|
|
|
|
#2
03-27-2008, 03:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
#4
03-27-2008, 04:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
03-27-2008, 08:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
My first questions:
1) Will Sow's sun be useful for bounces? Il2's sun "obscures" the enemy only then the plane is centered in it... otherwise the bouncer is really visible as the black dot and the sun is useless. IMO sun should be more powerful (something like to have all the screen white) 2) Black dots: planes were painted with light colors under the wings to have an inverse "camo" (terrain camo over, sky camo below)... in fact I read many times about bouncing enemies revealed thanks to sun's reflex on the wings tips or above all on the windscreen; in IL2 we have usually higher planes who can't see planes below but are really seen as black dots from those lower pilots (= no ambushes) 3) Engine's sound: Pilot shouldn't listen at the enemy engines on his six (if his engine is on, of course)... in IL2 it's like a radar and, again, you can't ambush enemy from that position if not firing from long-medium distances (instead of the 50-100m) or flying very fast. When they listen to a different sound the suddenly disengage (me too, I have to admit it... but it's not realistic IMO) For now it's enough... I still make my congratulations to Oleg and his team for this beautiful game that IL2 is: wishing SoW to be more realistic. Bye.
__________________
 A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria. |
|
#6
03-28-2008, 04:11 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I will clarify my comment above...In my experience here your a tad arrogant. Their was no reason for your previous comment of "It's very interesting YOU have this idea." You don't know everything...In fact you might discover that you have misunderstand some things. Last edited by proton45; 03-28-2008 at 04:40 AM. |
|
#7
03-28-2008, 06:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I agree that my statement probably offended you. Please accept my apologies. |
|
#8
03-28-2008, 05:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I was actually thinking of just collecting Olegs answers in some sort of "feature list" (maybe also some of the stuff mentioned in the DVD).... anyway...accepted and moving on. Last edited by proton45; 03-28-2008 at 06:57 PM. |
|
#9
03-28-2008, 08:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I have a question for Oleg...
1) How complex will the "human damage model" be for "AI" (and player) pilots be ? How many internal biological systems will be modeled in the "human DM"? Will the "human DM" be broken down into "basic" interlocking systems like vision, circulatory, right leg, left leg, and vitality? Or will it be modeled in more specific anatomical detail like modeling each finger on the right hand, the right wrist, right forearm, right upper arm, right shoulder, left eye, right eye, neck w/arteries, ect ? 2) Will the "one bullet, one hole" feature be applied to the "human damage model", and will it effect specific biological systems within the "Human DM"? 3) Shrapnel damage in the left hand should effect the behavior of the "AI" in a different way then a bullet through the left leg. Can you explain how different kinds of "injuries" might effect individual "AI" pilots to behave in different ways? Last edited by proton45; 03-30-2008 at 05:22 AM. |
|
#10
04-01-2008, 05:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
There was no word lost on the human damage-model AFAIK, though this is a very important point of a simulation like this. IMHO a good and valid question for the next FAQ-round 
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
