>>>"Basically it is a compromise for the online community who would not enjoy spending ten to twenty minutes going through realistic starts up procedures......"<<<

This is not correct. Ten or twenty minutes is way more than it took for a pilot to fire up his engine before a scramble for one simple reason - a pre-flight start-up and run-up had already been carried out by the ground crew. This was a customary procedure for all fighter planes that were placed on stand-by for immediate action, certainly in the RAF. In other words, the planes were already warmed up and required much less of a procedure than for a cold-start. Sometimes the pilot was involved in this morning preparation, but more likely it was carried out entirely by the fitter and the rigger. Often the pilot wasn't involved at all in the start-up.

A very good description is made by Geoffrey Wellum, a Spitfire pilot of 92 Squadron, in his book "First Light".

"........ the ringing phone still makes me jump. 'Squadron scramble base angels twelve.'
As one we all make a dive for the door..... I race for my Spitfire....I look and see my aeroplane now only a short distance away. The ground crew are starting up, the engine fires. There's my parachute hanging from the wingtip where I left it. I make a grab and begin to put it on. My rigger has already removed the starter plug and pulled the trolley clear. He climbs onto the starboard wing and waits by the cockpit. With my chute on I hobble round the trailing edge of the wing and up onto the walkway. With an agility that never ceases to amaze me, my fitter is out of the cockpit in a flash and putting his hand under my arm, almost lifting me into the cockpit ......."

Even a cold start is less complex than you suggest, due to the fact that the engine had already been run up and checked earlier. Here's a checklist, again taken from "First Light" from a flight that didn't involve a scramble

".... I fit my oxygen mask, R/T lead plugged in, also oxygen tube, that's OK. Release the Sutton harness lock and check the fuel gauges, full of course. Oxygen on and the needle flicks up to the full mark. Shouldn't need oxygen today but you never know. Elevator trim one degree nose heavy, full rudder bias, pitch full fine and controls free. A quick double check round. Everything looks good. Radiator shutter open, all right then, fuel on, ready for starting. Throttle open a little. Coolant temperature? Shows dead cold, OK so we will have to prime here. Give her six pumps on the Ki-Gas; I lean out of the cockpit.
'All clear?'
A thumbs up from the two stalwarts. 'Clear, sir.'
'Contact.'
'Contact, sir'
Mag switches on, press the starter button and booster coils at the same time and the starter engages with a metallic clang. The airscrew turns slowly, the engine fires, hesitates for just a second, kicks back and then starts with great puffs of smoke which momentarily engulf the cockpit. I adjust the throttle and the Merlin settles down and runs evenly as it warms up. The needle of the temperature gauge comes off the cold stop.....

So you see that there is not much more pilot involvement in the starting procedure than in IL-2. The work of getting aircraft alive after an overnight rest is very much the ground crew's job and can't be put at the pilot's door, as much as you might want to fantasise about it.
Most of the procedures, like setting up elevator trim, applying full rudder bias, manipulating the throttle and mixture, opening the radiator shutter, are all available to the conscientious IL2 pilot before he takes off.

I also deplore the instant spawn, engine on, hurtling dash across the runway that defines much of the dogfighting arena scene - but I suggest that the careful pilot who wants to fly off fully under control and also return, having completed his mission, is already offered most of the pre-launch option.

Twenty minutes, or even ten, isn't in it.

B

Think of how cool it would be to see and cooperate with the AI groundcrew during that procedure! For online play I guess it might be higly unpopular because it is timeconsuming, but offline? Great immersion!

Skarphol

I'm all about running in a dead sprint to my idling aircraft, sliding into the prepped cockpit, taxiing to the runway and pinning the throttle to go meet Jerry.

More like 2 minutes I'd wager.

I agree, but with many reservations. Online or offline there is going to be an enormous amount of processing power required to show two interacting ground crew for every aircraft involved in a squadron scramble plus such items as My rigger has already removed the starter plug and pulled the trolley clear. He climbs onto the starboard wing and waits by the cockpit. With my chute on I hobble round the trailing edge of the wing and up onto the walkway. With an agility that never ceases to amaze me, my fitter is out of the cockpit in a flash and putting his hand under my arm, almost lifting me into the cockpit ..... and so on.
There will most likely be up to 11 other aircraft, pilots & crew carrying out similar manoeuvres in fairly close proximity, simultaneously. What price frame-rates if using external view, or even trackIR views come to that?

The more we introduce life-like figures the more careful we have to be in terms of sustaining the reality of the period modelled. I was impressed by the recent film-clip of a pilot briefing using life-like figures - except that none of them resembled a 1940s airman. Their haircuts were too long and none of them talked correctly for the time. While such details can be cleaned up perhaps, it's still asking a lot to reproduce a satisfactory picture of ground life at the instant before a scramble. I guarantee you will notice the bits that don't work far more than those which do.

I'm far more disposed to TB's sprint and go suggestion than getting bogged down in the complexities of mannequin animation.

B

Maybe the ground activity will be on a switch...I would think that such activity would be better off, for use by off-liner's...unless of course that Oleg can pull it off for both

I'm sure someone has already suggested it, but could be a pay for patch, or something we could mod for offline only. Let us hope, anyway.

After giving this a little thought, I would quess that any ground crew activity would be placed in by the mission designer. So, off-line, on-line, it will all be up to the designer of the map/mission. He could limit the amount of such activity, so as to lessen demand on procesor's

I was just watching some world war two footage of Australian Beaufighters operating out of Port Moresby. One thing that I noticed was when a bomb whent off in the water the spray driffed down wind. (Pritty bleeding obvious but it was the first time I'ld noticed it!!!)

In Bob we are getting dynamic weather and wind, so my question is in Bob will the spray effect from splashes in the water be effected by Wind?

Will ordinace that is released be effected by wind?

It may not sound like much, but if your following another bomber in, all that information can be used to help correct your own bombing.

IMVHO, these are very different things.

Bombs are heavy, and are large enough that their surface area is relatively small, so the wind will not affect them much. In real life wind affected bombing, no doubt, but the effect will have been less than 1%, really not worth bothering about if it's going to take a lot of processor time, which it conceivably might do.

Spray is lots of little water droplets, and their small size means they have a very large surface area. As such, they are much affected by wind. Also, they can perhaps be treated as a lump, like smoke is, so it might be relatively easy to model spray being blown by the wind.

