Friday 2010-10-22 Dev. update and Discussion

[mazex]

Originally Posted by The Kraken

And did they operate those with a mouse?

And did they have a plastic cone like the ones sick dogs have with 70 degrees vision of the world with a pixelation raster attached to it?

In a real plane you take a microsecond glimpse down at the temp meter and then look ahead... You reach for the gear lever,throttle or flaps without even looking down, and zeroing the altimeter is done in a second. Being on final having to "look down" and messing around with the mouse to go to full flaps when in danger of overshooting the runway is a no no for me immersion wise... Having said that I understand that some people like it, probably the persons that think that "full real" is imposing that completely unrealistic cone on your head instead of allowing padlock etc to overcome the problems of simulating the impressive control a real person has of his head and vision with 180+ degrees of FOV (for motions at least).

For me, I play games like IL2 to simulate WWII dogfighting and I like it best on the servers that even allow external views but with good missions like UK Dedicated 1. For "full real" I go fly for real instead...

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by Trumper

after all BOB pilots didn't have multi switched joysticks as we do,they had separate prop pitch levers,fuel cocks,magnetos,they had to do it and fight to survive.
I hope it will be looked into in the future it is a basic ingredient.

Did read you with more attention:
And what the problem with what we are modelling using mouse control?
It seems that you and most didn't understand my sentence that we are modeling these that are using for the flight... all you listed above is for the flight! We have it with possibility to control by the mouse.

We haven't all the switches clickable in the cockpit using for starting proceduere or so. This is other thing than the control in the fligth isn't it?

I think all is clear now?

I still don't get it what is and what is not. Sry Oleg.

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by Osprey

especially as many RAF aircraft were pre-started by ground crew while the pilots were running across the airfield toward them anyway.

This is for Russians and for Germans actual. I have read about it a lot in the past. And I told it in Il-2 time of life, I told it when we started really new sim....
With no modeling starting procedure we really is more close to reality than to model it.
The most important to model the systems that are working in fligth. And to model them by the way that are not random table failure with the great size hit box for the full aircraft or its couple of parts... Even in Il-2 had most complex things of this modelled for its time.
I hope people will understand it

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by Hecke

I still don't get it what is and what is not. Sry Oleg.

Then you simply should learn real aircraft systems and its control and then to compare what is using in fligth(some time also different for different aircraft type) and what is ONLY for starting procedure.

We model the first.

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by mazex

And did they have a plastic cone like the ones sick dogs have with 70 degrees vision of the world with a pixelation raster attached to it?

In a real plane you take a microsecond glimpse down at the temp meter and then look ahead... You reach for the gear lever,throttle or flaps without even looking down, and zeroing the altimeter is done in a second. Being on final having to "look down" and messing around with the mouse to go to full flaps when in danger of overshooting the runway is a no no for me immersion wise... Having said that I understand that some people like it, probably the persons that think that "full real" is imposing that completely unrealistic cone on your head instead of allowing padlock etc to overcome the problems of simulating the impressive control a real person has of his head and vision with 180+ degrees of FOV (for motions at least).

For me, I play games like IL2 to simulate WWII dogfighting and I like it best on the servers that even allow external views but with good missions like UK Dedicated 1. For "full real" I go fly for real instead...

All well said.

so nothing clickable for start procedure?

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by Hecke

so nothing clickable for start procedure?

First of all I can't write here manual....
Second - Starting procedure we have just very small part common for all aircraft.
Third - we pay attention for more important things of the fligth simulation than the simulation of the cockpit on the ground. We leave it for others who can't do other the most important things on the level that is neccessary for the succes on the market.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

I think that we are modeling so many things in each aircraft that never was modelled in any single aircraft sim.

Start procedure do not affect these systems and complexity of modelling.

Each aircraft in our sim may have from 300 to 500+ parameters of modeling.

Say me is there the sim that would model the work of the piston compressor in a cockpit of bomber?
Or is there any sim that would model the work of each cylinder of engine?
Or various of propellers and its reductors?
various of pitch mechanisms?
The work of carburauter? Its diameter of airintake that calculate the airflow dencity in there?
Or maybe you can name the flight sim where in the damage is included the case of tires pinhole and its result?
Where, like in Il-2 for the first time in the world, then now in our sim modelled on the new very high level of precise and phycically (in 3D) all the trip rods to ailerons, elevator, rudder, etc? That can be all damahged separately with its result to control and flight?
Where in a sim modelled some (not all) eletrical wires that can be also damaged in a system of DM?

Can you sayme where in other game is modelling many of these thigns in 3D that to get right place of the hit result instead of randome program table of switchable failure?


Resume:
Complete starting procedure doesn't means the modeling of the things described above.... Trust me
We did way more complex work in general.
Like we did for the first time in the world the co-called in the past Complex Damage Model in Il-2 series.

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

1. I think you didn't read starting procedures of WWII time figters... and bombers...Its not very few. Usually more than 20 steps.

2. You'll get more immersion with what we are modeling.

3. Systems and starting procedure is different thing. We model the system(s), instead of table for the start of engine.

Thanks for the answers. I still would like to have a complete cockpit experience (some time in the future maybe, thanks to the built-in mod support in SoW), but i know what you mean and it's the same thing i was talking about: having the start-up is a nice touch to have but not critical, however the systems are the important part.

That's exactly what i was hoping to hear, thanks for modelling all that.

No more instant pressure build-up, no more firewalling the throttle right after engine start, no more 110% throttle all day long, etc etc...i can wait for the little details now that all the rest of the important stuff has been confirmed


For the people that don't understand it, the way i read mr Maddox's comments it looks to me like this:

1) Not all controls will be working or modelled. Controls will be modelled if the corresponding systems are used by the game engine. So, if your aircraft is equipped with intercoolers and the game engine models carburetor icing, you will get working intercooler controls. If there's no complex engine start however, you won't get a working starter button.

2) However, there will still be a higher amount of controls needed to operate the aircraft properly than there was in IL2. Things like intercoolers, carbuteror heaters, even canopy de-icers, etc.

3) All of these systems will be damageable with appropriate consequences, due to enemy fire or improper operation by the pilot. For example, carburetor icing builds up if you don't work your intercoolers correctly, the engine loses power and finally stops.

4) You will be able to control these systems either by mapping them to joystick/keyboard, by clicking on them in the virtual cockpit, or using a mixed system, whatever way you prefer. This way, people with expensive HOTAS sets can map it all to their sticks, but people with simpler sticks will also be able to fly at full difficulty by assigning the most important functions to their sticks and using the mouse for the non-critical ones.

I'd say it's a very good start and highly promising for the future. I would still like to have the entire thing modelled 100% at some time, but i have no problem accepting compromises when the final result is looking to be so well balanced.

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

When I was asking them for the photos of Dover that they were using they only said that they used the sattelite map... That wasn't interesting for me. And they didn't give me even that photo.
Next time I will think about other forms of business when I'll give the source code and all our own models to third parties for their projects.

I have a lot of photos of Dover from different altitudes and views how it was looking in 1930-40.
There is so many things in reality.... that we even can't model for that time... but it is a bit more detailed that you may find in any other sim.

So, if I read you correctly Oleg, a team that built its brand new game on YOUR engine code, (and I am sure that you did give them good advice from time to time), and got lots of good reviews and good sales, turned Oleg Maddox down when he asked for a picture ? And we all dream of a "sim community" that would be "friendly competitive" so this genre will be living for a long time....
That's beyond disapointment...

Anyway, you do like you allways did, raise the bar so high that it will be easier for others to just crawl under !

Salute !