Friday 2010-11-12 Dev. update and Discussion

[Stiboo]

Yes the water question is interesting, if a plane drops a torpedo will we see the torpedo running under the water or just a wake above ?

Are there any planes human or ai that have torps in BoB 1940 period...?









ps- what's the release date?!

Oleg, I have very low internet connection, only DSL 786 kBit/s.

What is the traffic per client in SoW Multiplayer?

[klem]

Flaperons:

Ailerons that also drop as Flaps when needed (still working as ailerons though)

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by klem

Flaperons:

Ailerons that also droop as Flaps.

Ah, ok didn't know English term.

It isn't a problem to model in new code of FM.

For example, it was done in Il-2. You may see there I-16.

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by Hecke

Oleg, I have very low internet connection, only DSL 786 kBit/s.

What is the traffic per client in SoW Multiplayer?

I can't say you exact digits. Generally depending of players amount. As smaller amount of players - more low speed is possible.

But we didn't test yet across the external tool that we implementing.

[philip.ed]

Oleg, any input as to the colour in the Stuka film? Before you click on the link, it shows a picture, and the colour here looks brighter than the actual film. It looks beautiful; one of the best SoW shots I've ever seen.

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

Ah, ok didn't know English term.

It isn't a problem to model in new code of FM.

For example, it was done in Il-2. You may see there I-16.

Yes, the I-16 is a good example. The 109E had that feature as well, the ailerons drooping 11 degrees at full flaps, 3 degrees at takeoff. It seems at least a few Es had the interconnect linkage removed in the field to reduce outboard wing weight to improve initial roll rate while its benefit was mainly for landing.

(There is VERY LITTLE documentation of this feature, many 109 sources don't mention it while describing the E while then going on to say it was left off of the F.)

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Auger73

I haven't tried over-G in X-Plane, but when I tried spinning Cessnas (in both X-Plane and FSX), I was disappointed with the results. I couldn't get the planes to spin, and my experience flying Cessnas told me that it was wrong. In IL-2, you can easily enter a spin through a sharp uncoordinated turn as well as through a stall. I guess that particuarly bothered me, because it was one of the things I enjoyed most about flying Cessnas.

In theory, if all things were equal (spec vs. performance), then a combat flight sim either couldn't do as much, or would have to have lower fidelity than a non-combat flight sim. But different flight sims are built off of different code, have different modeling methodologies, and different system requirements. It's not true that a combat flight sim must have lower flight fidelity due to dealing with things like ballistics. The same code would just require additional resources.

Sometimes aircraft with particular handling characteristics don't fit well in a survey sim. As an example, the Me 163B in IL-2 is much less forgiving than what I've read about the real aircraft. Then again, in IL-2 it won't blow up wihout external influence, so maybe it is a compromise.

I will most likely get X-Plane 10, too, and I hope that I have a better experience with it than with version 9. MS Flight looks like it might be less realistic than FSX, just laden with more eye-candy. If so, I will probably skip it.

Needless to say, I will buy SOW at the first opportunity that presents itself.

Hey Auger, I think the stock Cessnas had some problems. Supposedly the add-ons were better (I mostly fly an add-on 172). It all depends on what the plane maker did when he/she made the plane. The flight model tools are there, they just might not get used well. A lot of the add ons are bad too.

This is something Oleg is trying to avoid in SoW by keeping more control of add ons. Imagine a 109 with a lower stall speed, less drag, or a better turn radius than the actual. In a flight sim, such an aircraft would be rejected. In a combat sim, online players might pay extra for those features .

Splitter

[major_setback]

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

Battle of Britain is because
- it wasn't modelled in Il-2.
- It is a good start for the new series that to expand with new titles based on BoB in both directions of historical period of time (more in future).

the second is main definition. It is optimization of development - next would cost less using part of modelled objects from previous title. There is other definitions, but this one is main

Hope this answer is very clear.

For the British consumer BoB seems like a natural starting point (not that that is a special reason to start there), compared to if it were to start for example in Moscow. So it is good with respect to that market.

[major_setback]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

Oleg, any input as to the colour in the Stuka film? Before you click on the link, it shows a picture, and the colour here looks brighter than the actual film. It looks beautiful; one of the best SoW shots I've ever seen.

Just to note: The high quality download is a little bit lighter than the Youtube version, and a bit clearer.