You could be right...but wasn't wind direction (drift) one of the settings on the "Norden bombsight"? I think that the "Jet Stream" was a big issue when they tried to drop bombs over Japan...

Usl
 

Oleg,
I thought you might find it interesting what we do with your simulator even after all these years!

Come and see the fun we have because of you! :o
Let me know you stopped by!

www.uslglobal.com

I was refering to the bombers such as the H111.
Realistic start up procedures from start to finish will only be fun for a while, used once or twice then disabled.
Your version that the ground crew will do it all for you kind-of defeats your argument to have it enabled in the first place...

I don't think I was arguing anything of the sort. I was just quoting a real pilot's experiences and suggesting that ten or twenty minutes is not needed to launch a fighter that has been prepared by its ground crew as was customary for both the RAF and the Luftwaffe.
I don't actually think the bomber crews spent that amount of time preparing either. Once again, the donkey work had been done by ground crew, so I think 5 minutes would be plenty, followed by taxiing onto the field and awaiting the starting flare.
It's more interesting to know whether bomber crews will want to spend the time forming up over France (often 10 or 20 minutes or longer) so that they can adopt the customary formations and cross the Channel at 15,000 feet. Therein lies the interesting question as far as bombers are concerned. Off-line reality-seekers may do this, possibly using a time-acceleration key to stave off the boredom ..... but I wonder what the IL2 dogfight arena types will make of it? Will they just jump in their Spits and 109s, tear diagonally across the field at full-bore and go looking for a T'n'B at 0 feet over the middle of the Channel, bitching because they haven't got an La7 or a FW A8 or a P51?

Personally I hope that there will be a short period of preparation before any plane is ready to take off, either off-line or on. As the quotes from Geoffrey Wellum suggest, it's not very long and is done very quickly. Taxiing from the dispersed position to the runway should be made mandatory in my opinion, and there should always be a chocks removal operation before that commences. Not the "rev to full power, release 'chocks', sprint away" fudge for carrier take-offs, IL2 style, but the removal of the wedges used to hold the plane still on engine start up that was used for all aircraft. Then the taxi-out, and then a smooth take-off that doesn't involve pushing the throttle through the gate followed by manually pumping up the undercarriage (Spitfires). These are certainly the steps I would like to enable in any co-op that I host, and I wouldn't fly in a D/F arena that didn't impose these kind of checks.

B

What would really help in D/F servers is if individual scores were turned OFF,maybe a server setting.In my squad we would love to spend time forming up in bombers,and flying in formation to target,and get engaged over the target,but in il2 you are more likely to get engaged by some clown just after take off by someone who doesn't care if they get shot down.
SoW needs to be more realistic in this aspect,and I think its one of the reasons that a lot of the more serious flyers rarely use D/F servers.

That sounds probable. I don't know about the Norden bomb sight, but the aircraft flies in the air, so the windspeed affects the speed or track of the aircraft over the ground, you'd need to allow for that. The only time wind would affect the flight of a bomb other than in that way would be if there was significant wind shear, so the wind at altitude was in a different direction or strength than nearer the ground. It's the latter that I think is probably negligible most of the time.

I don't remember (my memory is terrible) about the jetstream being a problem over Japan. Incendiaries, which were used against Japan, would be much more affected by wind than big iron cased explosive bombs.

Hi!

I think the jetstream caused most problemes for navigating long distances over water. The existance of jetstreams was not known to the crews until quite late in the war. The pilots had never had problems with jetstreams until the B-29's started to fly very high for long periodes of time. I don't think jetstreams affected bomb aiming in any serious way once the bombers had reached their targets.

Skarphol

Although I can't find any specific charts on the effect of "drift" on ordinance once dropped from the aeroplane...I don't think that they would have included an analog computer (to compute the wind "drift") in the Norden bombsite if it wasn't an important calculation. (even a miscalculation of 10 mph could mean a 170 foot bombing error at 20,000) I suppose that "wind drift" is the kind of detail that some people could find important in a "air combat sim" (and some others would like "clickable cockpits"_lol).

Notice that the line of the drifting bombs is straight. This is because it is relative to a straight nose on view of the aircraft. If there is a cross wind, the aeroplane has to fly with it's nose toward the wind a bit, so the line it is flying along is actually the line over the bombs, but it's nose is pointed into the wind a bit, so it looks as if its not going in quite the same direction. The drift is the difference between the line the aircraft is flying along, and the direction it's nose is pointing in.

one thing that could be used to stop the
"jump in their Spits and 109s, tear diagonally across the field at full-bore and go looking for a T'n'B at 0 feet over the middle of the Channel, bitching because they haven't got an La7 or a FW A8 or a P51?" - players would be if the engine would react as it was then, with a seize or at least with much reduced power.

I couldn't agree more! While I accept that there needs to be an element of relaxed realism for the gamey d/f arenas if only to make sales, let's hope the other end of the scale is a more true rendition of the mechanical side of flight.

B

Sorry mate, everybody that posted afte rme is an On line Onlly il2 pilot, as well as me. Some of us just want a little extra condiment, for our on line coops.
I seat infront of my compter to pretend I am a WWII Pilot, not to learn how to win in a new game with planes in a DF arena...

You talk about not wanting to wait till my flight is ready to take off.. Well its the same argument for taxiing and taking off instead of caranking WEP at 110% and just take off on the grass on the heading you apear in the game...
Then aggain, why even wait to take off?...

That argument is not consistent. If you can wait to taxi and take off, you can also wait 5 minutes to turn on your engine.. You cna go Black Sharks way wicth has a compleatlly cold star but has a switch taht will enable the IA to turn the helicopter on for you. In an on line session that ,means a little time to coordinate the mission via TS or the like...
By the way the shark doesn´t take more than a couple of minutes to be ready to fly.. and its a bit more complex than a WWII machine...

I am not talking about waiting 20 minutes ti´ll the plane is ready, I mean flicking a few more swithces that actually do something usefull, not like magnetos on il2. And if that is how its going to be, Well GRATE! thas all we are asking for...

