Oleg Maddox's Room #2 QUESTIONS & REQUESTS TO OLEG ABOUT BOB SOW

[SlipBall]

Oleg, A pilot should always try to take-off and land into the wind. In SOW with the ever changing weather, how will the pilot on approuch to a field, know the current wind conditions for landing at that airfield? Will it be that he must read the wind sock, or will the information come from the tower via the radio?

[KG26_Alpha]

Oleg:

Will SOW

1. Have better (larger) ground object ratio to aircraft size.

2. Have the old collision modelling (able to chew rudders off with propeller) . This was removed because of the dogfight servers complaining of ramming IIRC.

3. Have full radio & navigation equipment working especially the bombers eg: Fug 25 IFF

4. The points system removed and kills, shared kills, probables, bombed factories airfield hangars,shipping and all ground targets shown as graphic icons.

5. Better control over AI bomber flights, ability to get flight as flight leader to drop without having to lock ground targets, at the moment AI follow you like a love sick puppie then try to kill you when you land.

Cheers

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

In the past, Oleg was interviewed, during which interview, he mentioned he would be releasing the recommended requirements for SOW BoB in May of 2009.

Many of us have been waiting to upgrade our computer systems until we hear from Oleg what the requirements are. We want to get a system which can run the game at the levels which deliver all the eye candy we have come to expect from Oleg's games.

Can you at this point tell us what the recommended requirements are? Or when these will be published?

Thanks very much for your patience and thanks to Oleg for all his hard work, we know that SOW BoB will be an amazing game.

[imaca]

Quote:
"Also on the sceen you see by two eyes. So the comparison with steroscopic view in life and like you mean by one eye isn't right. We simply will have more complex movement of the neck-head-body of the pilot than in Il-2."

I know this question (will there be transparent canopy frames) has been answered, but I don't understand the reply - Is Oleg saying stereoscopic vision is impossible on a screen, or that viewing a screen with 2 eyes is the same as viewing the inside of the cockpit with 2 eyes? If the later then I can't agree - in a real aircraft when you are focused on the outside, narrow VERTICAL canopy frames don't obstruct your view because of stereoscopic vision. Just as a finger held in front of your face doesn't block your view of distant objects. I still think transparent frames are a good simulation of this, at least until 3d displays are able to overcome the problem.

[FilthyPrick]

Does it realy matter about BOB SoW now that BOP is coming out on console??

[KG26_Alpha]

Do some more research in these forums.

or

Take your fishing gear else where

[Fall_Pink?]

Will SoW engine make use of this truly revolutionary stuff or is it planned for later use? Would be really great to see this kind of stuff in action

Thanks and regards,
Mark

[Werner Molders]

Hi everyone,

I know this must seem like a typical post but i'm going to try my best to phrase this.

As far as flight models go will the Bf 109 E be the real equal of the Spitfire regarding the following issues to the Spitfire Mark IA. For all the talk modifications by "All Aircraft Arcade" on IL2 have lead to delusional flight models to support the RAF.

I will be specific on what I as a pilot and a man doing a degree in aerospace technology degree would specifically like to see. These are my concerns on what I believe might be missed in the new flight models from what i have seen so far in IL2.

1. Acceleration

Firstly, I think that we have overlooked some of the situation regarding speed. Pilots often never reached maximum speed in flight, maximum (WEP) power was often only used for short periods and this often included manoeuvring (obviously in combat).

Even though the Bf 109 E did have at times a maximum speed advantage, maybe this is not the entire picture, I have concluded that it was acceleration that was the more important factor because of the DB 601 Aa having the following characteristics:


A. A better and more developed supercharger than the Merlin III (allowing for better high altitude performance).

B. Being significantly larger in size (displacement of the huge DB 601Aa: 33.9 litres versus Merlin III's: 27 litres).

C. DB 601Aa was fuel injected and more efficient with no lack of performance based on the fact the Spitfire had a carburettor float fuel system which is highly susceptible to getting stuck, causing a reduction in performance by gravity's forces. Remember that the G forces would be changing at a very fast rate while in any manoeuvre (not just dives although this is obviously very pronounced) and this would certainly mean the engine was never performing at its tested maximum performance in any other situation except in level flight (inefficiency of around a few percent).

