Friday 2010-10-22 Dev. update and Discussion

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by Osprey

DCS Blackshark had a 40+ point procedure to start the engines, it was the singular reason I binned it

Which can be bypassed with two simple key presses.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

I think that we are modeling so many things in each aircraft that never was modelled in any single aircraft sim.

Start procedure do not affect these systems and complexity of modelling.

Each aircraft in our sim may have from 300 to 500+ parameters of modeling.

Say me is there the sim that would model the work of the piston compressor in a cockpit of bomber?
Or is there any sim that would model the work of each cylinder of engine?
Or various of propellers and its reductors?
various of pitch mechanisms?
The work of carburauter? Its diameter of airintake that calculate the airflow dencity in there?
Or maybe you can name the flight sim where in the damage is included the case of tires pinhole and its result?
Where, like in Il-2 for the first time in the world, then now in our sim modelled on the new very high level of precise and phycically (in 3D) all the trip rods to ailerons, elevator, rudder, etc? That can be all damahged separately with its result to control and flight?
Where in a sim modelled some (not all) eletrical wires that can be also damaged in a system of DM?

Can you sayme where in other game is modelling many of these thigns in 3D that to get right place of the hit result instead of randome program table of switchable failure?


Resume:
Complete starting procedure doesn't means the modeling of the things described above.... Trust me
We did way more complex work in general.
Like we did for the first time in the world the co-called in the past Complex Damage Model in Il-2 series.

oleg,

thank you for focusing on that part, it is indeed the most important for 90% of us, AND it is what make the future of the sim so much more interesting because of the increased complexity of modeling those elements of the system working together !

similar complexity like you are doing for the AA, the search light, the radar, and even the amount and type of shells from AA batteries available/used.

meaning, if one element in a complex system like that gets damaged, other parts of the system start to fail (engine overheating, selective loss of power when one piston fails etc..), or searchlight damaged in AA battery reducing its accuracy for Flack

this is MUCH more important then 2% of users wanting to go click click with a mouse on the screen in a complex startup procedure for 20 min before they get off the ground with their aircraft

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Actually that's a good attitude towards the whole deal. I too can wait for extra detail to be added. Like i always like to say, we didn't have water=3 in the original IL2, but we got it someday

As for me, i think i would use the manual mode every time and it would be especially rewarding if there was a bonus to it.
For example, the way Black Shark does it is good. You can press left windows key + home key and the chopper starts up all by itself but not as if by magic. It still goes through all the steps required. The advantage to learning how to do it yourself is that experienced users can start it faster than the auto-start feature can. So, pressing left win + home might start the chopper in 40 seconds, but an experienced user doing it manually might be able to do it in 25 seconds.

I think that's a very good compromise. It allows people who want full difficulty FM/DM without the hassle of extreme systems management to fly on the same server as people who want 110% difficulty (which prevents further diluting the community and spreading us thin across a billion servers with different difficulty settings), while also providing a reward and an incentive for those who take the time to learn how to do a few things extra.

In any case, the most important part for me is that we have a confirmation from mr. Maddox that even if checklists are not included, the consequences of improper system operation are there. That's the first and most important step and it will change and revolutionize the way people fly and fight online.
I just went back and read another one of his posts 1-2 pages back and it pretty much says that almost everything will work except the start procedure. That's good enough for me and a steep evolutionary curve from the IL2 way of doing things. I would still like to have it all modelled, but i know that this one must get to release sometime and money must be generated if we want to see more features

Also, Splitter's explanations about what won't work, what will work and how is pretty much the way i understand it as well. I doubt people will be forced to use either interface, the most probable thing to happen is that they will be able to use both at the same time according to what they like best.

I think that a lot of people are not familiar with clickable sims and that's why they think that clicking on things is mandatory in such sims. To my knowledge, there's not a single flight sim out there that forces you to click everything. Taking Black Shark as an example once again, i've never flown that but i downloaded the manual when it was made available before release. Every single switch and function in that chaotic cockpit can be mapped to a keypress or stick button, scratch that, they are even mapped by default the moment you install it. The reason people click stuff is that they can remember which button drops the gear and which lever changes the collective, but they can't remember that ctrl+shift+alt+> is used to select the fourth softkey in the bottom row of the MFD...for things like that it's simpler to just point at it and press the mouse button.

The important thing is to look at the forest and not just the tree. Most of us lack the interface and input devices to simulate everything the best way. Some have pedals, some have dual throttle HOTAS, some have head tracking, some have custom sim-pits, but very few people have everything.
In order for a title to succeed we need a strong user community. In order to build and sustain a community, all these people must have a means of flying together in the same environment, regardless of their hardware setup. In order for them to be able to fly the same software in the same environments, some things have to be designed to work with the most common PC interfaces that everyone is sure to have...keyboards and mice. If customized cockpits were cheap we wouldn't be having this discussion, but these things are not cheap at all.

