Birds of Prey GC 2008 trailer

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by Biggs

the bottom line, Anton, is that no RAF fighter should be able to shred wings off of any plane with a half second burst of .303 fire... it just didnt happen... EVER. the .303 had no EXPLOSIVE power like that of a cannon shell.
...
it seems like the production team is just mix and matching types of planes together which is really disappointing.

A He111 weighs something like 26500lbs(12 metric tons) all supported by the spars running through the wings.. Thoses spars are engineered to support the weight with at least weight as possible.

The 8 .303 Brownings will in 1/2 a second, throw out something like a pound of lead traveling 2450 feet per second.

I'm sure if this half second burst was concentrated on the right spot, the consequences would be devistating. Even half a 'G'+ in a evasive action and our efective weight of the bomber would be 18 metics tons! All through those spars!

"Ever" is too big a word. I'm sure there were a few pilots on both side who thought "That is impossible! How did he do that!"

Also I'm not sure if BOP has ever been put forward as a 100% historical sim!

Cheers!

[nearmiss]

Just thought of something funny...

In all my years of combat flight simming I've never discussed a Console game with anyone. Nor have I ever played one.

[Monterey]

BoP is a console GAME.

It will be mostly kids playing it, so it doesn't have to meet all of your anally correct standards.

Anton is a GAME developer, so give him a break.

Leave the SIMS for Oleg and Ilya.

[Anton Yudintsev]

Originally Posted by IceFire

So for a rare type...its showing up surprisingly allot in the trailers. Looks beautiful...but if its going to be accurate...if thats your audience....then it should be accurate.

I just don't get you point.
1. There WERE such hurricanes (with Hispano).
2. They were rather rare.

So what?
I know they were rare. And we both agree they were really exist.
'They appear too often in trailer'. Huh? They appears in the game rather often.
Our intention is NOT making all planes appear on screen statistically accurate percentage of time. It even sounds a bit silly, you know.
We are making game.
They are some historical air battles - but even those are not documentary movies, player participates there.
And some are not present at all.
Some planes we like more than others.
Some planes are not even present in the game.
In 'Simplified' (arcade) mode - there is cross on the screen showing where to shoot. No spins, and auto-flaps working on landing. I don't think that Earth should stop because of that.


So what?
It seem to me, that you are trying to show your own knoweledge - I agree, you know what you are talking about (at least here).
But than you'd better to confirm that what we see in trailers is historical accurate planes, not arguing about that because 'they were rare'.
We are not writing books, we are making games.

Simetimes, I think it is better to stay away from forums, like Oleg does
It doesn't seem to help performance of our title.

[Anton Yudintsev]

Originally Posted by Monterey

BoP is a console GAME.

It will be mostly kids playing it, so it doesn't have to meet all of your anally correct standards.

Anton is a GAME developer, so give him a break.

Leave the SIMS for Oleg and Ilya.

You know, you are right. We are developing game.
And it is flight-sim as well.

Funny thing is, that it is not book. Everyone agrees that they were such planes in BoB - they are talking that they were RARE. So they should appear rarely in trailers (or in the game).
That is not about sim it or not.
It is about 'historical truth'.

Guys, actually, it is impossible to make Sim (and game also) that is historicall accurate. You can be better pilot, and change battle dramatically. And than what? We should change history of WW2? Or tell player, that he is performing too good, and game is over?

But we are not doing that.
They ARE historically accurate planes in correct theatres of war.
Not exactly the same planes of the same types flying with same pilots, flying in the same directions and repeating same mistakes. Just historically accurate. No matter how RARE or COMMON they were.
And they are simulated (in Simulator mode). With perfect original IL-2 flight model.

And it is huge part of the game, which is NOT for kids.
It was easier for us not to make it. It takes time, money, and nerves to do it.
It is for hardcore community.

Ugh.

BTW.
Game is 14+.
Avearage age of next-gen console players is 20+.
Not so many 'kids'.

[Chivas]

I'm sure the majority of simmers will find IL-2 BOP very entertaining. If its possible to continue support for the game with new maps, features, and aircraft it will have a long life.

[Biggs]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

A He111 weighs something like 26500lbs(12 metric tons) all supported by the spars running through the wings.. Thoses spars are engineered to support the weight with at least weight as possible.

The 8 .303 Brownings will in 1/2 a second, throw out something like 6 pounds of lead traveling 2450 feet per second.