D. The throttle response of the Bf 109 was considered a strength of the aircraft compared with both RAF fighters and this was mentioned even in the RAE test reports. Again this owed to the easy and business like throttle control but more importantly to the fact a fuel injection engine is able to place the absolutely exact fuel to air ratio to the engine leading to better fuel efficiency as well.


To summarise, the difference in maximum speed at any altitude was minimal at best. The fact was in any battle, this was actually completely irrelevant, acceleration was more important as this allowed a plane to get away from his opponent faster, or complete a manoeuvre with greater developed power while throttling up. This was an advantage again to the Bf 109.

2. Control Harmony/Centre of Gravity/Rudder

Sounds completely pinnickity but i overlooked a key point we have all missed here. The Bf 109 E had a "long tail moment arm" which basically means it uses a very effective horizontal stabiliser and also the rudder was 50% Chord which all leads to the fact a Bf 109 could be yawed from right to left by anywhere within 45 degrees! so a pilot could spray bullets on its axis like a crazy .. ah hem... This is exactly what pilots meant by the aircraft being a stable gunnery platform.

The pilot of a Bf 109 (E) could sit behind an enemy aircraft at a reasonable range within a 45 degree angle range and adjust his aim on the enemy using a great deal of side slip (rudder) with the aircraft having an incredibly effective rudder while the aircraft was quite docile on the horizontal plane.

The Bf 109 had a lot of torque in flight (the rudder being so effective it wanted to move the plane to side slip slightly to one side while in straight flight, forcing the pilot to hold his foot on the rudder most of the time) and often the aircraft would need to be held with a little right rudder due to winds and the effect of pressure as well as the Bf 109 being such a small and very light aircraft with such a large engine being very stable yet sensitive. This has been modelled to a small degree on takeoff (you can feel the swing) but the rest i've just mentioned would be a nice addition.

Due to its otherwise great stability (having a centre of gravity that was kept throughout the development of the Bf 109 by adding the exact amount of ballast for new engines or developments, this kept the Centre of Gravity in the dead middle of the aircraft's weight which prevented spins from occurring easily in stalls and also helped stall be docile). The significance of the centre of gravity in an aircraft is well documented to any pilot who has flown a P-39, its flat spins often unrecoverable due to the engine being in the front!!

To summarise this was a great feature that has not yet been accurately modelled. Something of incredible importance if your enemy is trying to make a quick get away in a tight turn!!

3. Carburettor Negative G Forces

I know this is already probably well tweaked but even the Spitfire Mk V's of 1941 with the "miss shilling orifices" negative G solution still had engine performance loss EVEN when upside down in the dive for sustained periods (inverted) longer than 5 - 6 seconds. This should be modelled for when inverted for both Hurricane and Spitfire Mk I's.

4. MG 17 Effectiveness

This is very trivial but I feel that its almost impossible to take down an aircraft with only two of these guns even at 10 metres away! which is realistically a bit too ineffective. To summarise quickly these machine guns should be slightly more powerful than the Brownings used in the RAF fighters as they had slightly larger calibre and considering they are half the Bf 109's armament I quickly noticed just how unrealistic to real life they are. They need to be tweaked ever so slightly and maybe the Brownings of the RAF fighters too.


Again, I know a lot of faff and i'm just being pinnickity, but it would be well received if these changes could be introduced.

Keep up the great work!

[II/JG54_Emil]

I like your ideas Mölders

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Werner Molders

Hi everyone,

I know this must seem like a typical post but i'm going to try my best to phrase this.

As far as flight models go will the Bf 109 E be the real equal of the Spitfire regarding the following issues to the Spitfire Mark IA. For all the talk modifications by "All Aircraft Arcade" on IL2 have lead to delusional flight models to support the RAF.

I will be specific on what I as a pilot and a man doing a degree in aerospace technology degree would specifically like to see. These are my concerns on what I believe might be missed in the new flight models from what i have seen so far in IL2.

1. Acceleration

Firstly, I think that we have overlooked some of the situation regarding speed. Pilots often never reached maximum speed in flight, maximum (WEP) power was often only used for short periods and this often included manoeuvring (obviously in combat).

