I totally agree. This especially true for low-level attacks by fighter-bombers. I want the target to look as realistic as the aircraft I'm in.

B

Bad argument - especially in those high-speed-passes, you won't have much time looking at the objects on the ground. You won't notice if the train-engine between those trees is round or square with a look-like-round texture. You just see it's smoking and at one end of the train, so you shoot it.

But during the replay from a groundbased point of view, grounddetails becomes VERY important.

true...but i dont want to miss my shot in that high speed pass due to stutters and low fps.

You'll notice more than you think you'll notice. You just have to fly other combat flight sims and few if any have very convincing ground details and objects.

Detailed cockpits are very important to me, but considering that 90% of the time I'm accessing details outside my aircraft, makes the enviroment you fly in, no less important.

You have a point...however I might point out that the increased level of detail and the reflections/shadows will help with targeting and identification if your hardware is up to the task. I'm talking about "split second" glimpses of the targets on the ground...the mind can register an image in a split second and hold the "brains impression" of those details for a short time. We have all had the experience of looking out the cars window, as we speed down the road, and catching a "frozen moment" of someone walking down the road as we focus on them for a second...most of the outside world is blurred, but as our eyes dart around the landscape we catch short "pictures" of what is happening. Am I clear?

This detail could add to the experience...on a side note, my experience could be a "little" different then most, because I'm "far-sighted", I find that I'm frequently pointing out small details my friends missed.

No difference to what we already know from Il-2. All models we've seen the last couple of weeks so far are LOD0, the highest levels of detail a model knows. This only will be seen from very close, wich will be a very rare view from a plane's cockpit. You will still have your square-like smoking "something" at one end of a train because it's a LOD 2 or LOD3 model of an engine.

But, and that's the differnce, if you would step closer to each model in SoW, you will see much more details than before.

All will be fine ;)

That's exactly my point.

Who cares if it's painted bricks on the ground when you are flying at 30,000ft? Sure the landscape is important, but that's what the LOD is for and you don't need to have every valve on a train-engine so you can make out the type when divebombing from medium altitudes.

And ID-ing groundtargets is not only limited by your graphics card, but at those altitudes even more by your monitors resolution. ;)

Your assuming that only pilots will be buying/using the sim...I believe that there are grander dreams at work here.

There won't be each valve be modelled in SoW anyway ;)

You don't NEED to have each valve modeled.

But if you CAN model each valve, it won't kill it, anyway...

It adds to immersion. Flight simulators, and games in general, don't have their realism level determined by the major stuff. In this field, they are all very close to each other (when you talk about modern games) - nice graphics, good effects, immersive sounds... The difference is in detail. For example, you wouldn't even notice if in Rise of Flight the gun parts didn't move in external views when they are reloaded. But they do. Do you actually NEED to see a stupid gun moving? Or to see that AK-47 inside the truck and besides the driver on DCS? No. Can you do this without causing any major trouble? Yes. Will it add to immersion? Yes. So, why not to do it?

It's just my opinion, anyway, but I really think that, if you want to model something, model it to the maximum level of detail you can. It won't be perfect, but at least is the closer you can get to perfection.

I have to admit that I don't really "get" the "too much detail" argument...MORE detail is always better.

I also don't understand the "why bother with so much detail, you can't see it at 30,000 feet"? My thought is...Right, so you can't see that much detail at 30,000, but you can see detail at 1000 feet. Why not make the argument about night flying and ask something like, "I can't see the ground at night, so why bother modeling it?"

I was hoping a cockpit screenshot in game of a Bf 109, Bf 110, Blenheim Mk.IV or a Gladiator Mk.II
Buth anyway, good ships, so very detailed. (i think will need SLI 4890:()

Well we get doors and hatches opening up etc, would be interesting to know if rework on overall lod is being done from 0-10 maybe to smooth out the jumpy/blocky rendering.

A lot of online war "closed pit" pilots fly 800x600 16bit with lowest graphics.

You see ground targets with no buildings/scenery in the way.
You see air target lod's like a brick from further away.


Personally I want the ground detail scaling done correctly this time around.

Is this an inside joke?