About transfering fuel. Man that should be mandatory. It is damage modeling too, and even better, damage control modeling....witch to me is as important as balistics on cannons and machingunes or rates of turn... The ability to conserve and save fuel was the diifference between a hot bunk or a cold trench if luky, out in the enemies side of the lines... and what made self sealing tanks such and important feacture in late WWII fighters adn bombers. Also dictated doctrine, on witch tanks to use first in order to gain an advantage with your plane....

And A friend asked me to ask, so here is an easy to answer question: Is data going to be managed like in Il2 via a .TXT log? The reason I ask is becouse lots of campaigns n line use that that a to create a dynamic world and ot would be grate if SOW series used a simmilar way to extract information about what hapened in a givne mission. Specialy to be able to control tournament missions and stuff like on lien wars...

Thank you in advance.

In addition to my previous post i would like to see a realistic simulated workload for the pilot because the german planes generally were not as demanding as the allied planes at this time, also the seat position in german planes allowed higher g-loads before blackening out then in the allied planes. That i would like to see simulated too.

+1

The irony of all these questions about extra detail in start-up is that Oleg has already said no!
It was in a Sticky thread called Oleg Answers. That thread is now gone and everyone is asking questions that Oleg has already answered.
This is what Oleg had to say on the subject of complex start-up

2. Maybe a bit more complex, but maybe anyway by one button. It is still diputable in our team. But sure we wiill not copy rweal procedures for each aircraft. Fist becasue it is tioo much time eater in development. Second, becasue if to do, then to do it really correct, but not like others WWII sims developer declare that they have it realistic. Enough to compare with real manual the item "preparing for fligth(take off, or so)"...
The main thing is that most active people will play online our sim and opnly periodically - single play. In online gameplay the procedure for real starting engine will limit very much gameplay, so we MUST go there fro compromises with reality. The only real starting procedure will reduce interest for the gameplay very much... as well as some other real features (like real ACTUAL time of refueling and reloading) - then you will get German or Russian plane ready more quiker than British or US.... This will damage the online gameplay be sure...

Yes I remember the disapointment that I felt when reading that...I don't see why they could'nt just put it on a difficulty switch...then everyone would be happy:)

You have the answer in the post you quoted : "Fist becasue it is tioo much time eater in development. "

Is it so difficult to understand ?

tasks
 

I don't know....I may be wrong.... But it seems a little late in the game to say, "I would like to see." As if they are still in the design faze?

I would think that what is going to be "seen" is done. The buttons to be pushed, and the levers to be pulled, the check lists to be checked, fuel mixtures to be mixed, which wing to mix them in, and whether or not you want it on the rocks with a straw, are probably mute topics. :P

I would hope they're past that point by now......I could be wrong...but I hope not:grin:

IIRC, Oleg said that all switches were animated, but that they hadn't written the code so that we can use all of them in game, and that he let it to "masochists".

I don't think people waste their time when they ask for certain features again and again even if Oleg has already answered the questions before. At least they show him that there are people who care for realism and maybe he will consider some of our wishes in future SOW sims or add ons.

Oleg also said that it will be possible for 3rd party add on makers to make more complex aircraft with more realistic procedures, just as they do for MSFS. At least I am satisfied with this and don't expect that I can get a complete sim with several douzend highly detailed flyables for the price of one or two highly detailed MSFS add ons, especially since his team seems to be very small.

In fact it is...take the time, invest the energy, to produce a sim that is a desent simulator.;)

I guess you knows Oleg's job better than himself then.

Whoever removed the Oleg Answers thread can they edit it and return it as a sticky again.
People keep asking questions already asked a 1000 times which makes Oleg's job harder.
I transplanted some of what he said to our SA site but a lot is missing.

To answer the gunner question Oleg has indicated that a moral system and real world physics will play a roll.

Their will be ground activity but do not expect a FPS.
Rearming and refueling will be in, but this will not be 100% acurately modeled to assist online play.

People don't want to read Olegs old posts...they don't believe anything Oleg has said in the past. They only believe what they want to believe. (lol)

We were hoping he might have changed his mind....

Oh I see.. then why not make it so you can jump out of the cockpit with a PPSh-41 in your hand and take over the enemy base.. That would add intensity for sure...

By the way, its ok if it´s not real switch by switch procedures. That would be imposible to replicate for every plane that I hope will come out for the SOW sereies. And I understand that it takes away development time. Still, we want a simulation. For a Game we allready have Birds of Pray Il-2 Sturmovick...

And aggain, I have never single played Il-2 Sturmovick. Check the squadrons, see how many dogfight squads are out there and how many serious coops simulation squads...

Anyway Thank you for your replays. It was very enlightning, and I am sorry to be so critic.
I was hoping for a little more compelxity.

I'm not convinced that most SOW player's will play on-line. I think the majority who bought IL2, have many hour's of flight time off-line. :-P

Ok

Oleg says no.

So............ just make a panel with loads of switches .....stick labels over/under them with what you want it to do....flick switch ....make appropriate noise with mouth/lips to "simulate" the switches effect, go through procedure till "You" are happy all switches are done in correct order and all appropriate noises have been made, salute the ground crew where applicable, give big smile as you head off down the runway.

This should meet the "clickpit" mob half way and "simstartup" guys.

Ok lets move on now please :)

http://rossmeeks.ca/sim_pit/panel1_switches_small.JPG

Ding Ding Ding - we have a winner

Remember to flick your humour switch to ON!

:)

:D Good one guys!

but I allready have the switches...

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/810...pit1fh0.th.jpg

I need a nice sim to use them with ;).
cheers!

But OK changing teh subject: Regarding the Log.
Will SOW have a simmilar system of logging what happens in missions?
Can some one elaborate on that please?

Video is good but what about the real thing???
 

:confused:
Sorry Trollbug but I ordered your joystick together with the throttle and this was 3 months ago. Nothing since except a mail indicating that they were finishing the paintjob and that I should receive everything in 10 days max. This was a month ago. Perhaps your group makes high-end joysticks but communication is not very strong. Tarmac's contact e-mail never answers and you didn't answer the private message I sent you asking for help....