So, the defining question ends up being this. Can we compromise to use less than ideal interfaces in order to have more advanced modelling of aircraft features, or will we throw the baby out with the bath water and miss out on a bunch of realism because we don't like the interface that much? I think the answer is obvious here. People who say that complex systems management should be neglected because clicking on stuff or remembering complex keymap assignments is unnatural are the equivalent of a real WWII pilot saying "i refuse to drop flaps for landing because i don't want to take my hands off the throttle and stick".

I'm glad the developers understand this and are giving us choices, instead of "railroading" the gameplay for everyone involved.

I am more familiar with X-Plane than MSFS and I think it does a wonderful job with some clickable cockpits on certain planes. During take-off and landing (the times your are "flying the airplane"), there is not much you need to do that requires clicks in the cockpit.

During flight, however, you are changing radio/nav frequencies, getting your plane into economy cruise, and constantly checking systems (pilots are rarely bored). THIS is when clickable cockpits come into play.

When the action starts, your head is outside the cockpit so to speak. You are using the keyboard and keeping an eye on the runway or traffic. I liken this to combat situations in SoW.

As a flight sim, you really want clickable cockpits to simulate being a "real" pilot. In combat, your really want your head outside the cockpit with control on the keyboard and joystick.

Trust me when I say that learning to fly a flight simulator is totally different than flying IL-2 in a dogfight. I like both...but I like combat more . "REAL" WWII combat pilots had to know how to fly, like in a flight simulator, and how to go into combat like in IL-2. What in the HELL is wrong with the option of doing BOTH in SoW?

I am sure Oleg and company are trying to make the program accessible and enjoyable to a wide variety of simmers/gamers. I don't think he is going to exclude one or the other. I am REALLY expecting, from what he has said, a possible combination of flight sim and combat sim. That would be INCREDIBLY unique.

Blackdog is infinitely more familiar with the online world of IL-2 than I. I hope what he envisions becomes reality. Engines take a bit to smooth out and settle into "running". You might get away with taking a cold engine into the air....and you might not.

I WANT to get into the online world with SoW. And I want "piloting" an aircraft to be a factor in being valuable to a squadron. I don't want it to just be about bouncing off the ground, not using the runway, and pointing your nose at an enemy and shooting. I like both things and I hope that both are somehow incorporated.

/mini rant.

In a fairly short time, I have come to trust Oleg's vision for SoW. It WILL NOT be perfect when released but it will have both the "wow" factor and depth.

In the words of OddBall, have a little faith, baby.

(Was the last reference too American? lol)

Splitter

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by JG1_Wanderfalke

Why is it dramatically weaker?
Ok cockpit sucks
For me Terrain textures look much better then what we have seen in SOW

For example look at the Switzerland x addon
its impossible to outperform that.

except of course when you get to lower altitudes you silly little man

some of the high detail scenery addons for FS-9/10 in the last couple of years look great for medium and high altitude, because it is basically satellite photography textures pasted over a fairly rough contour map.

but once you get to lower altitudes like 2000 meters and below you get major problems (for a combat flight sim), the textures suddenly look like being exactly that, just flat textures, there is no 3D detail in the contour, there are minimal real 3D objects on the ground (houses, trees, cars, trains, troops, tanks, etc..). they might give you one highly detailed airport if you buy the next addon, but everything else immediately outside that airports it again just ugly flat textures that look like martian vomit after he had a meal of carrots and parsley.

oleg's project is entirely different in focus regarding scenery, as you should have been able to realize by now by following the release of screenshots in the last couple of years (just go to foobar's website to refresh your mind and compare)

even WoP is 100x better then the high detail fs9/10 scenery addons (when seen from low altitude)

[=69.GIAP=TOOZ]

Originally Posted by bolox

may i also add to the chorus of pleas for any information possible on devicelink with a little example of what is possible with this in IL2


hoping to be able to do more in SOW

I would also like to know if there are any plans to allow things like UDPSpeed to work in SOW online? I used to use it all the time when flying offline missions in IL-2 before my laptop broke, but I spend the majority of the time flying online where this utility doesn't work.

So, what's the verdict? Will we be able to use these kind of things in SOW?

