www.riseofflight.com
 

Think I might get Oleg this for Christmas. :grin:

www.riseofflight.com

Heh, do you really think it was pure coincidence, that Nice-it promised a news update on BoB for today? LOL :grin:


I bet a lot of naysayers still do..... :rolleyes:

Notice how one of the features is the ability to direct artillery fire from the air. An imaginative and original idea.

That train looks like a nice target to me.

I wonder if Oleg can beat that.

Yeah, awesome news.

And now consider the possibilities of why we have an Autogyro in Bob ;)

Are you being sarcastic? :)

Not only was spotting and artillery direction the original & primary function of military flight in WW1, well preceding the development of the armed interceptor, it has also been done before in a WW1 on-line sim.

In Dawn of Aces, written by iMagic back in the mid-Nineties, it was possible to type a target's map co-ordinates into the chat-bar and call in ranging shots followed by a small artillery barrage.
It was certainly imaginative and original back then, and I'm glad to see the feature has been revived in this present-day evocation.

But new to sims it ain't.

B

I think so.

http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...280BR56_00.jpg

I dont think Oleg made that train it was a third party loco.

That picture is taken from the official news-update from May 13th, 2006.

Of course it was not made by Oleg. I doubt he models anything at all. ;)


I didn't check this particular one, but I guess it shows one of the first project from Foobar, who officially does the modeling for the railroad-stuff in BoB. If this particular one is going to be included is unknown, but maybe this link will give you a hint of the standards for BoB:

http://forums-de.ubi.com/eve/forums/...3/m/2181080123

* All WIP, of course and subject to changes and decisions wether or not it's going to be included, but certainly not a pure fan-project.

Having played Theatre of War I have to wonder why the formally KOTS people who are now Rise of Flight did not stick with the IL2 engine?
Not one of the graphic's jumps out and grabs me. The planes are so-so as good as you will see on IL2 now. The water is the same and the ground towns and trees all look very IL2-ish or worse CFS3-ish.
A WW1 sim is fought down low and slow and the terrain just looks flat. Yes there are trees and hills but not much else.
Look at the convoy of ambulances or the mounted AA gun. It looks so IL2-ish and very flat terrain not a bump in sight. The road looks like it has been painted on. As for the massive scar of trenches across the whole of europe, well they just look like dark brown terrain meshes with cut-off trees sticking up. The tank does not look like any ww1 tank i have ever seen either (but I will take their word that it must be authentic. ) I stand corrected that is what a German tank looked like.
The cities look good but again not much better than we see in the current IL2.
Don't get me wrong I am buying the game without doubt and I will have many fun hours flying but a next generation flight sim it is not. :(

droll on pics

Simple, because the limitations were not only to the graphics engine, but mostly because of the technical limitations. Remember, this engine is 10 years old!

On the other hand, I have yet to see pictures of the final SoW-Engine to make the judgements you just did, as so far we only saw BoB-Objects in a modified IL2-engine. Same is for flight- and damage-model. Maybe you can share the pictures you are refering to?

hi res. videos (HD) here: http://wwiaircombat.com/index.php

I think one of the coolest parts is at 2 Minutes in the gameplay video, when you can see the tail-structure of the enemy plane breaking in the turn and it's only held together by the covering, slapping around while the plane tumbles down.

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u...om/awesome.jpg

Have not looked at the h-res video but I doubt that will make the terrain come to life.
At the size of game (125000 sqkm) they are punting realistically to expect much more would be asking too much I think.
It is just something I would have hoped a modern sim would have done better.
Again this is not a blast at the game.
As I have stated I will buy the game, I love the era.

What do you expect? It shows the mostly flat muddy terrain that made this frontline what it was in WW2. The only thing that strikes me about the terrain are the still rather straight roads, but it was already stated that these won't be in the final.

You should definitely check out the high-res-movies. It shows how much effort was payed to little details, like reflections, ground-texturing, atmospheric effects and ground-modeling.

Just remember, this is not CoD4 with a 300mx300m Map for 12 players. Most of the detail, you'll only realize, when you actually play the game (like FM, the already shown gesture-communications, realistic engine-modeling, etc)

It's the Alpha version remember. :rolleyes:

I hate it when people defend something for no reason.
I have not said the fm, graphics of the planes etc were bad or commented on the tiny attention to detail either all i have said is the terrain is flat.
I understand the scale of things and how hard it is. But when I scream in low in IL2 I can see the same detail as this (screenshots).
I am not implying it is a bad sim, it just does not live up to my expectations of a new generation flight sim that is all.
Yes Il2 is ten years old and nothing I have seen so-far (I will watch the HDV tonight) makes me think that this sim is not ten years old as well.
Again not a bad thing really, it is at least as good as Il2 if not better ,but it lacks the wow factor.
But maybe with full motion blur and sound the otherwise bland terrain in the screenshots may spring to life.

