Friday 2010-10-29 Dev. update and Discussion

[AndyJWest]

Regarding =69.GIAP=TOOZ's query about the map, and major_setback's reply, it's worth remembering that there are several different ways of projecting the surface of a sphere (like the Earth) onto a flat surface (a map), but none of them are 'correct' - they all distort in one way or another. Over the area shown on Oleg's screenshot, this isn't likely to be that noticeable though, so I'd be inclined to suggest the satellite image was distorted. To complicate things further, there may be three different 'norths' to align the map on - Magnetic North, which has the unfortunate habit of wandering around, and currently resides somewhere in Canada, True North, or the direction towards the northern end of Earth's rotational axis, which fortunately only moves slowly (over millennia), and 'Grid North' which is a convenience for cartographers - an arbitrary datum that may match True North at some point on the map, but diverges as you move away, to simplify dealing with the problems of projection. Since Oleg has said he is modelling the Earth as a sphere, he's presumably figured out which projection to use on maps, and to make comparisons, you need to find another map using the same projection, datum etc.

[Necrobaron]

Originally Posted by Blakduk

Necro- i assume you meant to say 'infinitely'.
Infinitesimal basically means something is so small as to almost be unmeasurable.
I agree with your post but couldn't resist being an irritating net-nerd and correcting your grammar

Haha, no worries mate!

That's what I get for typing them big words in a hurry...
________
Lovely Wendie

[=69.GIAP=TOOZ]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Regarding =69.GIAP=TOOZ's query about the map, and major_setback's reply, it's worth remembering that there are several different ways of projecting the surface of a sphere (like the Earth) onto a flat surface (a map), but none of them are 'correct' - they all distort in one way or another.

I kind of thought about this myself after I'd finished my rather quick and slapdash job, as based on my pic the further away from the centre of the picture the more elongated the river becomes which on a satelite image would happen because of the curvature of the earth. Then looking at setback's attempt it shows a far better alignment, and I'm assuming he used the map setting rather than the satelite setting? Anyway, I was just curious, but the map still looks great (cept for the errant appearance of that reservoir...!).

[Damixu]

Is there a chance in the future to influence the belting of aircraft guns ammunition? Like picking more mine rounds and tracers instead of armour piercing or ball ammo? Or having more incendiary ammunition?

Depending the mission the proper belting of guns is crucial to make or fail the mission.

Usually the pilots had their preference to the machine gun and cannon belting what ammunition to have in what series. This is same as guns convergence set by a individual pilots taste and way of dogfighting.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Necrobaron

Fantastic update!

Can you or someone else explain what I quoted above? There are laws that prevent some buildings from being depicted as damaged or destroyed?

On another tangent, I am continually amazed at people who still whine about graphics. While graphics can be an important immersive aspect, what goes on "behind the scenes*" in a sim is infinitesimally more important. True sims run much deeper that what the graphics, in a screenshot or otherwise, might show and people need to remember that. Even if SoW looked exactly the same as the IL-2 sim we fell in love with nearly 10 years ago (which it certainly does not, contrary to what some petulant buffoons might suggest or imply), I'd be willing to bet that it is what we can't see that will be far more complicated and detailed, by several orders of magnitude, than what IL-2 could achieve. Because of this, SoW will demonstrate that it is a sim of this decade and not of the last.

*Flight modelling, atmospheric/weather conditions, damage modelling, environmental effects, etc.

I wouldn't have worded it exactly like this, but to be honest i couldn't agree more with the underlying meaning the above post carries. It's what's under the hood, so to speak, that i'm itching the most to know about. Graphics and sounds can be patched whenever the developer wants, but core capabilities like weather simulation or layered AI interactions don't happen overnight and that's why they are the most important parts to get right from the start.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

Possible.

Coolness!! Thanks!

[Tempered]

Originally Posted by Splitter

Tracers: Part o the problem with tracers was that their ballistics were not the same as the AP or incendiary rounds. In other words (and simplified) they did not hit where the other rounds hit.

As a shooter, I can tell you that even the smallest differences in rounds can have GREAT effect on point of impact. Even different brands (manufacturers) with the exact same specifications can have different points of impact.

At close range, these effects are minimal. At longer ranges, they become huge. Obviously tracers do not do the same damage as AP rounds. So, some units took the tracers out all together and to very good result reportedly.

As for the smoke, I have never personally seen a tracer that left a smoke trail. However, smoke trails are clearly visible in some WWII footage. Maybe the composition has changed (like the change to smokeless powder in the charge for the round).

At 1000 yards, a .50 cal bullet drops around 30 feet and it IS possible to see the flight path of the bullet without it being a tracer. Whether or not this would be possible to see from an aircraft I don't know (but I would love to find out in person lol).

Oleg, thank you for the update. The night shot is amazing. The video makes me want to get my hands on it so much my palms itch. I LOVED the AI Hurricane's attack run!

Splitter

modern tracers do not smoke because the bullet actually glows from heat and chemical reaction, not from burning a combustible material.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

I do think in the next video that I maybe will post in a two weeks, you will see the difference in detail by a very great exponete... and willl try to compare with any WWII sim to date...and with Il-2....
Or... Il-2 was also a great step ahead for its time...

You comparison is totally wrong with years. You don't see the real true and comparing uncomparable things really.

When Il-2 was born some journalists were comparing the ground modeling of tanks etc in a flight sim with tank sims of its time.....
Now.. you will see later some. And If you can't see the difference in a flight sim and don't understand why so and not so in a fligth sim, but not in shooter, then I'm sorry...
But a t first please tery to compare the size of maps in these jenres and its details... maybe this comaprison and lmts will explain you something... My english is poor top explain such things for shot time.

You hit it on the head though.. flight sims cover much much larger distances than any other genre... No other gaming genre that I know of has to have maps that potentially can cover thousands of square miles.. I think the Bessarabia map.. which is a stock map given to us by 1C in I think either 4.08 or 4.09b I cant remember, is if my calculations are correct @ 91,800 square kilometers... (@270x340) and you can land not only anywhere on that map terrain permitting... but like all the maps in this sim... anywhere off the map as well.. .. (again correct me if I am wrong.. ) and this was a feature from day one..

For me the fact that this 9 year old sim can still give you more .. with a hardware upgrade... 9 years after it's release... speaks for itself... 9 years later.... We are talking months shy of a full decade..... that is like totally mind blowing when you really, really wrap your head around it... So I for one am really expecting the release product of SoW vol I to be bigger, better, and just plain more than anything I can find anywhere right now.. or for the next few years..

[Snuff_Pidgeon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V15GQrXwUbA

At 2:53 & at 4:15 you can clearly see smoke or vapour trails from aircraft ammunition..

[alexmdv]

One sample of true 3d sound:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbOmy...layer_embedded