I agree. As computers become more powerful and technology advances you have to expect to see more time spent on the little details. To hear the arguments of some here, sims would become pretty stagnant. To me the ultimate goal is photorealism in every way coupled with dead accurate physics and flight modelling. In another 15-20 years, I think we could be pretty darn close if the same level of progress continues. SoW is looking to be a nice rung in the ladder toward that goal.;)

________
Kitchen Measures

Romanator,

Thank you very much for the answer !... I hope that sometimes they will add the beautiful Cant Z.1007 of the 172ª Squadriglia Ricognizione Terrestre, used by the CAI as reconnaissance planes.

regards,
Insuber

Not at all. The Su-26 will probably be included, as an aerobatics aircraft. We already saw the cockpit IIRC. It seems they use it to test their FM, as they know very precisely the behaviour of this plane.

This will be awesome. First thing I will try to do is hang it on its prop. Oh yea, I wonder how quick you can black out in the thing too!

I can see some awesome virtual airshow movies comming out of this.

Gotta have something besides killing eachother sometimes. I'm sure there are quite a few radio control airplane 3D and aerobatics enthusiasts who will pick up SOW just for the SU-26.

This is not specific to the 2009-11-06 screen shots, but in many of the pictures there are vehicles that combine many objects. The truck trailer carrying the bicyles, truck carrying drums, fishing boat carrying lifeboat/dingy (I assume this one is just one model). My questions are:

1) Are these objects one model or can the vehicle be loaded up with different cargoes?
2) (assuming that they are created using multiple objects) Are the composite vehicles static or can they move?

Thank you!

I wonder if the Ju 87B1 will make an appearance? I think they were more numerous than the B2 during the Battle of Britain?
________
Vaporizing With A Heat Gun

Detail is always nice. I think the ships we are seeing right now are perfect. I'll bet you my copy of the game when it comes out that there will be people manning them.

But, when the request was made for seamen crawling around on the deck, tying ropes, etc, I had to laugh. That is what I call going 'overboard', if you'll excuse me. This is something a strafing aircraft is never going to see.

If you notice, a lot of the details are shown through bump mapping rather than true 3D. This reduces polygon counts, while still giving a very accurate impression of the object. This is perfect in a flight sim where you need the detail of ground objects that are being strafed, etc, but also to give the player a realistic field of view, which is on the order of several tens of kilometers.

For example, BoP has pretty scenery, but there is always thick 'mist' at just 10 km or so. It's impossible to see anything beyond this point, because the game doesn't render it.

SoW is going to have to render these things nearly to the horizon in some instances. But the pretty frame-rate hogging grass is not going to show up beyond, say 1 km, so it's not as big of an issue as some of you are making it out to be.

I have to say, that at times the ground models of some objects in IL-2 is not adequate, even at high speeds. A square train engine with a round texture doesn't cut it.

What I am seeing is a good compromise between FPS quality, and the realism of a true flight simulator. This has enough detail to look/feel real from any situation in the cockpit.

-Rant mode: Off-

exactly !!

and obviously you will only see that level of detail when you are close enough to a few specific objects in your nearby visual field, and that is when it is important for immersion/quality that the objects look good enough to match the rest of the game. when you are seeing the closest LoD models in all their glory, yes it is important how detailed they look

when you are flying 1000 or 5000 meters over those same objects your pc only processes the distant low cpu/gpu LoD models which have very little or no detail and are just a generic shape, and it makes absolutely no difference to your pc how pretty they might look from 20 meters away

its a bit weirdo that some new visitors here now start to complain some of the ground/sea objects look to good ! there is a purpose to what oleg does in creating some of those detailed objects right from the start, which the old timer fan's already know, in that the game engine right from the start allows air/sea/land combat with planes, ships and ground vehicles (and for the teenagers who have trouble grasping complex idea's, no that doesnt mean a first person shooter !). neither does it mean that those additional sea/ground combat functions will be included right from the start, those are elements that will be worked on further once the game is released (and 3e party's can get involved in further).

right now those boats/ships have to be good enough to match the general detail of the rest of the game, and they do. once the sea/ground elements of the game are developed and become available, i am sure the ships will be worked on further to match the detail of the aircraft (which if you look closely, you can see they dont right now).

if you bail out of your aircraft and land in the channel, and have one of those fishing boats steam towards you to pluck you out of the water, then they look great ! nice work oleg :)

Someone is going to call me a "ki$$ a$$", but I have faith in Oleg...I have faith in the fact that Oleg has made one of the best (if not the best) flight combat sims ever. I have faith in his ability as a game designer. Oleg will not create a game that is so bogged down in detail and extras that it is unplayable. Olegs a smart guy and he will do right by us...we are not loosing anything with the addition of these "pretty" ground objects.