Even though the Bf 109 E did have at times a maximum speed advantage, maybe this is not the entire picture, I have concluded that it was acceleration that was the more important factor because of the DB 601 Aa having the following characteristics:


A. A better and more developed supercharger than the Merlin III (allowing for better high altitude performance).

B. Being significantly larger in size (displacement of the huge DB 601Aa: 33.9 litres versus Merlin III's: 27 litres).

C. DB 601Aa was fuel injected and more efficient with no lack of performance based on the fact the Spitfire had a carburettor float fuel system which is highly susceptible to getting stuck, causing a reduction in performance by gravity's forces. Remember that the G forces would be changing at a very fast rate while in any manoeuvre (not just dives although this is obviously very pronounced) and this would certainly mean the engine was never performing at its tested maximum performance in any other situation except in level flight (inefficiency of around a few percent).

D. The throttle response of the Bf 109 was considered a strength of the aircraft compared with both RAF fighters and this was mentioned even in the RAE test reports. Again this owed to the easy and business like throttle control but more importantly to the fact a fuel injection engine is able to place the absolutely exact fuel to air ratio to the engine leading to better fuel efficiency as well.


To summarise, the difference in maximum speed at any altitude was minimal at best. The fact was in any battle, this was actually completely irrelevant, acceleration was more important as this allowed a plane to get away from his opponent faster, or complete a manoeuvre with greater developed power while throttling up. This was an advantage again to the Bf 109.

2. Control Harmony/Centre of Gravity/Rudder

Sounds completely pinnickity but i overlooked a key point we have all missed here. The Bf 109 E had a "long tail moment arm" which basically means it uses a very effective horizontal stabiliser and also the rudder was 50% Chord which all leads to the fact a Bf 109 could be yawed from right to left by anywhere within 45 degrees! so a pilot could spray bullets on its axis like a crazy .. ah hem... This is exactly what pilots meant by the aircraft being a stable gunnery platform.

The pilot of a Bf 109 (E) could sit behind an enemy aircraft at a reasonable range within a 45 degree angle range and adjust his aim on the enemy using a great deal of side slip (rudder) with the aircraft having an incredibly effective rudder while the aircraft was quite docile on the horizontal plane.

The Bf 109 had a lot of torque in flight (the rudder being so effective it wanted to move the plane to side slip slightly to one side while in straight flight, forcing the pilot to hold his foot on the rudder most of the time) and often the aircraft would need to be held with a little right rudder due to winds and the effect of pressure as well as the Bf 109 being such a small and very light aircraft with such a large engine being very stable yet sensitive. This has been modelled to a small degree on takeoff (you can feel the swing) but the rest i've just mentioned would be a nice addition.

Due to its otherwise great stability (having a centre of gravity that was kept throughout the development of the Bf 109 by adding the exact amount of ballast for new engines or developments, this kept the Centre of Gravity in the dead middle of the aircraft's weight which prevented spins from occurring easily in stalls and also helped stall be docile). The significance of the centre of gravity in an aircraft is well documented to any pilot who has flown a P-39, its flat spins often unrecoverable due to the engine being in the front!!

To summarise this was a great feature that has not yet been accurately modelled. Something of incredible importance if your enemy is trying to make a quick get away in a tight turn!!

3. Carburettor Negative G Forces

I know this is already probably well tweaked but even the Spitfire Mk V's of 1941 with the "miss shilling orifices" negative G solution still had engine performance loss EVEN when upside down in the dive for sustained periods (inverted) longer than 5 - 6 seconds. This should be modelled for when inverted for both Hurricane and Spitfire Mk I's.

4. MG 17 Effectiveness

This is very trivial but I feel that its almost impossible to take down an aircraft with only two of these guns even at 10 metres away! which is realistically a bit too ineffective. To summarise quickly these machine guns should be slightly more powerful than the Brownings used in the RAF fighters as they had slightly larger calibre and considering they are half the Bf 109's armament I quickly noticed just how unrealistic to real life they are. They need to be tweaked ever so slightly and maybe the Brownings of the RAF fighters too.


Again, I know a lot of faff and i'm just being pinnickity, but it would be well received if these changes could be introduced.

Keep up the great work!

Some good points about the aircraft that I would like to see in SOW...something that has bothered me is the ground handling of the 109, all reports that I have read indicate the aircraft did not tend to be tippy when the brakes were applied. In the original game IL2, this seemed to have been modeled well. In game now, the aircraft is very tippy when braking