Oleg Maddox's Room #1

[Feuerfalke]

Originally Posted by Oktoberfest

Hello Oleg,

well this is my first post specifically for you.... I think you have great ideas and I love it that you put so much effort to make a game like SoW. I just hope that you have the time and the fee to put all the ideas that you have in the game, sooner or later.

I like this idea of being able to control ground units in the game too. And if you make a concurrent to WWIIOL, then I sure would be playing it, but not with a monthly fee, it's a bit too sad for the game. As I said, I prefer it the way of Guild Wars. Anyway, for the moment, such a kind of game is not even an idea, but just giving my 2 cents for the future. Keep on the good work and keep the regular updates. I didn't post anything against you, but I could understand the shaking occuring in the last day when you came out of the silence just after BoP was announced. It was kind of releasing a string of a bow that was pulled a lot. Of course, it needs time to get steady again.

Keep the good work !

Well, Guild Wars didn't really invent that, you know?

If I may remind you, it was another game that gave you the option to either buy addons and run them as standalone or to install them merged with your previous versions of the game. And that was years before GW was released. The name of the Game was IL2FB IIRC - As it was quite successful I see no reason to change that way of distribution. We'll buy them all anyway - LOL

IMHO you, Oleg, and your team did a really, really great job with IL2 and from the mere tidbits of informations released, I can imagine there's a great time coming for us simulations-fans once BoB is released. That's honestly the reason why I have no problem waiting - all good things are worth waiting for.

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke

Well, Guild Wars didn't really invent that, you know?

If I may remind you, it was another game that gave you the option to either buy addons and run them as standalone or to install them merged with your previous versions of the game. And that was years before GW was released. The name of the Game was IL2FB IIRC - As it was quite successful I see no reason to change that way of distribution. We'll buy them all anyway - LOL

IMHO you, Oleg, and your team did a really, really great job with IL2 and from the mere tidbits of informations released, I can imagine there's a great time coming for us simulations-fans once BoB is released. That's honestly the reason why I have no problem waiting - all good things are worth waiting for.

As more compex coding, more complex AI in terms of features, precise of models comparing to original real planes, we need more time to spend for development. And if we want the new jump of technoloiges, visuals, damage, FM, common physics, etc in one product united all in one with some compromises that will be acceptable for many years ahead, like we did years ago with the release of Il-2, we need more time. Real time of full development from intial to final code of Il-2 was 7+ years. And 5 years success on the market. To repeat it very hard... even more hard to jump over our own heads.
I'm the guy, who dislike to create one time good thing then wait when this good thing will be worse then new others... from others. I'm the guy who like to get always only good. So I would like top get in BoB many things that isn't in any sim in features, etc... or in any possible competitors in future (At least I hope )
Somebody told here that why we are doing the planes that didn't play role in the war... It is incorect opinion. Each plane played some role. And each plane that we model is important part of history and GAMEPLAY for single play. It is also important for users that like to make themselves some episodes of airwar that we or others never covered in a flightsim. Also this will make the sim unique comparing to all other BoBs before. If you'll look for years back, you may se that with original Il-2 was really the same situation ...
Or you don't like to try to fly military autogyro for recon or for the tunings of radar and trying to escape attacks of bf109s? I can give you a guarantie that it will be for many people very interesting and to feell the things that was never experinced before.... Just little sample... Only when you pay attention to such "outside of main picture" detail the product might be interesting for all.

In short:
We try to make the BoB that will be not like all BoBs before on a sim market...
we try to make not the single one time released game, but the series of expansions... that will work like Pacific Fighters in the past... stand alone or merged with previous release, begining from BoB.

[Feuerfalke]

Sounds great!

I am still a fan of games like Falcon and B17II, which had a rather limited number or even a single aircraft modeled, but in very high detail and with a lot of dedication. Considering the incredible detail and the number of planes in BoB, I think your team already did an awesome job and I think it is the right thing to do for a long living simulation. And there are even more things ahead considering avionics, radar and stuff, as we read before.

I also find that a great part of the success of IL is exactly because of the things you said: This game is not about flying some planes against each other on an airquake-dogfight-server. It's to a large extend offline and coops, now, and considering we will have AI-planes and AI-Objects in Dogfight-Servers in BoB, these additional planes will be even more important for various missions to come.

[csThor]

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

Somebody told here that why we are doing the planes that didn't play role in the war... It is incorect opinion. Each plane played some role. And each plane that we model is important part of history and GAMEPLAY for single play. It is also important for users that like to make themselves some episodes of airwar that we or others never covered in a flightsim. Also this will make the sim unique comparing to all other BoBs before. If you'll look for years back, you may se that with original Il-2 was really the same situation ...
Or you don't like to try to fly military autogyro for recon or for the tunings of radar and trying to escape attacks of bf109s? I can give you a guarantie that it will be for many people very interesting and to feell the things that was never experinced before.... Just little sample... Only when you pay attention to such "outside of main picture" detail the product might be interesting for all.