What I do like is the very effective use of trackir.

Anyway my opinion has never really counted for much on any forum so please relax.

on a positive not it is a new flight sim and that can never be a bad thing :grin: :rolleyes:

rise of flight looks great. gotta love competition.

Your expectations maybe wrong, or just too high.
And, as already said, remember it's still Alpha, so there can be room for improvements.

This is a discussion-board, Bobb.

I think it's quite common for this type of communication, that you get reactions to your statements. Nobody is bashing you, thouch, and nobody is attacking you. It's just that you stated your opinion, others state theirs in reaction to it. That's it.

Just because it is expected from some people, to defend a piece of dog-sh*t on the street, just to enjoy the discussion and spread flaming, doesn't mean that's neccessarily true. ;)
It's just a bit too difficult for some people to accept that they reap what they sow. But so far we're just discussing a few Alpha-state-Promovideos from a nice game. ;)

Never thought they were :-P

And maybe I expected too much from first screenshots anyway :grin:

Good to hear.

I tend to see the glass is half-full rather than half-empty and looking at these alpha-shots, I see a great time ahead for us sim-fans. :grin:

Looking forward for more news to come!

You judge from a few screenshots. The map is quite big and not restricted to a flat area.

I did provide the elevation data grid for this map... as I did for some IL2 maps (Norway, Burma, Bessarabia...) and so knows the respective technical choices and limitation for relief rendering in each game.
I can tell you the elevation grid resolution for RoF is much higher, both in grid coordinates and elevation than in IL2 engine.

You'll see when you'll play the game.

Maybe my point is lost in translation???
I am not talking about flat as the entire world is flat, I am talking, look at the road the ambulance convoy is driving on, it is flat, no textures but a sandy coloured line painted on a green background. exactly the same as is to be seen on Il2.
Now if this screenshot was taken from 2000ft, that's okay but it is taken up-close and personal.
Now if you look at Theatre of war and its soon to be released cousin theatre of war 2 you might understand what I mean about flat.
Yes there are trees and buildings but I expected more especially as this sim will be fought close to the ground.
Like I have said, it is flat (detail-less might be a better term) and compares well with IL2 1946 and OFF using the CFS3 engine.
Individual buildings and plane graphics are excluded from this of-course.
Now again I stress it is very good but not cutting edge. Not next generation.
I hope that gets my point across.
And again no offence intended or taken just a general opinion after seeing the first screenshots of the alpha in action. ;)

I won't be surprised if one of the addons or sequels has grass (...if we give it some time to develop).

Interesting that there isn't any word about the mission editors...?

IIRC interactive (!) moving grass was already shown on some early WIP-video. There were several videos released, for example showing how the turbulences from propwash and wings are modeled and effecting the world (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnwz3WQfuWM - will look that other one up, if I find the time). AFAIK it was also stated that mission-editors will remain in the hands of the developers, to release different addons with new planes and missions. Got to have to look that up, though.


@Bobb:

My guess: He stopped reading with your first quote ;)

Bobb, you must also keep in mind that the map in RoF, as they have stated, is nothing like IL-2 maps. It is ONE huge map that covers the entire front. When you do that, in order to gain smooth gameplay, especially at Alpha stage, you need to sacrifice a few things. I'm sure that as the game moves into beta they'll be testing to find out just how much detail they can throw in before the game gets too stuttery.

Yes, I missed your point... sorry for that.

I find myself the ground textures quite good and convincing... enough even for very low flying... but that's only my oppinion.

I think that's not that easy to determine. At the base it surely looks sort of washed, but over the battlefield, the details with all those craters just looks awesome IMHO.

What I like most about it is.......They give us updates, a website, video, screenies, interviews, information. Best of all it looks like it is going to be released!

We will do our very best :)

Foobar,

Your artwork is "fabelhaft".
Is it certain that Oleg will use your trains?
If so it will be perfect!

Did you offer him to use your trains or did he order that from you?

Will Oleg use more objects from you?
Your Kübelwagen looks great.

Bobb4:: Cutting edge for ground combat simulation -- no.

If you are "right" I am happy! http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d1...eys/thumbs.gif


I hope the devs save the "cutting edge" grafix for the air warfare environment, clouds, sky, sun, etc...and program the game to use the air warfare environment tactically, and leave the "cutting edge" terrain for ground shooter or tank sims.

The ground shooter developers have always known their primary goal was modelling the ground warfare environment, and programming their games to use that environment tactically. That is why ground shooter sims are mainstream business successes, because they focus on ground warfare grafix, their own turf. If The Sims developers ever learn their primary goal is the air warfare environment, they will find great business success as well. Perhaps someday they will. But not today.

