Oleg Maddox's Room #1

[Avimimus]

Originally Posted by proton45

A question for Oleg...

First I would like to thank you for the interesting pictures you are sharing with us. Many of us are hungry for information about the "BoB SoW" game and seeing information about flak damage and aircraft modeling is very tasty indeed...thnks

My first question is about "active" (moving) ground objects...will we have animated livestock (sheep, cows, dogs) and will we have moving people running, walking, working and fighting in the virtual world below us...It would be wonderful to have soldiers react to diving Stuka...and it would feel quite satisfying to watch people run as you strafe an airfield (I know their is an issue with graphic gore, but maybe people could just fall down when they are killed, no blood or dismemberment). It would help with the feelings of being immersed in the world of the game...as disturbing as the notion may be it feels quite satisfying to see the effect of your actions on a "living" enemy...And lastly could we have flying birds as an obstacle/hazard of flight? (this was a big problem at many front line airfields)

My second question is about future development of the "Storm of War" series...Can I look forward to fighting and flying in the skys of the Pacific at some point in the future? As much as I love the European theater I also love the Pacific theater and I would very much like (and I'm not alone here) to have a "Pacific theater" game based on your wonderful new game engine...please,please,please

Flocks of migrating geese would be neat! It would allow you to tell what direction you were flying (except for the fact the geese flocks often go in non-migratory directions in the lead up to migration). It would be even neater if we could be the geese!

I believe Oleg once said that they had tested sharks in PF (but I think he was joking)?

Anyway, with regards to the pacific theater I believe Oleg indicated some time ago that it wouldn't happen until some other theaters had been visited (the Eastern Front for his Il-2 fans and probably expanding ETO/MTO). He also said that it might never happen if the U.S. didn't change its trademark laws (or a way wasn't found around them). I hope this helps.

[BTB]

I have a question about the weapons functionality of Bombs and Torpedos.
While the Bomb is falling or the torpedo is running in water and the Player get killed or crashed before they detonate, will they do anyhow a damage??
I can't remember read or heard anything about that.

Thx and best regards

Michi

[AA_Absolute]

Originally Posted by BTB

I have a question about the weapons functionality of Bombs and Torpedos.
While the Bomb is falling or the torpedo is running in water and the Player get killed or crashed before they detonate, will they do anyhow a damage??
I can't remember read or heard anything about that.

Thx and best regards

Michi

I remember Oleg know this bug and say in Bob its ok.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Dear Oleg,

many virtual pilots look forward to a improved and more realistic engine management. I understand that this is not a easy task. The implementation is one thing, but getting the refereces is another exhausting and expensive task. I want to help you with the later.

I've scanned and mailed you Operational Notes for Pilots on Merlin II and III a month ago. This is a 18 pages booklet about operational handling of Merlin II and III engine. You propably remember this:


You really liked it. And this motivated me to prepare a even better reference on this subject:

Air Publication 1590B Volume I, 2nd Edition October 1938
Merlin II and III Aero-Engines
Air Ministry
Reprinted October, 1939




In this over 180 pages manual are also amendments included until November, 1940. It covers all possible variants: 87 octane/100 octane fuel, wooden fixed/Two-position variable/constant speed propeller.

You can download a small preview including the content and the introduction here:
http://www.41squadron.org/test/AP1590B_preview.pdf
Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 should be most interesting.

I tried to contact you about this several times by email in the last 2 weeks, but you didn't respond and didn't download it (at least my server didn't log the download). Of course I do understand that you are a busy man. Please tell me if you are interested in this manual or not. If you are interested I will give you the necessary information to download it.

Best Regards

[SlipBall]

Yes Oleg I am a advocate for better, complex engine managment, and a switch for full start up procedure if desired by the pilot ......I know that you believe people would grow tired of it, but having the switch is the answer to this problem.....I would love to have this feature....maybe? yes/no...a slight chance....oh please!

[Thunderbolt56]

I'd really much rather see the greater detail implemented into the flight model and especially the damage model if I were forced to choose or even prioritize. Perhaps some additional CEM tidbits programmable for individual tastes, but with a much more complex engine start procedure, will we also have to warm up our engines on the flightline for 10 minutes? If not then will there be consequences if you run your engine too hard after not warming it up?

No, for me, I don't need to have as much realistic detail on the flightline as I do in the air.

I'm not advocating against it, but it'd be too bad if we get a 21 point engine start procedure and lose a damage model detail as a result. With the exception of coops, most people don't spend much time in pre-flight procedure...not even in the servers with runway obstacle courses like Spits-109's.

[VMF-214_HaVoK]

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt56

I'd really much rather see the greater detail implemented into the flight model and especially the damage model if I were forced to choose or even prioritize. Perhaps some additional CEM tidbits programmable for individual tastes, but with a much more complex engine start procedure, will we also have to warm up our engines on the flightline for 10 minutes? If not then will there be consequences if you run your engine too hard after not warming it up?

No, for me, I don't need to have as much realistic detail on the flightline as I do in the air.

I'm not advocating against it, but it'd be too bad if we get a 21 point engine start procedure and lose a damage model detail as a result. With the exception of coops, most people don't spend much time in pre-flight procedure...not even in the servers with runway obstacle courses like Spits-109's.

LOL, ya its hard enough to get people to take the few seconds to taxi correctly let alone spend the time to do a correct startup procedure. It would be cool but Oleg has made some very good points as to why it will not be included and I have to agree. Leave the startup procedures to the civilian sims as there are far more important things to address in a combat sim.

S!

[proton45]

Originally Posted by Avimimus

Flocks of migrating geese would be neat! It would allow you to tell what direction you were flying (except for the fact the geese flocks often go in non-migratory directions in the lead up to migration). It would be even neater if we could be the geese!

I believe Oleg once said that they had tested sharks in PF (but I think he was joking)?

Anyway, with regards to the pacific theater I believe Oleg indicated some time ago that it wouldn't happen until some other theaters had been visited (the Eastern Front for his Il-2 fans and probably expanding ETO/MTO). He also said that it might never happen if the U.S. didn't change its trademark laws (or a way wasn't found around them). I hope this helps.

thanks for the word...I was kind of wondering if Oleg had any other info on the issue...

and yes the geese would be cool

[RAF_Leigh]

S! all

about SOW

could the damage on the planes be contiued on the next mission so you dont have new planes every single mission?

well its an idea

[Billfish]

Dear Oleg;

Sorry if I'm asking an already answered question, yet "checkRuntime=2" as we know conflicts when running different O.S.'s.....(Xp with Vista as an example)....

Can anything be done to resolve this issue, up to and possibly even getting help from Microsoft?..........This one point alone is keeping some from using checkRuntime=2, setting it to "1" instead.

K2