As one of the authors of the posts about activity on shipping vessels, I feel I should clarify. I don't expect sailors on boats to be tying reefing knots, coiling neat piles of rope, knitting nets etc. What I would love to see is SOME activity on boats, airfields and cities. Sailors diving off boats when strafed isn't that far fetched if you consider that we had troops running away from convoys when attacked 10 years ago!

The fact that Oleg has mentioned busses that follow routes lead me to think that adding 'life' to the environment is something that he's interested in as well.

Lastly, I'm sure Oleg is quite capable of managing his priorities - posts by his fans may give him a sense of what we'd like to see but I doubt this would 'distract' him from his focus.

Great!~

1. Yes we will solve this in future by one or other way.
2. We will have new device link. Probably it will work online as well.
3. Proabbly. Can't say now.
4. If it is in a cockpit - then we model it. In Sow now most gauges are working, if not all.

I'm interested, but we can't make the sim another one year-two. So will be minimum at the beginning.

Can't answer now. Maybe yes, maybe in future. There are different reasons to make it and to do not make. All such effects eat some time too much resources of computation. But our goal at first to get the realistic picture in air and what is really visible from air on the ground. There must be compromises becasue at first it is flight sim, and then - all other is secondary.

Even when I tell that AAA is controlable... this is not only for gameplay... this is for these that can't fly, but would try... and at least will be satisfied playing online for the AAA.

What do you mean under term "Sharper" ?

yeps i am all in favour of those to, and i hope most of that is included right from the start

- civilian and military traffic on roads
- civilian and military ships going from point a to b
- ground activity at airfields, like fuel trucks, mechanics driving about, few jeeps with pilots heading to aircraft, emergency vehicles, food and drinks truck serving tea and sanwiches maybe
- ai aircraft taking of and landing if normal for that airfield, eg training flights for new pilots, a lost or damaged aircraft from another airfield making an emergency landing, new replacement aircraft being flown in etc..
- yes maybe even the odd bicycle with a pilot or mechanic on it
- men on the ai AA guns, first aid and fire trucks rushing to damaged aircraft coming in to land etc

in short, not the dead empty lifeless airfields we have now in il2, but an environment that gives a sense of life and vitality


Insuber, you must have put your sensitive pink nickers on today, because my previous post wast aimed at you but the person who was complaining oleg was including land/sea warfare elements and stated he'd prefer to play with other games instead (thinking amongst other things that oleg was making a 1e person shooter right now)

Perfectly right

Hi Oleg,

Was just wondering if by having ground crew killed during raids will it reduce the effectiveness of an airbase's ability to re-arm, re-fuel, AA etc? If so, will this be modeled in terms of reduced numbers of aircraft available for scrambles etc.

Thanks

hi oleg,

could we please have multiple monitor support right from the start ? but please a version that allows us to use multiple monitors of different sizes, like this ....

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/892...07wfp04uy2.jpg

in that that example you could use a 27 or 25' lcd in the middle, with a 19' lcd in landscape on either side (note: this is good because you only need your gfx card to push 2x the pixels 1920 x 1200, and not 3x like you would for a normal 3 monitor setup like this

http://www.home-designing.com/wp-con...83-495x294.jpg

that much more expensive 3x 24', or 3x 27' or 3x 30' would cost a fortune and only very few people could afford it.

the example i gave above that i would like included allows
1x 24' + 2x 19' (or you can use a 25 or 27' for the center monitor to, keeping a 19' in landscape mode on either side)
or
1x 22' + 2x 17' in landscape mode etc (using a lower resolution and less pixels to push)

most westerners flying flightsims have upgraded from their small initial lcd to a larger widescreen in the last few years (either 22', or 24' or 25') so we still have a 17' or 19' lying around, allowing us at a small cost of 1 more small lcd to have a 3 monitor setup which DOUBLES our field of view in il2

new ati and nvidea gfx cards are starting to support a 3 monitor setup without having to buy a matrox 3HTgo (which only works with 3 monitors the exact smae size, and can only max work with 3x 22')

software multi monitor might be possible but is a huge drain on cpu/gpu, so not a realistic option

please consider :)

You are propably right.

Also we need render great square (area) at once and this limit us to make more detailed buildings or even cars, etc And we need to go for great optimization, like it was at a time when we were developing Il-2 two years before its release.