@Bloblast, all my railway work is dedicated exclusively to SoW series and AFAIK I'm the only one far around who's making axis railway objects. Don't expect too much of my work for the initial release, most of the vehicles and buildings are dedicated to follow in later episodes.

"As an example, when Manfred von Richthofen met British ace Lanoe Hawker in November 1916, each persisted in trying to get on the other's tail. Both stuck to Boelcke's second dictum. When their endless circling had brought them down near the ground behind German lines, Hawker had to chose between landing and capture or fleeing. He chose to flee. Richthofen was then able to get behind him and shot him down."
A short description of a typical air combat kill in WW1 (Nothing Richthofen ever did could really be called typical but anyway) low to the deck.
This is not about high powered planes zooming in from 10000m for the kill but about planes that flew at 80 to 100 mph and the higher they got the slower they flew.
Dogfights ended up low between 1000m and the deck within minutes so what you see down low adds to the immersion factor especially as you hurtle along at 50mph in a barrol role.
Ground detail becomes important.
Are these trees the fly through models of IL2 and OFF or solid objects? All important details.
This has nothing to do with mudmoving.
Look at the balloons all less than 200m above the ground if you are lucky, plus the moment you attack they will be pulled down.
Again what is down below counts.
I know it is an early alpha but... Again my only point was this sim does not look next generation. maybe it is and the screenshots are of very early non textured land meshs put in as place holders.
maybe the screenshots were taken on a not ideal system (latest computer). Who knows. All I do know is I would like more below me when I come into land or dogfight than bland flat textures.
Although having examined other screenshots I have seen more detail so I may be over-reacting lol.

Solid objects that you will crash into (with damage depending on which part of the plane did actually hit the tree)

You sure do... ;)

Agree !!

Dear All,
Just one point here, Bobb4.........not wishing to be critical, I could not perform a Barrel Roll in an SE5 unless I was doing Max speed and more....even then its difficult as I always stall out. If the speed dropped to 50mph I would be very worried if I was less than threequarters through the maneouvre. If you can do it tell me how please.
best regards,
SLP

Never said in a SE5a did I, do not think I mentioned a plane at all...
But the stall speed of the SE5a was 45 mph according to some sources and as low as 43mph to others. As with the Fokker DR1 which also had a stall speed of around 45 mph. Now with its given maximium speed of only 115mph One can see that all manovers were done in between say 50 and 100 mph.
even cruising along at 115mph or 135mph (SE5a) terrain is slipping past pretty slowly.

And yes I would find it very difficult to perform a barrel roll at 50mph. :grin:
That does not mean in a dogfight i would not give it a try :(
I guess that is why most of my flights end up as me being a lawn dart.

"Preparation for landing is relatively easy; check the air pressure is still between 1 and 2 PSI, we wouldn’t want the engine to starve of fuel on approach. Enter the traffic pattern downwind at about 70 mph reducing throttle and airspeed as you go; turn base to final and reduce to 55-60 mph, over the fence at 50 hold it off as long as you can and touch down three point just as the stall is approached at 45. Directional stability at this point is rather good and the airplane rolls out straight ahead, any corrections are easily made with rudder and you will find the steerable skid is very effective."

This is an actual extract from a modern flight of a rebuilt (replica?) SE5a http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/proje...on/flying-se5a

I love it those videos... it looks like a slow motion compared to the IL2 action:cool:.

Bobb, good point about ground terrain being more important for WW1 than later wars. The higher you go, the less terrain detail needed.

Bobb:: Those popular "dogfight" stories are exactly my point.

For every half hour dogfight descending into the trees, there were a dozen stalkings and hunts for other aircraft at high altitudes, with success or failure dependent on the air warfare environment high in the sky, long before dogfights descend to treetop level.

Now, for mud moving and balloon busting, good terrain would "count" highly but still lies behind in importance to air warfare environment modelling for the overall WW1 air warfare modelling. Zeppelin or Gotha hunting are examples requiring the later.

GRANTED: for a ground level first person "dogfight" shooter simulation (FPDS), I can see the need for "cutting edge" terrain grafix. All that is needed for that is solid blank blue sky. Nothing new here in The Sims.

I'd agree that I'm more interested in "FM-candy" than low-level eye-candy, though I'd hope to find a good level of both in this particular genre.

While the speeds are quite low compared to WW2 norms I don't think 100 mph is particularly slow. In fact, the closer to the ground you fly the faster it will appear to be, and, if you hit something solid, you'll know what I mean ;)

So, while I'm keen to see trees, bushes and smoke being affected by the wind, I'm far more interested in feeling that effect transmitted to the flight model. It should make 50mph barrel rolls interesting, as long I'm only watching, lol.

