Friday 2010-07-16 Dev. update and Discussions about the update ONLY!

[proton45]

I'm wondering if the new game engine will be able to produce water falls? It would be a really detail for some locations. Maybe this would be done through animation?

Anyway...I know this subject "might" be a little OT for this thread, but i have never heard anyone comment on this topic. Realistic waterfalls would be a great "immersion" feature for some future maps...are their many waterfalls in the UK?

[AndyJWest]

are their many waterfalls in the UK?

In the UK, a few that you could see from the air, under ideal conditions... maybe.

In the parts of the UK likely to feature on the BoB map? I doubt it.

Still, never mind proton45, I'm sure you can think of another idiotic suggestion for something to incorporate into the new sim. Bee hives? Molehills (on the airfields they would clearly be of military significance )? Piles of aluminium saucepans gathered to help the war effort (an obvious hazard to low flying aircraft...)?

This is intended to be a WW II air combat sim, not a reproduction of the entire 1940 universe.

[nearmiss]

This thread will be old news in a few more hours with a new update thread.

One week is just about the limit on keeping anything close to the topic.

It's about 9 am in Moscow now, so that probably means the update should be up within the next 6 or 7 hours.

[proton45]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

In the UK, a few that you could see from the air, under ideal conditions... maybe.

In the parts of the UK likely to feature on the BoB map? I doubt it.

Still, never mind proton45, I'm sure you can think of another idiotic suggestion for something to incorporate into the new sim. Bee hives? Molehills (on the airfields they would clearly be of military significance )? Piles of aluminium saucepans gathered to help the war effort (an obvious hazard to low flying aircraft...)?

This is intended to be a WW II air combat sim, not a reproduction of the entire 1940 universe.

Idiotic suggestion? I dont thinks so (in fact my comment, was a question about the game engine)...in fact their are places on this planet where the waterfall is an iconic symbols of the landscape.

I find your comment to be less relevant then my own...AND I find your use of the word "idiotic" to be idiotic.

Originally Posted by nearmiss

This thread will be old news in a few more hours with a new update thread.

One week is just about the limit on keeping anything close to the topic.

It's about 9 am in Moscow now, so that probably means the update should be up within the next 6 or 7 hours.

Yup, that is true...its the perfect time for an OT question about the capabilities of the new game engine. And I think you will find that its a question that has never been asked.

[AndyJWest]

There are lots of questions about the capabilities of the SoW game engine that haven't been asked. Most of them shouldn't be...

Do you really think that Oleg Maddox is going to suddenly divert resources to 'waterfall simulation?'. If not, why do you think your 'OT question' was of any relevance at all?

[Blackdog_kt]

Jesus, some people woke up on the wrong side of the bed

It's true that we see a lot of nitpicking in these threads. On the other hand, not all "what if" questions are irrelevant. Seems like on one side we have some really outlandish requests (some even sound more like demands) and on the other one there's people who will dismiss anything that doesn't have a direct application in combat, wether that is complex aircraft systems management or a couple of graphical gimmicks sprinkled here and there for the occasional surprise factor.

I still don't see why these two groups can't exercise some self moderation and start combining their ideas for the long term future. In short, one group needs to stop asking about the modelling of the local grasshopper strains and maybe ask about things that will be, well, visible from the air while moving at 300mph, while the other one has to get their combat myopia fixed because it prevents them from appreciating whatever cool stuff may be lying a few feet beyond their gunsight. There's enough of a middle ground to be reached here. It might be a lot of science making a good flight sim, but it doesn't take science to know what are important features for one: user friendly and customizable, an engine with expansion and modding potential, get the technical stuff right like FM/DM/campaigns/AI/historical accuracy/etc, have adequate graphics and sounds for the time of release, sprinkle some "this world is alive" sauce and that's it. Getting obsessed with any one of those means you are going to lose points on the rest, as simple as that.

