Friday 2010-06-17 Dev. update and Discussion Thread

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by Baron

P.S. The giddyness of getting a windstock implemented in the game, whats up with that?

When you have aircraft that tip over if you have a 15mph crosswind component and no differential braking to turn and no ground handlers to hold your wing tips and tails, knowning the wind direction for ground handling purposes is quite important.


I own Rise of flight, and I think there is a lot to like about it. But I haven't quite got into it as much as IL-2, and I'm still learning the ropes. Unfortunately there is only so much time and I'm still enjoying IL-2 too much too spend the time in ROF to get good at it.

Cheers!

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Originally Posted by Baron

The reason he is bashing RoF in this perticullar case, i think, is because people uses RoF as an example of how to do things, wich in manys opinion is, a bad example.

A year into RoF release iv learned NOT to say anything bad about it, because u WILL be hunted down, wherever u are. (A main reason why i stay as far away as possible from RoF at this point)
In my opinion RoF is a broken sim, granted, if u like just flying arround doing pretty much nothing ist ok but concidering its 5-10 years newer than any competition it doesnt surpasses anything, it fairs well (mainly in the grphics department ) nothing more.

And im quite sure Oleg WONT be looking at RoF for pointers in how to create SoW.

There are many things i dont like about RoF, a development team comming from IL2 succesully missing to implement even 1 good thing from theire experiance (empty SP/MP, Team Death Mach, Capture The Flag.....wth??) is one and a development team not beeing financially backed up from the get go just doesnt instill confidance, is one, beeing told on variouse forums that there is nothing wrong with RoF, youre the one whose broken, is another.

Could we just agree not to bring RoF into the SoW debate, RoF has nothing SoW wants. (That is really not an attempt at an insult, its just the way it is)

I can understand that many who like RoF think it gets treated unfair, but so what, just leave it be and enjoy your game. Exept the fact that there are many who wholhartedly dissagrees with u.


P.S. The giddyness of getting a windstock implemented in the game, whats up with that?


Edit: As for bending on impact, im not an expert either but a solid object (what ever its made of) doesnt stay in on piece and bounce (RoF) if plowed strait into the ground a 200 mph, it just doesnt.

Hi Baron.

im quite sure Oleg WONT be looking at RoF for pointers in how to create SoW.

Couldn't agree more. When did I say he would, or should? I think he knows what he is doing.

Could we just agree not to bring RoF into the SoW debate,

Yes we can, and I didn't. I was responding to someone who did.

The giddyness of getting a windstock implemented in the game, whats up with that?

The windsocks work in game. Maybe time to look again. They blow whichever way the cold wind a' blows. They wiggle like wee little stripey worms. There may be a bug when they sometimes don't work in career mode or something, don't recall. But they are now functional for sure.

Baron, its not your thing and I can dig that lol.....Its ok. Not your cup of tea and no harm done. It is most certainly not broken however, sorry. Things to do yes, broken no.

The only reason I'll be 'hunting you down' is if you're the b*stard who sold me that Ford Mondeo 6 years ago. You probably aren't......so fear not.

Now, back to SOW!

[Baron]

Agree, broken is the wrong wording, incomplete is better (in my case)


Didnt mean to bring further critiques to RoF, it was my opinion and really didnt surve a purpose in this threadh.( exept for the impact thingy)


And rgr on the windstock, couldnt gett the "woha" over it since i never had problems landing without it in the first place.


Like u said, back to SoW


P.S. Wasnt me, but i do have a Ford Curier that wont let me use the 5:th gear

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by KaHzModAn

hey i didn't say the DM in ROF was perfect... just that it wasn't as bad as zapatista said
and i've never seen a plane "bounce" in ROF,

KaHzMod, it makes me think you are a bit dazzled by the eye candy in RoF (and for a 2009 sim it indeed looks good at first glance), but from what you have said so far i doubt you have done much critical observations in RoF to compare it to how in real life you expect physical forces to work on an airframe of very limited strenght.

just try it, take your favored ride in RoF up to say 1500m (since taking it to 4000 m seems a traumatic concept to the RoF cheersquad here), then point the nose to the ground and keep max power on, dont get distracted if a few bits fall of your aircraft on the way down and just keep going in a vertical accelerated dive. under best circumstances with a ww1 aircraft you should be able to reach almost 100 mph.

then watch on external cam what happens to your aircraft in RoF when you plough straight into the ground, you will observe it will hit its nose to the ground, then the aircraft will bounce a couple of times, and some bits will fall of and it will break a wing or even crack the fuselage somewhere. in fact it looks little different from the crash sequence modelled by a RoF plane crashing from 20 or 30 m altitude. that is simply NOT realistic, with the high speed crash from a great height from 1000m + it should go SPLAT and disintegrate into a tangled mess, and yes some bits might still resemble an aircraft component (like part of the tail section maybe, some wing sections or the engine block itself), but the rest should be a barely recognizable mangled mess with lots of broken bits lying around and the engine half buried into the ground.