Shooter is possible on our engine, but then there should be added in a code some additional features of collisions, changes of buildings models inside, etc...

So we optimize at first for a flight sim - that is the most important to make right things in a flight and how everything looks from/near aircraft.
When we or third party will add infantry controlable, with the posiblilty to driev cars of other vechicles in engine musbe present some other features for the ground action.
And we put there now intital things that will help to expand in future.

Something will be. But what really I can tell more close to final

I can tell you that I want more than you listed, but what we will have is depending of many factors, that will limit my own dreams.

Gladiator will be AI.

Hey Oleg, I hope you feel better today!

A couple of years ago there were rumors about a cooperation between you and Akella (Knights of the Sea). Could you shed some light on this?

They used our models of aircraft only.
In general cooperation was with 1C, not personally with me.

The part of our source code, my guys, models as a basis used in many games of 1C and othes.
This a bit help us to make BoB better than Il-2 :).

Ok.
I will read-answer more tomorow. No time at the moment.

Hi Oleg,

Thanks for your reply. It will be great to keep the offensive against airfields going, knowing that the damage being done will affect the next raid etc.

Hope you feel better.

Mat

Planeset
 

Hi Oleg,

Thank you for the attention and the beautiful updates. My questions:

1. Do you plan to include CR.42 as AI only, or it will be flyable from first release ?

2. CANT Z.1007 Alcione was used by the CAI as recon plane, and despite its limited quantities in BoB (5 or 7) it was a beatiful plane and extensively used in other theaters; do you have plans to include it in future ?

3. I asked it already, but ... what's your idea about the training section, and namely about the deflection gunnery training (predictive pipper only as a training tool) ?

Thank you in advance,
Insuber

ok... i prefer first the Gladiator, but is okay;)

I have a question that I don’t know if is already answer. If it was answer already, sorry, ok?
Is about maniobrability of the airplane. My question is if this is going to be more like LOMAC or like Il-2.
I put the example the maneuver of the Messerschmitt bf 109 version G, That was impossible of controlled the aircraft: when I turn Left (in the Joystick, not pull so strong), the plane go very strong to the right and stall and do crazy things. Result: For me, this is Impossible to fly.
Is for this only and particularly think that i fly very more hours LOMAC. Have more best control of the aircraft.
somebody please correct me if I am wrong

Zakkandrachoff, I don't think that's possible at all, unless you want a Spitfire with fly-by-wire :mrgreen: .

I also fly Lock On, so I know what are you talking about. Yes, you do have more control. But that's because of the FBW. Of course it's easier to control an Su-27, when compared to an Bf-109G. It was made 40 years after the 109, so basically it has 40 years of technology improvements built in, including computer systems that make the aircraft easier to handle. It's the evolution.

About your Gladiator, don't worry. With all these third-party development stuff, I think a Gladiator cockpit will be released within a month after the release :mrgreen: .

this is a super question/request :) - would very much like to hear Oleg's thinking on this subject :)


cheers

It took me a few hours of practice to get the feeling of the BF109 (it will stall if not handled well)...BUT maybe your problem is with your joystick setup? Have you tried adjusting the sensitivity bands, and stuff?

Hello Oleg...

1). I'm curious if you can tell us more about the new damage model? Along with the (great) new up-dated visuals, I think it will be one of the most important aspects of the new game play. How many different types of ammunition will be modeled in the new game (HE, AP, incendiary?), and will the player have the option of selecting the ammo type?

2). Will their be a (off-line) "player-stats/log" feature so that we can review or "hit statistics"?

Thanks for taking the time to read my questions.

you can call me Zak;)
first: proton45, my jostick is very well config, is the microsoft. (I will change it in 2010)
2° lucas: i dont mean only LOMAC ( flying A-10 or Su-25 don't append that) , because I fly Laggs and is very similar to the Bf 109 problem. And, like you said, the Spitfire is a Dream compared to the 109. Only I hope is Balance a little both. Not so Dream and not so Hell maneuver.
I remember the Jane´s Attack Squadron, (old simulator, low compared whit il-2, whit crappy mission builder) that Bf 109G don´t have that problem.

and when i put "first the Gladiator", i was saying compared whit the Tiger mod:-)
But good your point, so manny fans will build so many aircraf and mods in some months after the release jaja. SOW BOB 1946 I can only imagine :rolleyes:

And I hope too that the AI will be more "noob" and slow movements that is in Il-2 In average skills. the computer kick my ass:eek: in average, dont tell you in good or expert.