I's good to have a well rounded product that can be expanded on and improved from a solid starting foundation, rather than a one-trick pony that scores excellent marks on one field and neglects all the rest. It's like buying a new PC, spending all your money on a monster motherboard and the most expensive i7 6-core CPU you can find and then getting a 15 inch monitor with a 2 year old GPU and 1 GB of RAM because you have no more money. Meanwhile, someone else gets an entry level i7 920 that's less than half the price of the 6-core and uses the spare money on an up-to-date GPU, 4GB of RAM and generally builds a well-rounded system that, what a surprise, squarely kicks the butt of the previous "asymmetric" system in every way imaginable except maybe dedicated multi-core CPU benchmarks.

In this case here, it's not like the guy said "i demand waterfalls", he's just asking if the engine can do waterfalls and the question is anything but irrelevant (ie, he's not debating the accuracy of the horn shape on the cows grazing the fields).
If SoW aims to be the mother of all things simulator during the next decade and have some success with engine licensing fees to 3rd parties, people will want to know if the engine can do such things.

Some might think far fetched like a direct Crimson Skies remake, where the developer wants to stage some missions around the Niagara falls and Grand Canyon. Some might think something simpler but equally possible, user-made stunt and racing maps for SoW that feature custom landscape formations as obstacles, like waterfalls and rock tunnels. In any case, they will be interested to know if the engine can model such things and if they can design them in the map editor.

Just because some feature is not high priority for release in the specified theater doesn't mean it might not be a good feature to make in the future. As i usually like to say, it's just like perfect settings and water=3 switches in IL2, we didn't have them in the original version ten years ago but we're all glad we have them today

[proton45]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

There are lots of questions about the capabilities of the SoW game engine that haven't been asked. Most of them shouldn't be...

Do you really think that Oleg Maddox is going to suddenly divert resources to 'waterfall simulation?'. If not, why do you think your 'OT question' was of any relevance at all?

You have no imagination at all...and I feel sorry for you.

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Jesus, some people woke up on the wrong side of the bed

In this case here, it's not like the guy said "i demand waterfalls", he's just asking if the engine can do waterfalls and the question is anything but irrelevant (ie, he's not debating the accuracy of the horn shape on the cows grazing the fields).
If SoW aims to be the mother of all things simulator during the next decade and have some success with engine licensing fees to 3rd parties, people will want to know if the engine can do such things.

Just because some feature is not high priority for release in the specified theater doesn't mean it might not be a good feature to make in the future. As i usually like to say, it's just like perfect settings and water=3 switches in IL2, we didn't have them in the original version ten years ago but we're all glad we have them today

[airmalik]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

I recall a number of strips in western NSW where we had to do a low flypast to get the sheep off the runway before attempting to land Admittedly they got off the strip pretty quick when a 172 came roaring past.

The airfield I fly out of here in Queensland has a number of kangaroos. Usually they stay off the runways but I've heard of people having to go around because of them. A roo jumped in front of a landing RV7 once. It barely missed the prop, hit the leading edge of the wing with it's head and got knocked down. As it went down it's tail came up and hit the trailing edge of the flap damaging it considerably. The pilot had powered up to go around when he saw the roo jump in front and decided to continue. Fortunately the controllability of the plane didn't suffer and he was able to make a uneventful landing after a circuit. The roo? Got up and bounced away!

Here's a video I shot a couple of weeks ago at the airfield. Has some kangaroos too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cagwLyG4eA

[PE_Tigar]

I know a guy who hit (and chopped up) a deer twice in his 200-odd hours of flying . The plane was repairable the first time, totaled the second time. I guess he was unlucky. I had near misses with birds 4-5 times (once the bird actually swooped on my C-150 ).

[socorrista22198]

have I listened "birds"?
LOL to make this is soo fun. Turn up volume

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

Thanks all of you guys/girls for the inspiration, the visual is done, now it´s turn for a programer builds the colision file for this