that limited realism might be fine for a sim from 1990, but not very realistic for a sim in 2009/2010 that makes claims of being uber real (and as it turns out following its long anticipated release, once people looked closer at it RoF does not use pure physics modeling of forces working on the airframe, be this air currents or the structural aircraft encountering another physical object like tree, ground, or other aircraft)

i do have much higher hopes for BoB ! given the extensive structural damage being modeled in some of the recent screen shots, i suspect crashes will be much more realistic to.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Romanator21

I don't understand why anyone would take a WWI stringbag and fly it into the ground at max speed from 4000 meters. I guess the developers didn't have that in mind when creating the damage model.

afaik the pictures you posted there are from low altitude or lower speed crashes, and yes under those circumstances the aircraft will crumple a bit, bend, break a wing or so and thats about all the excitement you get. other then finding the RoF modeling of this a bit simplistic, it doesnt look to bad and keeps the crowd happy.

pretending the same result happens with a ww-1 aircraft going into the ground at 140 km/hr is just delusional, and shows how irrational its fanbase is in ignoring some major problems in that sim

Originally Posted by Romanator21

Otherwise, their system is really not bad, and seems at least as good as Il-2's. 99% of the time, wood and fabric planes will crumple, rather than disintegrate.

you'd hope so wouldnt you RoF is a 2009 sim and you are comparing it to a ten year old il2 sim, of course RoF should look better. my point is simply that RoF models physical force interacting in a crash only in a very limited way, and that the bouncing aircraft hitting the dirt at 140 km/hr is a good example of this.

the 2 video clips you posted are a good example, both are relatively low speed low altitude crashes, and thats what they all look like in RoF, no matter how great the altitude or speed the crashing aircraft has

[Hood]

Wow, what are all these ladies arguing about? Damage to WWI planes and the like, in a forum not even devoted to that game? Anyway who cares about the damage on crashing - I'm more concerned about the next plane I'm going to shoot down or the next guy who's going to get me.

Get over it ladies as all games are WIP until they are no longer supported.

I guess the update is nice but I'm sure looking forward to better footage of in-game action. The most exciting video trailer for a game I've ever seen was the La attacking a Ju88 (or He111?) for the original IL2. Class.

Hood

[Chivas]

Damage model is a huge component of a flight sim. The wrong damage model will quickly have flight simmers removing the game from their hard drives. That said, I'm sure SOW's damage model will be the most comprehensive in combat flight simming today.

Seeing damaged aircraft staying in the fight will be almost a thing of the past. They will be bailing or immediately looking for an escape route.

[BigC208]

Great update this week. Still wondering if the reflections in the flight instruments are dynamic or frozen. When ditching, will it be lights out like Il2 or will you be able to come to a halt and float while you are still in the cockpit?

About the physics expectations. Unless we all start running Crays, it'll always be a compromise between eyecandy and playabillity. Watching a beautifull slightshow gets old quickly.

Even after almost 10 years of Il2 I still think it's pretty close to the real thing. This makes me pretty confident that when SoW comes out it'll be as good as Oleg can make it without bringing the fastest computers on their knees. Come in for landing with too much speed or flare too high and you'll bounce. Relax a bit on the stick and you can still save it. Good enough physics for me.

I got the same feeling when playing the demo for RoF a few months back. So what if they had tone the physics effects down in order to keep the game playable? I did not buy it but that was because of the DRM measures and lack of flyable aircraft. They changed their bussiness model, upped the content and no more online requirements. My preorder for RoF Iron cross is in.
Even if they stop supporting the game I feel that there's enough in the box to make it worth the asking price.

There are so few good combat flightsims out there that I think we should all support them instead of all this negativity.

[Friendly_flyer]

Originally Posted by Chivas

Damage model is a huge component of a flight sim. The wrong damage model will quickly have flight simmers removing the game from their hard drives. .

When in flight that is certainly true. When a plane crashes, it cease to be important. If you are in your plane, the only relevant parameter is whether you survive or not. If your virtual you is killed, it doesn't matter much if it is the left or the right wing that comes off or whether it is the fuel tank or coolant that catches fire.

I am (as you) sure that the flight- and damage models of SOW will be impressive. I am equally sure crashes will be spectacularly animated with dirt and loose bits spraying.

[Skarphol]

Originally Posted by Chivas

Damage model is a huge component of a flight sim.

The damage model on FS X seems quite basic, but that sim is fairly popular. You have a point, though.
The most important thing to me is playability, and I'm pretty sure that will be good taken care of by Oleg & team.

Skarphol