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by zapatista

except of course when you get to lower altitudes you silly little man

some of the high detail scenery addons for FS-9/10 in the last couple of years look great for medium and high altitude, because it is basically satellite photography textures pasted over a fairly rough contour map.

but once you get to lower altitudes like 2000 meters and below you get major problems (for a combat flight sim), the textures suddenly look like being exactly that, just flat textures, there is no 3D detail in the contour, there are minimal real 3D objects on the ground (houses, trees, cars, trains, troops, tanks, etc..). they might give you one highly detailed airport if you buy the next addon, but everything else immediately outside that airports it again just ugly flat textures that look like martian vomit after he had a meal of carrots and parsley.

oleg's project is entirely different in focus regarding scenery, as you should have been able to realize by now by following the release of screenshots in the last couple of years (just go to foobar's website to refresh your mind and compare)

even WoP is 100x better then the high detail fs9/10 scenery addons (when seen from low altitude)

I can't believe this even needs to be pointed out. Again I go back to X-Plane which uses satellite imagery. From altitude, it looks fine (for the most part). Of course, the "Earth" takes 60 gigs of hard drive space to accomplish this.

However, there is nothing (or very little) in terms of 3D objects at low level unless you have an Ikea fetish....X-Plane users will back me up on the number of Ikeas in a given major city....

Even when you fly over a well know city like Washington, DC, there is no Washington Monument, no White House, and no Lincoln Memorial without add-ons.

No, give me the detail Oleg is shooting for in SoW.

Fanboi out .

Splitter

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by brando

And that's only the drill for a single-engined fighter. Try sorting that for a twin-engined bomber + taxying to the line + waiting for the rest + taking off + climbing to a mimimum 10,000 feet over France + + picking up the escorts ...... something near an hour so far ...... and then the fun begins. Let's hope you didn't make some kind of mistake during the start-up procedure and need to abort your flight!

Exactly.. All that sounds good on paper.. but consdiering the people who will actually use features that detailed.. you have to ask yourself is it worth it to the devs.. considering that that already know what they want to do with the product .. and given the track record of 1C I for one am expecting to be wowed.. I still get wowed from IL2.. just not as much anymore..

Originally Posted by Splitter

I can't believe this even needs to be pointed out. Again I go back to X-Plane which uses satellite imagery. From altitude, it looks fine (for the most part). Of course, the "Earth" takes 60 gigs of hard drive space to accomplish this.

However, there is nothing (or very little) in terms of 3D objects at low level unless you have an Ikea fetish....X-Plane users will back me up on the number of Ikeas in a given major city....

Even when you fly over a well know city like Washington, DC, there is no Washington Monument, no White House, and no Lincoln Memorial without add-ons.

No, give me the detail Oleg is shooting for in SoW.

Fanboi out .

Splitter

Bingo... hyeck I am looking forward to having the buildings finally in proportion to the AC..

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Splitter

I can't believe this even needs to be pointed out. Again I go back to X-Plane which uses satellite imagery. From altitude, it looks fine (for the most part). Of course, the "Earth" takes 60 gigs of hard drive space to accomplish this.

However, there is nothing (or very little) in terms of 3D objects at low level unless you have an Ikea fetish....X-Plane users will back me up on the number of Ikeas in a given major city....

Even when you fly over a well know city like Washington, DC, there is no Washington Monument, no White House, and no Lincoln Memorial without add-ons.

No, give me the detail Oleg is shooting for in SoW.

Fanboi out .

Splitter

you quoted the wrong part of the text in your quote (using my reply instead of the original posters text)

i just responded to his earlier post where he claimed fs9/10 was so much better from all altitudes, and gave a list of examples why oleg's work is better for the lower altitude levels that are important in a combat sim

and me referring to "martian vomit" in low altitude fs9/10 scenery is because you just get a few spare houses (the carrot chunks) sitting on top of a textured flat satellite image map, with a few odd trees randomly placed (the parsley chunks). not really something you want to use in a combat flightsim where you might have to go hunting for enemy tank formations on the ground, or target a specific road/bridge to slow down troop movement

[Splitter]

I was agreeing with you, Zap . You had already made the point disagreeing with the post that you quoted (dang, this internet stuff can get confusing even when you get it right! lol).

As an example, flying over Niagara falls without seeing any falls.....this satellite stuff is not all it's cracked up to be in every instance.

Looks good from Angels 30 though .

Splitter

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by zapatista

you quoted the wrong part of the text in your quote (using my reply instead of the original posters text)

i just responded to his earlier post where he claimed fs9/10 was so much better from all altitudes, and gave a list of examples why oleg's work is better for the lower altitude levels that are important in a combat sim

and me referring to "martian vomit" in low altitude fs9/10 scenery is because you just get a few spare houses (the carrot chunks) sitting on top of a textured flat satellite image map, with a few odd trees randomly placed (the parsley chunks). not really something you want to use in a combat flightsim where you might have to go hunting for enemy tank formations on the ground, or target a specific road/bridge to slow down troop movement

Totally correct

FSX terrain mesh cannot handle complex ground parameter as IL2 1946 does.

Global textures for terrain is not good enough especially when you start to go online with the sim.

IL2 1946 out performs all sims in this area for its net code and complex terrain IMHO