With this great ship models, sea with depth, and transparent water, i know that now we'll be able to see submarines that are submerged but close to the surface. My question would be, how will SoW will handle bombs that explode on water. Since in reality a bomb exploding on water close to a submarin could cause some serious damage. But on all the sims we all been flying, all require a direct hit to a submarine, or ship, in order to damage it or sink it.
I would like to know if SoW will be the first aircraft simulator, at least that i know of, that will simulate damage by bombs that hit close to a submarine, but not directly.

Thanks, and the models are excellent, like all the models that have been showed to us since SoW was announced. :)

Zapatista,

Maybe I'm wrong, but Oleg already answered you in the 23-10 thread:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...tor#post114821

http://i80.servimg.com/u/f80/12/20/20/81/grab0010.jpg
already whit High brightness glass and metal, still very camufled, nice

Nice one Zack ! Where did you find it?

Ins

As someone who is a keen advocate of skip bombing in IL2, it would be interesting to see how attacking sub surface targets would work and how it would effect skip bombing.

I assume the same method of setting a time delay on the bomb would be in place. I expect there would have to be some sort of rule (programming code) in place that would look at the angle that the bomb hits the water, the speed that the bombs going, and the height it was released at to see if it skips accross or penetrates the water.

I hope that they still have the skip bombing because I am absoluetly useless at dive bombing :(

I'm pretty sure it's planned to be included if possible. Luthier was looking for information on water ricochets, if you remember.

1. As AI only. We simply have no time to make all nice to fly planes flyable.
2. I know, but same as 1... No Cant because no time. There is a lot of other plance that were in a small amount present in BoB from any side... but we simply unable to make them all or even part. I think it will be the work of third party and fans of one or another aircraft in future.
3. We have many ideas for the training and did great part of code for this. But to say what there will be finally I can't now. We have in mind the things that never was done in any sim for this purpose. And it isn't like in MS or RoF. We will try to make finally simply by other way, that will be very comfortable for any kind of users. And in the part even for advanced simmers will be interesting. At least I hope to get all these ideas in my mind working in final release. The main part of code for all these features are done, however the relase of all these features may take more time than the initial main code for this. So just becaseu of limits of time I'm afrade to tell the features of training.

I only agree that the training mode is very helpfull for beginners, that never play before any good sims... Arcade games and simulator with the gameplay - its too different things

Oleg, do you plan to animate wing-flex during maneuvering?

In Il-2 I prefer to fly exactly Bf-109 beginning from letter G...
You simply move joystick too much on too slow speed for Bf-109. You may also switch off the torgue effect that understand effect than to have.
Remeber always - keeping the speed is a success of dogfight. As soon you lose the speed - you begin to look like sitting duck. Making any sharp maneuvers on some aircraft isn't possible on the speeds close to stall. Or fly biplanes and mybe you will be successfull like some do it in CRs, I-153(especially with guns), Gloster or even some japanese planes

Recommended by me settings of curves for joystic (exponential curve) is the most right for the feel of the flight and aircraft control if to compare it to real control column.
You will get other behaviour of aircraft using even great movement of joystick

Exponet control curves in Il-2 also was recommended by one of American WWII pilots, that played Il-2 and several modern pilots.

So try it.

Can you tell the term by other words?

Wing flex
 

I think he means wing warp / wing twist / washout when the aircraft is stressed (like under a sharp / high g turn).

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cs/q0055.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_twist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_warping




The spitfire had thin wings and this had an effect on it, but I'm no spit expert . . . others could elaborate exactly what happened.

Exactly that, to use an extreme example, like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFEs-DatuHs

Ok.
Visually we don't plan to model at the moment. They are not so visible by eyes on the planes that we currently put in a sim as flayble. The feel of effect - yes. Partially it was done even in early Il-2.
However early spits had other effect on aielerons at high speeds that we plan to tune in FM with effect on some aircraft.

He was asking about info - ricochet of bullets and shells under a great angle of hit to water surface. With the small angle it is all clear, however with angles of 30 to 60 degree is also possible ricochet - it is very well visible on some videos of WWII time.

We simply need the explanation of physics of such ricochets, because it is not clear by using normal formulas.