I'm sure if this half second burst was concentrated on the right spot, the consequences would be devistating. Even half a 'G'+ in a evasive action and our efective weight of the bomber would be 18 metics tons! All through those spars!

"Ever" is too big a word. I'm sure there were a few pilots on both side who thought "That is impossible! How did he do that!"

Also I'm not sure if BOP has ever been put forward as a 100% historical sim!

Cheers!

yes "ever" is a bit too tough a word but i wanted to emphisize the fact that the .303s had a extremely hard time with causing major structural damage from the round itself... bombers came home with 200+ bullet holes at times...

yes spits and Hurris were able to make enemy A/C explode, but again, it was because of a well placed (or lucky) hit to a vital part of the plane.

Im not sure if Anton already said this but i hope that there is a selection for "realistic damage".

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Anton Yudintsev

I just don't get you point.
1. There WERE such hurricanes (with Hispano).
2. They were rather rare.

So what?
I know they were rare. And we both agree they were really exist.
'They appear too often in trailer'. Huh? They appears in the game rather often.
Our intention is NOT making all planes appear on screen statistically accurate percentage of time. It even sounds a bit silly, you know.
We are making game.
They are some historical air battles - but even those are not documentary movies, player participates there.
And some are not present at all.
Some planes we like more than others.
Some planes are not even present in the game.
In 'Simplified' (arcade) mode - there is cross on the screen showing where to shoot. No spins, and auto-flaps working on landing. I don't think that Earth should stop because of that.


So what?
It seem to me, that you are trying to show your own knoweledge - I agree, you know what you are talking about (at least here).
But than you'd better to confirm that what we see in trailers is historical accurate planes, not arguing about that because 'they were rare'.
We are not writing books, we are making games.

Simetimes, I think it is better to stay away from forums, like Oleg does
It doesn't seem to help performance of our title.

Oleg and I have gotten along quite well actually...not that we talk that often but a few good ideas exchanged on rare occasions. I'm quite realistic about what goes into making games and indeed works of art because thats what I think games are.

But let me get back to my point. Another forum member is pointing out that there are some issues with your planes and you have assured us that you have people working on the history. Great! Then lets make sure we have something that represents history...so either include all of the different types present (i.e. 8 gunned .303 Spitfire I versus Spitfire Ia with twin cannons) or choose the most common type that represents the time period the best.

Why choose the type that failed in combat? Or...in the case of the Mark II Hurricane...simply was not available until the battle was already decided? Unless your time period is September to November in which case the Mark IIa is perfectly acceptable. I'm not actually sure off the top of my head when the 12 gunned IIb arrived...but I don't think it did during any of the time considered part of the Battle of Britain. Then there is the 109E which is firing a 20mm cannon through the propeller hub (another forum poster here rightly spotted that one). Again...a type that was extremely rare. I forget the model number of the top of my head but a 109 expert can surely tell you that this type is not a common one at all.

Yes it existed...absolutely...your not wrong in this. But all of these were rare, not present at the battle, and generally failed as major production variants at the time. But yet suddenly they are everywhere. If the other types are present as well...then bonus...these are neat to have as bonus aircraft. But not the main types.

Its OK if this is meant to be an arcade shoot em up for XBox with nice graphics and a fun style of gameplay. Believe me...I'm actually a fan of Blazing Angels because they intentionally did not go the route of being historical. Just loosely based on history. But this new IL-2 game is doing two things:

1) Purporting to be related to earlier IL-2 titles by using the same branding and name thus trying to gain the attention of sim pilots.

2) Trying to look very realistic and simulate a real battle that took place.

Thats what it looks like...and if thats what its trying to do it should do it and do it to the highest possible standard including the history. Rare planes should be rare. Or not present. Common types should be present to be most historically accurate. Feel free to disagree but I think it does a disservice.

I sincerely and honestly wish the team involved the best of luck because they are working on a subject very near to my heart...but I wish a little more care was used. Then again...its meant for the XBox 360 and maybe we shouldn't expect such seriousness. But I do. I'm definitely in the target audience owning a 360 and being an avid follower of aviation.

And please don't think I'm some how showing off my knowledge. Thats not my style. I know things and I talk about them when its relevant only

[Anton Yudintsev]

Originally Posted by IceFire

Oleg and I have gotten along quite well actually...not that we talk that often but a few good ideas exchanged on rare occasions. I'm quite realistic about what goes into making games and indeed works of art because thats what I think games are.