I hope that the quality of the product is better than that because this is a LOT OF MONEY I invested here...:cry:

Eckhart

:confused: I was thinking to get one for xmas, I better wait on that

Eckhart ,
Your KG13 and throttle were ready 2 monthes ago , but we are still waiting a steel part of the Universal Base , manufactured by a third-party firm (it's a part we can't do ourself). We learnt 15 days ago that they forgot our order ! :-[[
My last visit here was 3 weeks ago , that's why I didn't answered your MP , sorry ...

now I can stop taking tranquilizers
 

Thx for your fast answer Trollbug.
A Rolls-Royce isn't build in a day and this should be the Rolls-Royce of the Joysticks:). As long as the quality is what it promises to be I am happy with the time needed to produce it. I know that you guys are busy but a little e-mail informing about the manufacturing progress and its possible delays would have reassured me;)
Once I will have received everything, I plan to continue my thread about "the stuff dreams are made off" in order to let everybody know how this can change your flight experience:cool:
If this works out, I hope that perhaps one day I will be able to save enough money to buy the great rudder you guys just put on the market (and replace my old Simped which did an excellent job so far).

I am looking forward to your advice on how to set up this configuration...

Thx again,

Cheers,

Eckhart

Wow...Thanks for the up-date Oleg!

1) Will the details of the "AAA" system be extended to the whole "map-world"? For example: If a power station or power-lines (cables) are damaged will buildings loose power (lights in the dark/night) and effect defense systems (like phones)???

2) I would love to see some London "urban/city" screen caps...

Very nice detail...I wonder what they would look like after being strafed, individual bullet impact sites in the timbers?...

I see really high attention to detail in the way the AAA systems are modeled.
We will be able to man some of those guns and looks like all the needed systems are modeled. My question is:

Are we going to be able to use the whole ranging/aiming system while we man the guns, for those guns that had it, or the gunsight will be simply fixed with the barell?

I'd love to be able to adjust the gunsight depending on the speed and altitude of the target. Many AAA systems had this devices. Not close to the acuracy/speed of modern complex systems that work almost instantly, but sure helped.
I see the ranging system right in those new updates screens.

http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/vvv-03_03.jpg
Many AAA systems had this devices.

Here are some of the German Heavy AAA aiming/ range finding systems in use during WW2:

http://home.no.net/angrc9/bilde3/fykse3.jpg

the EM 4 m R (H) 34 or 36, the Entfernungsmesser 4 m
Raumbild (Hochenmesser) 34 or 36, a standard 4 m-class rangefinder of heavy antiaircraft batteries.
It (as well as a newer, slightly different Em 4m R 40) could be used as a free standing on a tripod base,
as seen here - in co-operation with the Kdo.Hi.Ger. 35, or coupled directly with the Kdo.Ger. 36 or Kdo.Ger. 40.
The Em 4 m R (H) 34 or 36 were manned by 4 men (3 aimers and a commander) and could measure ranges
from 620 m (670 m in case of the model 34) to 50 000 m, as well as target's altitude.

http://home.no.net/angrc9/bilde3/fykse2.jpg

Kdo.Hi.Ger. 35 or Kommando Hilfsgeraet 35, an antiaircraft artillery command
device used as the secondary unit of a heavy antiaircraft battery (cal. 8,8 cm upwards), the primary unit
being either the Kdo.Ger. 36 or the Kdo.Ger. 40, both of them, as opposed to this one, were more complex,
coupled with a 4 m-class rangefinder and offered electric wire transmission of calculated elevation, traverse
and fuse setting to the guns. Range was given to the Kdo.Hi.Ger. 35 verbally from a free standing 4 m rangefinder,
while target's traverse and elevation were observed with two optical sights visible on both sides of the device.
Calculated values were given to the guns verbally via a phone line. The Kdo.Hi.Ger. 35 together with an
accompanying rangefinder were manned by 14 men, 9 of them operating the command device alone.

I'd love to be able to put all those poor men at work.:-P

I wonder if this new AAA system will include how info about enemy planes is shown to players? In IL2 we have the map which shows icons for planes, mission objectives etc. Will this part of the game also change so that let's say if a radar is destroyed in some part of the map, then information about planes flying in some area will be less accurate?

Now we just need some peoples to shoot the guns, operate the lights, drive the trucks and not look like stick men.

British Radar/AA integrated system
 

The attention to detail is fantastic. Thanks for this update Oleg. Radar was certainly a critical part of the British defence system during the BOB - are you also working on the much larger British Radar towers located along the coastline?

Keep up the good work - we are all patiently waiting for the release of BOB.

DFLion

You mean like this:

http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=046ti.jpg
(SOW:BOB from 2005)

Or these?
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...r/PCG171-2.jpg
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ger/cap022.jpg
(IIRC from 1946 DVD)

Or this?
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...r/c127d6cd.jpg
(Another early shot)

Nah, I'd expect they'll simply drop it.

Oleg,

thx for providing another update ! having the various radar/searchlight/AA-guns components all linked together to be in working effective order is a great idea, knocking out one element of the chain then makes the whole unit dysfunctional until the broken unit is replaced X amount of time later (i hope the X time delay will vary depending on the type of parts/components damaged)

can you plz answer this question:

i hope your idea is taken one logical step further in the dynamic campaign !

in the dynamic campaign we should be able to disrupt/block the supply chain to airfields and frontline troops as well, so that new munitions and replacement parts (new search lights, generators, fuel, aircraft parts etc..) are not being replaced instantly by "magic" like it is now in il2.

in the BoB dynamic campaign any new supplies and fuel etc (including new search lights if they have been completely destroyed) needs to be first re-supplied to that location by road or rail (or air), before they can become functional again. obviously minor structural damage (electricity lines, ammunition for an AA gun etc) only need a simple X time delay for minor repair, but if a whole searchlight is bombed, it should mean a new searchlight needs to be transported to that location, if all bridges and railway tracks to that sector are destroyed, then it should mean no new searchlight will re-appear at that location till these roads/bridges/railway-lines are repaired (taking Z time for ex).

iirc in mig alley you could disrupt the enemy supply lines by destroying bridges, railway lines, truck convoys etc, and it took the enemy X amount of time to repair/rebuilt them. if you kept them disrupted/damaged (by bombing a specific bridge one per day, or hitting truck convoys every night on the same road),then eventually the front line troops started to run out of munitions and it weakened their fighting strength, just as it did during the korean war in real life when the supply lines were deliberately targeted by the UN.

in your flightsim this should mean we can block the resupply of fuel and parts replacement aircraft being available) to a frontline airfield, and force the enemy to only start using other airfields. this is exactly relevant to BoB, where the germans by mistake (on orders of goering), stopped attacking repeatedly the english bases in the south of england, and switch to attacking cities instead, hence allowing the brittish some "breathing space" to recover and repair their southern most bases in england (which is what allowed them to win BoB eventually)

this is how a dynamic campaign should work, i hope it will be done like this in BoB

Zapatista, most of what you want is available now if you use the scorched earth campaign engine

Radar, shmadar...... I'm waiting for the carrot mod. ;o)

Thanks for the update Oleg and crew. I still maintain we're in a great time to be a flight simmer.