We did it, but need more info, say some sources with formulas when it is and for which shells (size, diameter, mass, form of the bullet/shell, speed at hit, etc)
All such things with ricochets from the water surface under great angles of hits are out of simple understanding using common physics... there are acpects that need to be using for more precise modeling and understanding. Because some may say that it is impossible (like I said when I saw the modeling of effect by my guys), but we may see it very well on WWII videos....

In common words the ricochets of hard surface are not the same as for luguid surface and depending of too many factors that we need to model approximatelly that to do not overload real time calculations. I would say that ricoshets of water surface is totally different to hard surface and angles of hits

Speaking of wings, could a ground crew person be placed to sit on a wing???

1a. Currently we have just spitfire with gear-boats that we did just for one purpose - tuning of physics and feel of landing-take off. This isn't MKV like it was in reality... we simply used existing model of our spit.
1b. Probably it will make third parties in the future. In Campaign I planned some feature... After he was shot down, landed in water, pilot waiting in the water for the rescue aircraft and we did for both sides such aircraft. I don't know yet if it will be finally possible to program due to limit of time.

2a. If we are making ships with damage model then this means only one thing - yes.
2b. Can say now just one thing. AI of ships is present :) It isn't like in Il-2 - movements just by waypoints.

3. It is possible in Il-2 1946 with X-4 rockets. It is the same feature. So when we or third party will be ready to make such things in a new sim, then it will be. The differences in Air to Air and Air to Ground/ship guided rockets is minimal in programming.
The other things is by wire guided or by RC-guided. In programming it is almost the same... but visually... wire and its behavior is to make very hard, including collision of wire in case with own aircraft... So variants with wire we probably will not model... or ar least visals and collisions of wire itself. Of course.. I thing some of third party may do even such things using our base code for this purpose.

That to make scene with smokiong on the wing pilot and ground crew and with recorded sound of the post flight speech? :)

I dont' know. Your question corresponding to the other my answers about humans in a sim. Please try to find.

Yes. Fog will be. It is really in Il-2, but in Sow will be better visuals at all:)

You make many referance to "time limit"...sounds like you have release date in mind...share?:-P

Are you sure this isn't due to the shell ricocheting just past the crest of a wave in heavier seas? It seems to be a bit too complicated to model with a high degree of accuracy without huge amounts of processing power, though, apparently :
"Naval gun and armor
manufacturers use very powerful computers with computational fluid dynamics
programs to get approximations of how artillery rounds will perform against
ships and other hardened targets.
As you have learned empirically, angle and velocity are important factors
in ricochet, but there are many others; mineral content of the water,
temperature, shape of the projectile, rate of spin of the projectile,
hardness of the bullet, any deformations or imperfections on the surface of
the bullet, etc."
I tried searching my university's ejournals selection but unfortunately the most relevant study was that of ricocheting a 9mm bullet from shallow water, but I believe it was more concerned with the depth of penetration before the ricochet occurred. Another study was concerned with ricocheting of non-spinning projectiles. I can dig those up if you guys want.

I will clear right now my box, so you will be able to post there email

What would your e-mail address be, Oleg?

EDIT: Never mind, Dolphin pointed me in the right direction, give me a shout if you need it sending again. Hope this helps! :)

I was wondering if the time had not come for a seperate SOW game thread in the Official 1C Company Forum...
May I dare ask if the sim is currently in the early Alpha phase or has it already reached early Beta?

Lol
While I doubt you will answer the above maybe you can indulge me with the following question.
Will glass shatter when hit or will the canopy damage be the same as in il2.
I am in particular thinking about the Heinkel 111 with its massive glass nose section?
I know this has been asked before but will different positions be manable in a bomber and more importantly will a gunner 1) be able to move around from position to position and 2) will the gunner be able to reload guns?

We have no Alpha in principle. We are going for Beta. Same was with Il-2. it isn't like with other games in industry.

Separate thread will be. But later. We will ove in other office, atc. So utill that time there will be no chnages and we will all post here.

Yes, will be possible. Without animations.
Yes, reload also possible.

Cool, thanks for all the info :D (though I'll have to look up which anti shipping munitions were wire guided, and which were radio guided...)

I guess my only real concern was the issue that many anti shipping weapons were un-powered, but I'm guessing that won't be much of an issue in the long run.

I'm really glad to hear you say that the ships will finally react with more than just AAA. Some guys like to do 8 hour bombing runs...I'd rather do an 8 hour patrol over the atlantic.