B

Dear BoBB4,
Yes you did not mention any aircraft type..........but I did not mean that you actually tried to start the manoeuvre at 50mph....that would be impossible and stupid. I was just queerying at what speed you actually started the manoeuvre to end up - say three quarters through at 50mph.
regards,
Pike.

You have obviously never seen me fly online "impossible and stupid" basically describes my flying to a tee.
In a DR1 most probabily at not less than 80mph with an expected bleed of say 30 mph or less as I climb-up and roll over before an immediate nose down to regain some speed.
The SE5a just a smidgen faster.
The manouver is basically one designed to bleed speed most of the time (not always) to drop on to a faster plane, on your six, by forcing an overshoot.
It also depends on the sim you are flying, I am talking OFF.

all this is nice but we still dont have a hardware which would eat "photorealistic terrain" and all that lightning etc...and complex FM and DM from 1C and Neqb...you must be prepared for compromises...better on graphics of terrain than on FM and DM....but, since IL2 perfect mode is enough realistic for me (spec. in a tense dog) I dont have a prob with graphic down low in this new sim...anyway, it will be better than in IL2 perfect mode..

I'm also interested to find out whether the developers will have worked on issues involving fatigue, both to airframes and engines as well as the pilots.
It's all very well to talk about airspeeds and barrel rolls and stall speeds, but the WW1 planes are not similar to the far more standardised models of the WW2 era. We're not just talking about engine size and wing area - it's important that the age and history of the airframe is taken into account as well.
These kites were much more easily strained by high-speed manoeuvring than the later metal monoplanes, while repair and maintenance facilities were much less specialised. Much less was understood about metal fatigue for example, and it wasn't uncommon for aircraft to literally fall to pieces in flight. Likewise - it wasn't uncommon for engines to fail "just like that", quite often just after take-off.

I think that flight simulations suffer from 'gamer-ism' in these respects. Not all aircraft flew like the modern replicas, carefully-tended and with modern materials used for safety reasons in the modern age. While I wouldn't want to see a replica-pilot fall out of the sky in real life - I'd hate to see the developers roll over to satisfy the demands of the gamers, and provide the kind of planes that fly strictly according to some performance-freak's set of graphs.

B

Then we want random malfunctions as a simplification. Randomly varying FM or DM with a "historical" basis is a no-go for dynamic campaigns or Online Wars that do not follow history. ie...suppose Germany is winning a dynamic campaign or extended Online War, then the late Bf-109s may not suffer alot of the manufacturing problems or fuel problems they historically had.

And to step into another misadventure: Flight model is no more important than "terrain" as both are irrelevent to air warfare simulation when compared to the importance of the air warfare environment (**).

To paraquote Chuck Yeager: Its the pilot, not the flight model.

Who said this one:: He who sees first, wins.

The pilot defines success or failure, and he/she does this by using the air warfare environmment to his/her advantage. Of course, the flight model or "the plane" in Chuck's original quote "counts" also, but like terrain, is not the primary driver of air warfare which is the air warfare environment. After all, every pilot hoped to mount a higher performance beast if possible, ie...they all wished for "better" flight models...but if they couldn't, they made do as best as possible with their flying skills and deep knowledge of the air warfare environment, assuming the ones who survived to learn about it (he who see first, wins). Unlike the ground warfare environment, the air warfare environment is not instinctively or naturally known by Man/Manette, and has to be taught.

So far, both the "gamers" and the hardcore "competition dogfight flight model" simmers have never learned the air warfare environment, because they have never seen it modelled in The Sims before. That's a teaching failing of developers, not the customers. Perhaps someday The Sims developers will figure this out and model the air warfare environment.

But not today.


(**) Footnote added later:: Exposing the greatest Pink Elephant of combat flight The Sims is gonna get me into alot of trouble.

I just hope that I'll see improvements in campaign mode... more "personal" approach, in spite of IL2 doing it later in its development it never really "caught up" on this.
Otherwise I'm totally satisfied with this sim, it'll probably be for WW1 simulated air fight what IL2 was for WW2 simulated air fight.

RedBaron II had by far one of the best campaign/career aspects I've seen....Really coupled actual historical events and you could affect the outcome (ex. shoot down Voss early and his efforts would not affect the balance).

K2

Yup, Red Baron II was awesome. I remember once going on patrol and seeing a myriad of little specks on the ground.Scratching my head, i dived down over the trenches in my flimsy Neuport17 and started shooting at them and guess what...closing in i realized they were German soldiers storming the Allied trenches. I bet that if i had a couple of bombs i could have completely stalled their advance, but i had to break off once my ammo was exhausted.