As a sidenote: I was in the Norwegian Coastal Artillery in 1988-1990 and we had the Bofors 40mm/L60 as pictured. Even then the sights was fixed with the barrel. We would (sometimes) get info over radio from radarstations as to where planes was supposed to emerge from, but mostly there would be no information at all.
I think the 40mm/L60 was phased out a very short time after I quit in 1990, but the slightly more advanced Bofors 40mm/L70 lingered one for another 10 years or so.

I remember once on an exersize we got message over radio "the area is now clear of enemy planes!" and as the last word was spoken 4 'enemy' Vought A-7 Corsairs flew so low over our cannon that we allmost had to duck. So much for Norwegian air defence radars...

Skarphol

8-core processors
 

Hi Oleg,

Awesome screenshots!

As you will know, the Intel Core i7 is almost here. Apparently in the middle of next year they'll be introducing an 8-core beast. Will Storm of War be optimised for 8-core processors? It's clearly the future!

Happy coding,


Flying Nutcase

LOL Oleg... wot's with the cranky bunny in your last screenshots release?


http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/vvv-03_02.jpg

A Question For Oleg.



1) This is sort of an odd, specific question regarding ground objects...but, will power lines, and telephone poles/lines be modeled?

And...

2) Will the urban infrastructure be modeled into campaign mode?? To be specific...will power/electricity and water lines/pipes be modeled into the campaign dynamics/damage modeling... EXAMPLE: if you take out a dam or the city's "water mains" the fire dept can not put out burning fires (from bombing), thus effecting moral and production.

Thanks Oleg...

Modelling morale? You can't be serious? :D And tying that to productivity is fairly tenuous as well, as the strategies of both Goering, re London and elsewhere, and Harris, re Germany, proved. The only true way to deter productivity is to obliterate the factories, not the workers' morale.

B

If you destroy the fresh water pipes sanitation will become worse, more workers get ill and productivity will decrease. Or better, if you drop any kind of poison in their lake and leave the dam intact all workers and firefighters will be out of action for a while and productivity will be decreased even more.

Seriously where do you want to draw a line? It's a flight sim , not the ultimate WWII strategy game. Why not implement the feature to write propaganda leaflets and drop them above enemy cities. If you are convincing enough peole may overthrow their government and change sides.

Large British Radar aerials
 

Thanks Feuerfalke for posting these pics - they were first posted in 2005 - just shows you how time has slipped away during the development of BOB-SOW - it will still be very worth the wait when finally released.
DFLion

no it doesnt, because in scorched earth
1) it does not occur in real time while the server is running
2) the scorched earth system is still "scripted missions" that are planned one at a time by human intervention, and it is then played one mission at a time as a coop server.

what we need in a true dynamic campaign engine (similar to the old mig alley, or the falcon 4 engine), where the "in game world" is proceeding over a number of weeks according to its own inbuilt scenario (and if left undisturbed or without human intervention will arrive at its pre-scripted conclusion). but small scale interventions by humans interacting with that virtual world should have a direct effect in real time, presuming their intervention is on a significant enough scale to be relevant (eg destroying the complete fuel storage area at an airfield, versus just destroying one part of it) . we should be able to directly affect what is happening in the game in real time, for ex
- destroying fuel storage at an airfield means for X amount of time no fuel is available from that field
- destroying a bridge means trains supplies cant reach their destination untill that bridge is repaired in X time
- replacement aircraft for a squadron at an airfield are flown in at semi regular intervals by AI, shooting down those replacement aircraft reduces new aircraft availability at that airfield
- whatever aircraft (new, or being repaired etc..) that are available at an airfield should actually be visible at that airfield (in hangers out of sight, or out in the open etc..), destroying aircraft on the ground should then mean those aircraft destroyed are not available anymore for X amount of time (till replacements arrive, or damaged ones are repaired after X amount of time). ie people who spawn at that airfield can only choose an aircraft if it is actually available there.

those are fairly simple elements of a dynamic campaign that make the world you fly in "come alive", actions have consequences and directly affect what happens in the game. adding some factors like that while the game is being designed is important, adding them later will be much harder. it doesnt need to take much computing power either, it can be done in a fairly basic way if needed.

mig alley and falcon 4 are each about 10 years old now, yet those types of dynamic campaigns still set the benchmark. it should in 2009 be possible to have a basic version like that integrated in BoB. oleg is obviously thinking in that general direction, because his last post refers to some of those integration factors, hence my question.

ps: the question was directed at Oleg, if you want to discuss it start a separate thread

can AI switch targets?
 

I did search, but I haven't found anything relevant, so I'll ask Oleg about AI pilots this way: If in building a mission I assign Stukas to bomb a convoy, and the lead AI Stuka sinks a targeted transport ship, will the other Stukas of the flight break off and target other ships in the convoy? I noticed in IL2 if I assign a flight of Kamikaze planes to attack a ship, and the first plane sinks that ship the other planes tend to mill around instead of attacking other ships in the area. Anyone?
thanks!
Flyby out

zapatista

Unfortunately one reason why campaign engines as Falcon4 and MiGAlley/BoB are still considered state of the art is that they broke their creators's backs. Falcon4 bancrupted Microprose (and didn't work properly for a long time) and the same can be said about Rowan. Such engines - done correctly, which is the key phrase here - cost a lot of time and manpower to develop. And these "commodities" are the rarest in nowadays game development industry. Unfortunately ...

Zapatista, I get what you mean, but my squad flew ongoing campaigns against AG51 for a couple of years and we enjoyed many of the features you require, unfortunately there was a need for quite a bit of planning input, but we had tanks running out of fuel etc and supply was important to keep airfields active and many more features, maybe Oleg could speak to the developers of SE, as knowing one of the team that created SE, I am fairly sure that a lot of what you require could be added if SE was built into SOW, it will be interesting to see what maddox games comes up with.

