Posted by jocko417 (Post 150625)

When painted in the lighter colours, the lower wing would appear 'the same' as the top wing when in shadow. You can see the effect in the Gladiator screen shot the shadow makes on the lower wing, the camo colours look too dark in the shaded portion and stand out too much. This is something the skinners (myself included) will be on top of once the sim is released

Originally Posted by Zorin (Post 150636)

Looking at the Ju 88, I do feel a bit disappointed in regard to the new skin size of 2048x2048. All the details appear to be rather blurred and it is not that much better than any well made Ju88 skin in Il-2.

It does look flashier with the lighting effects and all, granted, but yet not near what I had hoped for.

Originally Posted by Dano (Post 150614)

It's something attached to the wing spar if I'm looking at the same thing.

Originally Posted by jspec01 (Post 150637)

If it's not too early to ask, I was wondering what the "time compression" feature will be like in the storm of war series. Will it be like Il-2 with "2x, 4x, etc"? Or will we see features like "skip to next waypoint" or "skip to next encounter"?

thanks!

Originally Posted by JtD (Post 150668)

I'd like to point out that the sun is coming from north of the Palace of Westminster which obviously is wrong!

Originally Posted by Zorin (Post 150636)

Looking at the Ju 88, I do feel a bit disappointed in regard to the new skin size of 2048x2048. All the details appear to be rather blurred and it is not that much better than any well made Ju88 skin in Il-2.

It does look flashier with the lighting effects and all, granted, but yet not near what I had hoped for.

Originally Posted by Sutts (Post 150676)

...One day do you think we'll be able to take on the role of bomber navigator and have access to the tools of the day to perform this demanding job?...giving the pilot heading updates, calculating wind speeds, performing dead reckoning tasks at low level etc...

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox (Post 150592)

Sure in time of development progress we will see better and better like it was in the old Il-2 time

Originally Posted by Cobra8472 (Post 150679)

Hi Oleg,

Appreciate the development update.
Not many developers who are so in touch with the community since day 1 of development :D

I'm wondering if you are planning to implement flat bottoms into your cloud rendering system?

Using textures with flat bottoms on the lower sprites of a cloud has a desirable effect.

A simple shader which darkens the sprite based on Y-position within the cloud is also a suggestion from my side. Hence the bottoms of the clouds would become darker than the top. (effect is visible in my old cloud rendering system; http://www.dackard-3d.com/clouds1.jpg)

Obviously I realize all elements of the engine and simulator are still heavy Work in Progress however.The cottonball clouds of IL-2 are a bit of a pet peeve of mine. :)

Originally Posted by Avimimus (Post 150683)

What Oleg is talking about:
http://www.combatsim.com/memb123/htm...il2-update.htm
http://www.combatsim.com/memb123/htm/jan99/IL-2.htm

Originally Posted by Sutts (Post 150651)

Thanks for the update Oleg. Those shadows really bring that cockpit to life...very impressive stuff. The detail on the bomb sight is amazing. Will be fantastic if it works like the real thing too.:)

One little observation I think I've mentioned before. The 1940s fields would not have featured modern day tractor "tramlines" - I think I can see some in the background of the Blenheim shot. At that time tractors were still outnumbered by horses and the tractors that were in use were definitely not applying sprays with large booms - this is what those parallel wheel lines in the crop are for.

The fields of the time would have appeared as a uniform crop with no parallel tractor lines. In case you plan to show bales and modern style square hay/straw stacks - these would only appear later. Wheat stooks are an important feature for a country scene around harvest time and traditional hay stacks too (large heaps of hay/straw - not baled). Lines of straw produced by combines would also have been rare or non-existant as the technology was only just becoming available in the states.

I included some pictures in this post:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...tor#post143189

I apologise if I'm stating the obvious here.

Anyhow, thanks again for the update. I'm very encouraged by the way the sim is looking.

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger (Post 150695)

I can only talk from an Australian Point of View, but there were a range of horse drawn mechanical harvester available from the turn of the centrury. As a lad in Western Australia, it seemed like every farm had it's mechanical graveyard with at least one old horse drawn Sunshine harvester.