I have to say something about this. I've got my own "priority ladder" for aircraft, ground objects or ships one could add to a simulation.

1.) Primary Objects

These are the main fighting types - those that are historically relevant for the operation(s) simulated by a certain release. This includes aircraft flyable for the player and AI only (say recon types, liaison aircraft or transports) as well as ground objects (tanks, artillery, AAA, trucks, cars, ships etc) needed to display ground operations. Objects of this category are absolutely necessary to accurately simulate the air combat (and ground combat) as it happened in history. However this category also takes the replayability value of the flyable aircraft into consideration.

An example: For the simulation of the "Battle of Britain" the Bf 109 E and the Hurricane Mk Ia ar of vital importance. Both have a great replayability value for the players, both offline and online. Both were used by other nations in later conflicts as well (i.e. Romania 1941) and can be reused for later releases as well.

2.) Secondary Objects

Objects of this category are historically relevant, too, and are adding to the player's immersion when re-enacting the air combat during the operations in question. But in contrast to category 1 these aren't vital for the simulation of the conflict, either because they fulfilled secondary roles or were only present in very small numbers. Secondary objects can also be AI-only aircraft which weren't made flyable (i.e. because the aircraft fulfilled a role which isn't present in campaigns or because the technical limitations of the engine make it impossible to use it in its historical role). The replayability value is less big than those of category 1, but still relevant.

Example: Dedicated short-range recon aircraft, liaison aircraft etc ...

3.) Tertiary Objects

These are objects which were historically present, but not relevant in any relation. They have very little replayability value.

Example: That autogyro. It fulfilled exactly one role for a very short amount of time in numbers not worth mentioning.

I suspect most players have something similar in place using similar characteristics. People wondering about the relative value of types like the autogyro, the Anson or the Bf 108 wonder if the development time (which you mentioned specifically) wouldn't be better spent on aircraft types of category 1 (such as a flyable Do 17, Wellington etc) instead. The questions arise because we - the fans - have little to no real facts at hand about the features you plan. We have no real fundament for our personal evaluation of the planned objects. My 0,02 € ...

[Mysticpuma]

Oleg, great to see you posting here after the ORR was closed at Ubi

I saw you say that you were at Alpha stage in an earlier post, so how far along do you have to get until 4.09 is released, so the servers can use the great maps?

Awwwww come on , I had to ask

Cheers, MP.

(please don't say 2-weeks...unless it really is lol!)

[Feuerfalke]

True, csThor, but IMHO it's a question of character.

We all have basically the same information and hints like the few fall on two different grounds:

1. People who just want to fly this sim after waiting so long in the planes they know and like.

2. People who want to live through a start of a new series to come, with as many options as possible and planes they fall in love with, though they never knew them. How many knew about the LA5 before IL2?

IMHO the first option gives us quick action, the second a longer lfe-cycle and long-time motivation. I think Oleg made it pretty clear that the later is the main goal, as this is just the start of a new series and considering the success of IL2, I'm pretty convinced this is the way to go.

[csThor]

You're missing my point, Feuerfalke. I do not judge aircraft usefulness merely by their prominence, but their historical relevance for the operation/timeframe/geographic are simulated by a software release. For example if Oleg chose to release an AddOn for SoW depicting the operations over North Africa from 1940 to the end of 1941 a Spitfire - while highly iconic - wouldn't have a place because historically there were none!
As Oleg said: Each aircraft fulfilled a role in the war. But to a flight simmer not every plane and every role is worth simulating (i.e. not everyone would want to fly 5-hour weather recon sorties all across Europe). There's the simple question whether the gameplay value of a certain type is worth the investment of the developer (time, money and manpower).

I, for example, do question the usefulness of the autogyro. I'm a strictly historically minded player who puts history way above any "KeWl" factor. The autogyro fulfilled one role in limited numbers in a very limited timeframe. It can't be used (historically) outside of a narrow scope so it doesn't offer as much relative gameplay value as, say, a cockpit for the Do-17Z or perhaps a Fairey Battle.

[fireflyerz]

Hello Oleg , as one Of my main interests in il2 is making movies I am wondering what kind of , if any , recording (placeable cameras) and play back facillities have you got planned for BOB , sorry if this question has already bin asked and answered

[Tbag]

What if Oleg included the autogyro primarily as a proof of concept: Helicopters can be implemented in SoW as well. What do we know? Sorry for speculating again.

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by fireflyerz

Hello Oleg , as one Of my main interests in il2 is making movies I am wondering what kind of , if any , recording (placeable cameras) and play back facillities have you got planned for BOB , sorry if this question has already bin asked and answered

I can't tell you finally how many types of cameras, but will be more features than in Il-2 and more useful.
Recording will be possible in two formats one of them is similar to NTRK, another - ready video, but still under question in which format finally.
But only NTRK will be possible to use for full HD video conversion.