Can AI switch targets?
 

Hope the following answer helps your query 99thFlyby.

When making campaigns in IL2 1946, at the beginning you often see 'Select the highest rank before commencing the campaign'. This then puts you in command of the whole flight/squadron. Using the 'Pilot voice commands' (TAB) you now have total control of your flight/squadron.
To stop your Stukas repeatedly attacking the convoy you select the 'Tactical voice command' then select 'rejoin' - your Stukas will break-off their attacks and rejoin you.
You can then issue new commands to attack new targets - once you have 'padlocked/highlighted' them either in the air or on the ground.

To take this a bit further, I would imagine Oleg is working on new dynamic set of pilot voice commands for SOW/BOB which will give us all much more control than with IL2. For example -if your leader is shot down your wingman may take-over command (you may be flying as a wingman). You may see a new 'voice command' - 'Takeover command' which will immediately give you 'leader status' with all the necessary command privileges to command your flight/squadron.
Ground control will be much more comprehensive in SOW/BOB, for example 'climb to 3,000m', target distance 5kl, vector 120 degrees etc. I would be interested in having some futher discussion with this aspect of the game.

Zapatista - I fully agree with your comments - SOW/BOB must have a true dynamic campaign engine.

DFLion

dflion,
thanks for the input, but per youtr example I'd want the Stukas to keep attacking ships. What i would not want, per mission building, is for a flight to stop attacking even after the designated target for that flight was destroyed. In other words I'd like for a flight to seek other targets. Per my Kamikaze flight example, once the designated target was destroyed (by the lead plane, or any plane), the other planes in the flight would not attack other targets. I want the AI to attak other targets even if the flight lead is dead. I should have added that in my example, the flight lead of the Kamikaze flight was an AI pilot. I'd want an AI Stuka to attack other ships even if the AI leader of that flight was shot down. I'm asking if the AI will seek other targets in SOW if the assgined target is destroyed.
thanks!
Flyby out

Can AI switch targets?
 

I am hoping that Oleg has ' considerably stepped up the artificial intelligence of AI aircraft' in SOW/BOB, especially in the ground attack mode. After they have attacked and destroyed a specific target, they then seek out other live targets in the immediate vicinity, if ammo and bombs are still available (this does happen to a certain extent in IL2 now - though it is not reliable) - at the moment in IL2, if you are not the leader, you are powerless to re-direct the AI aircraft to attack other targets and they all end up 'milling-around' the original target until they are all shot down, or limp back to base damaged, or wounded? The way out of this dilemma is that if you lose your AI leader the AI 'second in command' (or yourself, if you are second in command) takes over and redirects the AI flight to other targets, or if you are the Squadron Leader you take over all the AI flights by issuing specific commands to attack other targets.
You must always remember that in the current IL2 flight simulator you are in control of your own ultimate destiny - as you are promoted you are are then controlling the destiny of your flight or Squadron pilots (In the offline mode, all the other AI pilots, in the online mode, other live pilots).
DFLion

Bunny
 

Maybe the bunny in the screenshot was meant for an Easter update that never happened or they are so far ahead of schedule they were meant for Easter 2009? I am betting on the former :) http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/vvv-03_02.jpg

not quite true,

falcon-4 was very much aimed at a niche market that was already small to start out with, and they had significant competition at the time. falcon4 was the most hard core of the group, and was a niche within a niche, and that is mainly why microprose didnt recover its money. it was also released in an extremely buggy state.
- many flightsim enthusiasts who bought it when originally released because they like aircrafts and flightsims, tried it a few times but soon it was gathering dust on their shelves, being to complex and the learning curve being to steep for many. the f-16 it used, an advanced modern plane, also interested only a smaller part of the flightsim community.
- the campaign engine was but one of several factors that made that it an expensive game to design and create. the complex real time avionics, advanced radar guided weapon systems, etc.. took a lot of resources. it was also one of the first mainstream flightsims that tried to provide good online multiplayer functions. the campaign engine they implemented was also very complex, involving the whole korean peninsula over a long time period, and most resources went to modeling ground troops action.

simply put, "the dynamic campaign engine" is definitely not what killed off falcon-4, but i would like to point out to you that it is the main factor that has ensured its longevity and kept it going until today !

il2/BoB is in quite a different situation, it is THE flightsim of the day with a large customer base (yes flightsims are still a small part of the gaming market we all know that). but we need a major step up from what we have now in il2 to keep the current customer base interested for the next 8 years (which is how long oleg expects his current BoB game engine will last).

in BoB the dynamic campaign engine can also be implemented in a more simple way compared to other sims/games, because:
- it only involves aircraft, there is no ground troops involvement in that historical period
- there is also extremely detailed day-by-day information on exactly what happened during the june to september period, only being 4 months.
- online BoB dynamic campaign servers dont need to run for years at a time, they can cycle and repeat the same 4 month period, but because human actions will varry, it will never be exactly the same :)
- game design and game engine physics have evolved a great deal in the last 10 years, making it easier, better and quicker to design. pc's technology has also evolved a great deal, and computing power being available has significantly increased.

Oleg doesnt need to allocate large resources to implement it initially, it can at first be done in a simple way as long as he provides the basic structure of it from the start, but that still adds a huge immersion factor for the longer term player and il2 enthusiasts.
- the dynamic campaign can have a pre programmed main skeleton to it, where it follows some of the main events of the BoB period, not every single action needs to be modeled, but it needs to be a dynamic server that can progress 24/7 through the 4 month BoB period when left unattended, where people can join at any time and have a choice of a number of flights to be tasked (either flying in supplies to various bases, bomber missions, escort missions, etc...). it basically needs to cater for 30 to 50 people being on a server at any given time, combining AI with humans (as is done in a coop server).
- historically only on some specific days might you have had about 200 aircraft of either side in the air in the same sector and engaging in large numbers, most of the time it was significantly smaller groups, and on many days no large engagements at all. what modern cpu couldnt keep up with limited variables and small computations like that in a pre-scripted fashion? (err we are not talking about having to model each bullet from every aircraft, it is a matter of keeping track of the general numbers for ex 34 hurricanes and 12 spitfires engage 60 german bombers with 40 escorts in sector XYZ, resulting in 8 British lost and 12 germans lost).
- whatever number of aircraft lost from a particular airfield, then less aircraft become available there, until new replacements are flown in at roughly the correct historical times it took. if no humans interfere significantly with historical losses, the server arrives at its logical conclusion 4 months later.