Now I'm not sure how that translates to 1940's England with the smaller acreages, traditional farming practices and a larger labour force (In Australia at the time (as now), if you were not an efficient farmer your not a farmer!), And I have no idea how common it would be in England at the time.

This style of equipment produces a more regular patterns after the harvesting process.

It's amazing where these discussions will lead. :)

Originally Posted by lbuchele (Post 150718)

Il2 is very CPU demanding.When I see graphics like this I wonder if SOW will be more GPU linked ,showing benefits from a SLI system for example?

Originally Posted by rollnloop (Post 150740)

Planes, cockpits, sea looks gorgeous, terrain looks bad (and distant terrain doesn't fade enough), clouds look IL2 like, inferior to Il2 modded.

Oleg, i really hope you can do something for these aspects and you'll show us some fantastic terrain features in the next months.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 150736)

Though I noticed on that first picture (Blenheim) that the terrain textures are rather low resolution. I am not sure if this was because...

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox (Post 150599)

We prefer physics and look in comparison.
Yes we model already weapon.

Originally Posted by Abraxa (Post 150626)

Moreover, there are few details of the fuselage of the model that may be improved.

Feel free to contact me via email, if you need some help.

Cheers

Andrea aka "Abraxa"

Originally Posted by MikkOwl (Post 150630)

I find it very unlikely that any colors would accomplish much between upward facing clear sky and surface facing, even less that it would make the upper and lower meld together. The sky is REAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLY bright, and the whole upper hemisphere illuminates the upper surfaces. It only helps a little bit. Works better with camuflage painted on faces.. :)

Originally Posted by Sutts (Post 150747)

I'm not after functioning farms guys and I don't dispute
the fact there were plenty of tractors working the fields in those days.

All I'm saying is that:

1. Baled hay and straw (round or square) would largely not have been seen
2. Lines of straw in fields would only come later with the introduction of mobile
combined harvesters
3. The evenly spaced tractor tramlines that are apparent in the Blenheim shot would definitely
not have been seen - these are for the efficient application of fertiliser and sprays on a large
scale with 20-30 meter booms. This technology has only been around since the 80s really.

There were machines that could help with the harvest but they were very different from today.

Binders would cut the wheat/barley/oats and tie it up into neat bundles which were dropped on the ground.
Workers would then stand a few of these bundles together to form stooks which would aid further drying and keep
some of the rain out. These stooks would have been a major feature in fields around harvest time
(see picture in previous post).

A static threshing machine (powered by steam or tractor) would then be pulled to the field and the stooked
crop would be untied and thrown into the top of the machine. The grain would be threshed out and poured
out into sacks while the threshed straw would be dropped out and piled up loosely into pitched stacks
(see picture in previous post). These loose stacks would also have been a common sight.

It is possible an odd early baler may have come over from the States but this would have been very rare indeed.


I know some of you could care less about such details but I think it makes a big difference, especially for those
interested in producing period correct footage. The enlarged, neatly tended, tramlined fields in the Memphis Belle
movie were a dead giveaway. Using plain fields instead of tramlined ones has got to be easier anyway hasn't it?



This really isn't a criticism, it just may not be obvious to people who haven't worked in agriculture.

Originally Posted by Sutts (Post 150747)

I'm not after functioning farms guys and I don't dispute the fact there were plenty of tractors working the fields in those days.

Originally Posted by Foo'bar (Post 150737)

;)

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/01.jpghttp://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/lanz_4.jpg

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger (Post 150830)

Come on now! If we don't have working farms, how will we have farmers with pitchforks greeting baled-out German and Polish pilots??????? ;)

But your points are taken that we don't want evidence of modern argricultual practices onwards on the landscape and the textures used should reflect the practices appropriate to the times.

From the photo's shown (and we don't know when during the war the various photo's were taken ) it is apparent that a) There was an mixture of traditional techniques and equipment with more modern equipment being introduced, and b) Land Army women on tractors were fairly hot.


Cheers!

Originally Posted by Freycinet (Post 150789)

This is the place to mention your comments Abraxa.

Originally Posted by Sutts (Post 150864)

...Now, this was all based on the assumption that fields would be put together from a standard set of textures. If this isn't the case and modern aerial photography is being used to put together the landscape then the effort required would be way too much and I'll just live with it...