But let me get back to my point. Another forum member is pointing out that there are some issues with your planes and you have assured us that you have people working on the history. Great! Then lets make sure we have something that represents history...so either include all of the different types present (i.e. 8 gunned .303 Spitfire I versus Spitfire Ia with twin cannons) or choose the most common type that represents the time period the best.

Why choose the type that failed in combat? Or...in the case of the Mark II Hurricane...simply was not available until the battle was already decided? Unless your time period is September to November in which case the Mark IIa is perfectly acceptable. I'm not actually sure off the top of my head when the 12 gunned IIb arrived...but I don't think it did during any of the time considered part of the Battle of Britain. Then there is the 109E which is firing a 20mm cannon through the propeller hub (another forum poster here rightly spotted that one). Again...a type that was extremely rare. I forget the model number of the top of my head but a 109 expert can surely tell you that this type is not a common one at all.

Yes it existed...absolutely...your not wrong in this. But all of these were rare, not present at the battle, and generally failed as major production variants at the time. But yet suddenly they are everywhere. If the other types are present as well...then bonus...these are neat to have as bonus aircraft. But not the main types.

I know it. You know it. How much of others here know it?
There can be some author's vision in the game, can't it?
We are not throwing away historical realizm like Blazing Angels series.
Just pushing some limits. Because it is game, and because it allows better gameplay. And still histrically true - because there WERE such planes.
As an example.
Have you seen 'Battle of Britain' movie (1969)?
It is historical movie. But it is movie.
No flyable Mk I were even that time, and producers used other modifications.
Some scenes were completely fictitious.
But still it is great, historical accurate movie.
Read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain_(film) .

Believe me...I'm actually a fan of Blazing Angels because they intentionally did not go the route of being historical. Just loosely based on history.

Blazing Angels is arcade game. It is far away not only from history, but from simulation as well. And even reality - I don't think, what I've played in BA2 was _airplane_ .

And please don't think I'm some how showing off my knowledge. Thats not my style. I know things and I talk about them when its relevant only

I was only giving you a credit.

P.S.
Spitfires engine sometimes stopped, when flying down. I haven't heard players complaining, that in game there is no such effect Because it simply silly.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Anton Yudintsev

I know it. You know it. How much of others here know it?
There can be some author's vision in the game, can't it?
We are not throwing away historical realizm like Blazing Angels series.
Just pushing some limits. Because it is game, and because it allows better gameplay. And still histrically true - because there WERE such planes.
As an example.
Have you seen 'Battle of Britain' movie (1969)?
It is historical movie. But it is movie.
No flyable Mk I were even that time, and producers used other modifications.
Some scenes were completely fictitious.
But still it is great, historical accurate movie.
Read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain_(film) .



Blazing Angels is arcade game. It is far away not only from history, but from simulation as well. And even reality - I don't think, what I've played in BA2 was _airplane_ .



I was only giving you a credit.

P.S.
Spitfires engine sometimes stopped, when flying down. I haven't heard players complaining, that in game there is no such effect Because it simply silly.

Fair enough on the authors vision. If such a vision is the case then by all means...its not mine...it is yours and ultimately your the author.

Also a fair point on the Battle of Britain. One of my most watched DVD's (and tapes ) in my collection. A superb movie that gets as much right as it can. Indeed no Spitfire Mark Is were available. The very similar to almost identical Mark II (the only one flight worthy at the time) makes an appearance in most of the close up shots. The rest are Mark V and IXs with the cannons taken off or cleverly concealed. They did a pretty good job there too. No CGI for them to hide behind. Definitely trying to make them look like bog standard Mark Is on the other hand which was the intention. Absolutely a fair point.

Early Spitfire and Hurricanes had carburetor fed engines which when pushed forward into negative G maneuvers would cause the fuel to rush away from the feed and the engine would indeed stall. This could happen upsidedown, yes, but also while pushing forward on the stick to chase a 109. This was later solved...particularly in the Mark V series of Spitfires and later. In IL-2 1946 and in all previous versions a negative G engine stall occurs on the Hurricane I as it should. One of the many stop gap solutions was called "Miss Shilling's orifice" after the inventor came up with a simple solution to the problem. Have a look if your interested

Honestly I wouldn't mind a proper engine stall in the game BoP as well. Simulation mode on. Certainly I'm looking forward to that in Storm of War. Not so much silly in my mind

In any case...as I say...wish you the best of luck in the development of this game. A big challenge and a work of art absolutely.