if oleg adds the skeleton of a 24/7 dynamic server in BoB, and structures it in such a way that it can be expanded on later, there will be many dedicated il2 fans who can then progressively add flesh to the bones, and increase the detail. just have a look at the number of people involved at AAA, all working on different parts that interest them, many hands making light work ! but if the skeleton of the dynamic campaign is not added in the creation phase with BoB, then it will NEVER be possible to have it later, and it wont be a feature for the next 10 years either (expansions of BoB will involve new planes and new theaters, but the game engine itself will stay exactly the same)

then you need to provide information like that to Oleg if you want to have any hope BoB will be better then il2 in that regard, because right now that is not going to be the case. maybe some of the previous work done on SE can be of some help to oleg, presuming that resource is provided to him for free. maybe the person that designed it can do some part time consulting for Oleg and get SE type functions/features implemented in a true dynamic way.

oleg had a post at the ubi forum a couple of years ago asking people to vote if they wanted a dynamic campaign or scripted missions, but it wasnt clearly explained what a true dynamic campaign is and the fake-real crowd was chirping loudly they wanted 100% "realism" in missions, not being smart enough to understand the full benefits of a dynamic campaign engine server that can run 24/7 over 4 monts with "tasked missions" (like falcon 4 does). meaning a server can run on its own over 4 months, letting you join at any time, and once logged on you get a list of the types of missions that are being tasked and you can select one you like, or simply select any airfield to start from (choosing an airfield with no missions tasked means you could do "free flying" from that location)

after the votes were in oleg stated he would plan on a scripted campaign, not a dynamic campaign, so that means a limited progressively evolving list of pre fabricated missions that run in a rigid fashion, and there is no 24/7 server at all. it also means the missions will always be exactly the same.

personally i would favor oleg trying to buy the "campaign engine rights" from mig alley or falcon-4 (in the same way he sold the il2 AI engine rights to the console developer of BoP), and expanding on it. if he is not going to do that he needs to include the skeleton of a true dynamic campaign engine right now into BoB, and allow the fan base to expand on it.

if any of you have any hopes in that direction, this is the time to start letting oleg know what you want and why, and help him with free resources to implement it. complaining later will be to late, and you wont get it for the next 8 to 10 years either.

@ zapatista

I am afraid you're looking at the issue through a pink-tinted set of glasses. While I have never been a big follower of Falcon 4 (I'm much more into props) I did lurk in various forums and the stories I've heard painted a much different picture. Microprose struggled to get F4 out at all, simply because the campaign engine caused them major headaches and swallowed time and money like a black hole. It is certainly no coincidence that Microprose went out of business not long after the release ... Longevity in the community doesn't necessarily mean the same for the company - as Microprose shows "perfectly". And quite frankly - I'd like to have Oleg and Co around for a long time. ;)

Secondly I disagree on a few of your points, simply because they run contrary to some key points of what I'd call a good campaign. I never really liked the clinical and technocratic way of the campaigns in Falcon 4 and Rowan's BoB - no pilot personality, no sense of squadmates, no promotion and medal system (and therefore no system of hierarchized responsibilities) ... This is not what I envision for a good campaign.

And as for Scorched Earth ... IMO its creators made the grave mistake of trying to incorporate everything and nothing at the same time. They mix stuff from the strategic realm (factories etc) into a purely tactical environment - titanic "No Go!" in my book - while leaving out the supply installations which would fit into this environment perfectly (supply routes on Army/Corps/Division level & supply dumps). Basically SE was a good idea which was overloaded and mixed with stuff Il-2 can't really display realistically. But that's just my own opinion ... being an old and grumpy nitpicker. :mrgreen:

it seems like you haven't seen newer versions of SE. Supply dumps and supply in general is integrated in SE for more than 6 months....

S!

Cs Thor, Falcons 4.0 is a perfect depiction of how a pilot gets orders and how it executes them. and it does have ranks and medeals, even a pilots compleat log. Falcons 4.0 campaign is still the best dynamic campaign in any simulation bar none. It´s that simple. And What brough Microporse, and the rest out of buisnes was bad managment, not complicated software. If not you would be cheking your balance on the phone with your bank now a days don´t you think?.

Still all the arguments for a static campaign are compelatlly mute, since a dynamic campaign a la Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe (Lucas Arts, 1980´s) would fit perfectlly in Il-2, for instance. And you can still have perfect historically correct missions made out of the Mission Editor.

Oleg is always worried about other companies stealing his ideas, but in my humble opinion, he is missing some of the "new standards" for flight simulators: clickable cockpit and dynamic campaigns, that will be key in the future if not now.

Then aggain maybe he has a way of incorporating such a campaign to SOW series in teh future.

@ baco

So real liefe pilots can switch between squadrons, choose missions they want to fly and enter the cockpit inflight? ;)

I think you misunderstood my words. I didn't argue against dynamic campaigns - I argued against placing Falcon 4 on a pedestal as a shiny example when - in my opinion - the campaign presentation was very basic and uninspiring at best. It did not create immersion for me, it lacked everything which draws me "into" a campaign. Red Baron II never had an underlying engine as F4 did, but it had a nearly perfect presentation which created enormous amounts of immersion. In comparison Falcon 4 was sterile and soulless.

I think the best dynamic campaing of all time was the MicroProse 1942 pacific air war, which had a summary for each campaign and a great Immersion with briefings as the EAW, and you had really afraid for his life if the pilot was dead or MIA you no longer could fly with him, had to start from the beginning without medals, kills or promotions. It was with that you really nervous when you get at a numerically disadvantage , and if you was at damage plane, you had to fly to your front side before bail or your pilot would be considered as missing in combat also what the force to resume with a new one with the profile from zero. it had no buttom of refly.

excuse my english, and talk about a game of the years 90s, but its one of the few games that i keep up today with its original box on my shelf saved with the il2 sturmovik

Sounds like you are working on a masterpiece Oleg, so far BoB SoW seems like everything I could wish for, a couple questions:

1. Will the new FM allow for simulating mach tuck? I don't believe I have ever experienced tuck in IL-2 with planes that have the tendency to do so.

