Non Friday 2010-04-15 Development Update :)

[zauii]

I agree that the ongoing debate about these nitpicking details are redicilous.
The pilot becomes a POW if landing i enemy territory, if not his rescued what do i know, and frankly i don't care why simulate any more?

Bottom line here guys SoW will still be much more realistic than IL2.

[philip.ed]

Just because you can; if you have the option to have it, then why not? It would be quite call, but maybe as an add-on.

[fireflyerz]

In my mind the bail out sequence in its entirety is one of the core elements of the game , one of the the most complained about sequences of il2 was the very same for its unrealism , lets get it right this time so that it still looks beleivable in 10 years , im not realy interested in him once he has landed ,thats not what this game is about , how he bails , how he pulls and how his canopy behaves in flight and on landing is what is important and if its done right it will add 10 fold to the imersion of the sim.

Ps.Oleg , I know you will, im just thinking out loud.

[Novotny]

I agree that there's nothing wrong with hoping for things, but it's not as if a lot of the requests that people make are 'options'. I really do think people generally misunderstand how tricky programming sims/games is. What may seem like a simple thing to implement may realistically be very difficult.

Someone else - forgive me, I'm paraphrasing others - spoke of the harmonisation of experience. Probably TD. As a game maker, you do not want one part of the experience to have a better fidelity than another - it breaks immersion. One part becomes ok, the other part not good enough. In other words: you can't stick in bits that don't gel with the overall experience.

Another point I have made before is this: people really do tend to think that their personal ideas are new and never-before considered. If it's a good idea, don't you think that someone, in an entire team of people - professionals, I might add, not hobbyists - who are actually working at this flight-sim full-time, for years on end: don't you ever think that they might have considered this too? By all means bring it up, ask about it, but not in a manner that suggests you're bringing enlightenment to the ignorant. It's very rude.

Someone else again (!) also advised that if Oleg & Co are asking for feedback, it's not about how good you think x/y/z is. It's about whether there's been any errors with historical accuracy; acquiring more accurate data; getting old and difficult to find pictures.

I just wish people would be less vociferous in their demands and more appreciative of what we're getting. If I were Oleg, I'd think this community a bunch of know-it-all-do-nothing smart-arses.

Fortunately, he seems to be a better man than me

edit:: I should add - I'm not getting at anyone particularly in the thread. The comments I'm making are aimed at a generally large part of the community.

[Codex]

Cloth simulations are difficult if you don't know what your doing. However cloth simulations are not that difficult to implent, the difficulty is whether Oleg has the resourses or will to put it in a parachute.

Cloth simultaions have been around for years and are readily availabe in many common Physics / GPU API's:

nVidia + CUDA
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/d...imulation.html

ATI + Havoc
http://www.havok.com/index.php?page=havok-cloth


Here is a realtime cloth demo using Flash 7
http://www.custom-logic.com/exp/cloth/cloth.html

[Novotny]

Well yes: what I wanted to highlight was the difficulty in implementing these things & the associated cost in development time. To my mind, this workload could probably be better allocated to other areas of the sim - but it's just my opinion. I wouldn't refuse any of it. If it comes, excellent. It's just, I think, highly unlikely for the initial release.

[Flyby]

recalling how much a single core cpu bogged down with many parachutes in the air, and believing that there might be more than a few animated crew descending softly by chute in SoW gives me pause. I hope this feature can be turned off. Good for a few giggles and grins, and maybe a few wows, sure. But if Oleg is going to release a sim that, at full tilt (as some suspect) will bring even a modern gaming rig to it's knees, then wanting a downed crewman to wander about while the battle above still rages above just seems to scream single-digit frames. Maybe the unfortunate sot could steal an enemy plane and escape? How will this be implemented in single player or multiplayer for that matter and still render acceptable frames per second. Maybe better to just have the pilot run, duck and cover just like before in IL2. After all, everyone else will be too busy flying about to watch what happens to those who have already left the aerial arena. Why waste the cores, threads or cpu cycles getting animated figures to do this or that? Hey! Maybe if I were to get shot down that would be how my online and offline flight ended, if enabled? I mean I hit the silk online and I no longer can see what's going on with the rest of the mission. All I can see is what my avatar-pilot is doing. No outside views of other craft/players. Just me gathering my chute and trying to outrun Socialist-indoctrinated Rottweilers and there square-headed handlers. A whole new facet of the sim whereby the whole power of my gaming system is redirected to my pilot (as in an FP-Shooter) trying to get back to base. Of course I could just end the mission, and respawn for another go at the brutes.
Flyby out

[Flanker35M]

S!

Flyby. Exactly my thoughts. You bail = game over. You might get rescued if over channel, POW if over England, slight possibility of escaping if over France depending on side you fly of course. Tons of parachutes will bring the system down.

Even those multiplayer flight sims like Aces High 2 get a dip in FPS if there is a lot of them. Some even used it as a way of making defence harder, dropped hundreds of paratroopers bringing the lag and FPS down to single digits. And this game can handle hundreds of players normally, but look at graphics. It all comes with a cost

[zauii]

Originally Posted by Novotny

I agree that there's nothing wrong with hoping for things, but it's not as if a lot of the requests that people make are 'options'. I really do think people generally misunderstand how tricky programming sims/games is. What may seem like a simple thing to implement may realistically be very difficult.

Someone else - forgive me, I'm paraphrasing others - spoke of the harmonisation of experience. Probably TD. As a game maker, you do not want one part of the experience to have a better fidelity than another - it breaks immersion. One part becomes ok, the other part not good enough. In other words: you can't stick in bits that don't gel with the overall experience.

Another point I have made before is this: people really do tend to think that their personal ideas are new and never-before considered. If it's a good idea, don't you think that someone, in an entire team of people - professionals, I might add, not hobbyists - who are actually working at this flight-sim full-time, for years on end: don't you ever think that they might have considered this too? By all means bring it up, ask about it, but not in a manner that suggests you're bringing enlightenment to the ignorant. It's very rude.

Someone else again (!) also advised that if Oleg & Co are asking for feedback, it's not about how good you think x/y/z is. It's about whether there's been any errors with historical accuracy; acquiring more accurate data; getting old and difficult to find pictures.

I just wish people would be less vociferous in their demands and more appreciative of what we're getting. If I were Oleg, I'd think this community a bunch of know-it-all-do-nothing smart-arses.

Fortunately, he seems to be a better man than me

edit:: I should add - I'm not getting at anyone particularly in the thread. The comments I'm making are aimed at a generally large part of the community.

Quoted for truth, hands down best post in the thread.

[philip.ed]

But tons of parachutes, with the added possibility of a failure, has already been modelled in BoB2 without fps loss, so I don't really understand your worries? Yes this sequence is more complicated, but technology has moved on: look at WoP.