2. In IL-2 all coastlines are sandy beaches, will there be any rocky shorelines on SoW maps? I would love to see those nice waves crashing into cliffs and rocks from above

3. is the possibility of having US aircraft at some point completely out of the question???

Oleg + 1C team

Have you re-thought for BoB SoW the unrealistic way IL2 1946 has ended up with the Hollywood style exploding aircraft, wings getting cut off and aircraft cut in half.

I remember IL2 when you shot a plane small bits fell off it and it lost control then went in, If I remember it was around the v4.?? that the "Hollywood Effect" appeared.

I hope this has been removed for BoB SoW.

this was a concern after watching some of the BoP gameplay footage, a particular scene where a plane disappears in an explosion - a way too small explosion might I add, the explosion was actually smaller than the plane itself. Also the explosion was static, meaning it didn't keep traveling with the speed and trajectory in which the plain was traveling, just "poof" and it was gone

otherwise a great looking game tho :-)

Planes could already break apart or explode in Il-2 and FB 1.0 and it could happen in RL as well. Besides your gunnery skills the frequency mainly depends on the caliber of your weapons. Use machineguns and you won't see structural failures or explosions as often as when using 30 mm cannons with exploding shells, which are arguable overmodeled. I've not noticed any change during the games evolution.

You are kidding right ??

There were never exploding planes in the original Sturmovik you mention v1.0 like there are in IL2 1946.

IL2's used to fall apart from FW190 20mm back then but not this silly damage modelling we have in IL2 1946 with aircraft exploding into millions of pieces.

Il-2 demo 2, ca. early 2002

Crimea map, Fw-190 A5 default armament

Plane exploding, plown into a million pieces:

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/1...0001lb2.th.jpg


aircraft cut in half:

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/5...0002qr4.th.jpg


wings getting cut off:

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/3...0004wo4.th.jpg

Yes the IL2 exploded back then after a heavy pounding from a FW.

And I remember the chewing up of ac rudders and elevators with the propeller too if you ran out of ammo.

But there's a difference in IL2 1946 with exploding aircraft from the early sim, they explode too easily and unrealistically.

well here's some slo-mo footage from the BoP demo that shows the "too small" explosions I talked about before - I know the demo isn't final but what is shown here leaves much to be desired


http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i8...f?t=1228180153

lets hope a different approach is being taken for BoB

any aircraft could explode but I would have to agree the instant incineration effect isn't very realistic and kinda "hollywood" or what I would simply consider as videogame-like

as far as tail sections and wings being shot off that happened a lot, especially tail sections

Well BoP is a videogame for the console market, thus I am not surprised to find videogame-like behaviour. Oleg has said that he is not directly involved, BoP is no preview for BOB.

Multiple SOW development screenshots have shown that the internal structure will me modelled in great detail. I think we can surely expect a very detailed and realistic damage model, not something like X hits and boom.

http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...t=cap002-1.jpg
http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...nShots_002.jpg
http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...nShots_001.jpg
http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...Hurry_dam3.jpg

Hi aggain, yes you are right about a lot of thing sin ypur post: teh Falcon 4. camapign presentation and reports is radder uninspiring and yes there is no better example for presentation of a campaign as Red BAron II, that game was all about inmersion, no fancy graphics, no eycandy, pure soul jeje.

----------------------------------------------------------------

About wind drift: guys even modern jets with triple redundant computers and guided weapons consider wind drift a very important factor.

Not considering wind drift for AG ordinance is like not considering balistics efects on cannons and machine guns. Up to the invention of smart guided weapons every AG mission acounted Wind as a factor to decide the IP and course to traget, and attack parameters.

I can understand that Oleg might not want to add another cpu demanding task to the engine, but to say it´s a minor issuer not worth considering is ridiculus.

Not onlly the efect on the ordinance, but the efect on the plane should be considered.
With medium to strong winds the nose of the aircraft is not ussualy pointing to the vector, or line of movement in witch the aircraft is taveling. So theres not onlly ordinance drift to compensate but the planes own drift influences if you hit the target or not.
Then aggain that is an entrielly new world of realistic navigation taking into acount wind to plot a course...

Of course the effect on the plane has to be taken into account, it's a very big factor. My point was, that once the effect on the plane is taken into account, that naturally takes into account most of the effects on the ordinance, and the remaining effects on the ordinance are very minor.

oleg, you still plan for sow forum, when you announced, it seemed so close to being up and running in a week:confused:

Yeah this forum is getting a bit stale.
For a 2009 release nothing is happening fast.
Not trying to point fingers but Rise of Flight have screenshots, ingame footage and a hell of a lot more and they say they are good to go early 2009.
Last update we had here was system specs May 2009 and Q4 release.
If that were true ingame footage should be available by now, or at least closed beta announced.
What do we have?
A lot of nothing.
Guess it is time to reset the clock to May 2010 specs release and 2010 Q4 release...

well ive been waiting for bob forever :)
and holding back my upgrade for it
my pentum 3 600 is crying to die
so im saving for some ddr10 memory for when its released :)


oh and hi oleg n guys
when the games ready for beta if i make you a crisp butty can i be a beta tester :)

I hate it when no official dude corrects you... Because then sadly you know in your heart of hearts you are right :(

I hope it will still be a 2009 release. But man, the infos about this game are so slow to come out.... Well, we will see what comes out in 2 weeks.

When I have anything better to do, I don't cruise the forums either. No response, no updates, all of the speculations on non events are non answers. I'll give you that I'd like more info too, but I'd rather have these guy's working than feeding my insatiable need for updates.

Nothing personal, just my $.02

Same procedure as every year. Maybe Oleg will suprise us with the announced dedicated SOW homepage on Christmas.

Nearly a month since the last update, but tomorrow is Monday, so we may be lucky :)

Grand opening
 

Oleg,

Anything new to report on the hopeful December opening of the SoW website and forums?

Thanks in advance.

this may have been previously asked for but I would like to see a post mission briefing screen available after any type mission , online or offline , of my stats for that particular mission.

Thanks for IL2 and anxiously waiting for Storm of War

Maybe something like what "Il2 MLR" offers. I like how it can show a map route of where you flew & who got shot where...

Hi OLeg, lease, can you tell us if SoW will utilize QUAD
 

core CPUs?
Thank you sir.