Hi,

Would be interested to know if RAF aircraft will fly in Vics as standard in BOB as they did historically.

This was very difficult / impossible to achieve when modelling early-war RAF in il-2 (though I am aware that il-2 never really attempted to cover this theatre/time.)

So I would hope that there will be a means of choosing formation type in the mission parameters so that RAF can fly vics in 1940 then move to finger four in 1941, etc.

Also, one of my pet peeves with il2: wingmen who abandon formation and charge headlong at the enemy on first sighting! Would like to see an ai pilot spotting a distant enemy formation call out clock and height postion while maintaining discipline and formation. (possible exceptions being some rookies and Polish!)

without the polish pilots in BoB it would have been the slaughter of Britain instead, and you'd all be speaking german now

aside from that, whatever pilots broke the V formation instruction were the smart ones, and were much more likely to survive for longer (free historical fact for you there)

so no, no artificial imposed V formations plz Oleg !! by all means have the AI take of and loosely assemble like that, for SOME flights but then also have human instructions to AI that lets them form up in pairs of 2, and groups of 4

kendo, read "the most dangerous enemy" (a history of the battle of britain by stephen bungay), which is one of the most accurate week by week accounts of the BoB. V formations were not uniformly adhered to from day 1 by the brits, even if that was still considered the official instruction. the initial brittish pilots that had encounters with the germans over france quickly learned to improvise and find better solutions then the V, and by the time the official BoB started many of the experienced pilots (ie those with high flighing hrs, even without combat experience at that point) did not stick to the V. yes some units did and quickly were decimated, but to artificially impose that on all the brittish flights would be most unrealistic.

Hi Zapatista,

I wasn't asking that vics be made compulsory, but merely available as an option.

I have read the Bungay book and agree it is excellent, but what i took from it was the undeniable historical fact that in the early war period (39-40) the standard RAF training and tactics (flying in vics) placed them at a disadvantage to the Luftwaffe. You are absolutely right that units and individuals were forced to learn and adapt as they gained experience and that often the ones who survived were the ones who ditched the old tactics soonest.

But the fact remains that this was a historical feature of the battle and as this game will be a 'simulation' surely it would be inaccurate if it were left out completely. (if the ai is good enough in SOW, this could be a fascinating part of the game - modelling the effects of different formations on pilot's abilities to scan the sky and react. Possibly allowing us to model the evolution of the RAF tactics with the use of 'weavers' , etc).

Again, I'm not asking for it to be compulsory, just available as an option

Also, my comments about the Polish pilots was not meant to be derogatory - I'm fully aware of their contribution to the battle and their bravery and fighting spirit - my words were a (maybe too flippant) comment on their gung-ho aggressive spirit which sometimes amazed accompanying British pilots.

Oleg, would you mind taking a look here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=241

I know it isn't so important, but I would like to know if I cut someone's radio wire will he lose it? It would be cool in online when you tell: ,,He's firi..." and stop because of wire cut.

Wow... I bet that'll never happen, but it's a great idea! :grin: Especially if the game had voice comms built in (instead of using outside ventrillo or teamspeak servers).

You'd be talking with your buddies and one of em would get shot up and go silent... You'd fly up next to him and he'd waggle his wings to let you know he's ok.

I don't know but I think this is very possible with the DM in game, I like the idea...maybe he will comment on this

But then to counter it, someone will just use TS anyway, unless SoW blocks use of these programs!

I wanted to ask if there will be effect of cutting off enemy propeller after ### ###### lucky shot, but I know it's impossible to have this due to death from being too excited ;)

We'll just have to ask Oleg to include a Radio_OK() parameter in Devicelink and then get the makers of TeamSpeak to patch their program to disable the com's system if it's false!

Only a low dog would use an older version that didn't disable your wireless! That would be like using Team speak in ROF!

People do it! :)

That pic… oleg give it to me. He sends me all de screenshots to me first, and them he post here. I remember, in the 80’s when he design the sukhoi 27, I give some references. Mather of facts, when he was producing il-2, I teach oleg some secrets thing of aces , you know, air combat staff, and essentials and difficult Maneuvers and movements in dogfights,.:cool:




Okey, lie, I am a fraud :o... I stolen that pic , ok?

probably when radio station is damaged it may happens, but not when wire... We are on the way to modle many things... :)

However I may say that with radio chatter the quality depends of the distance between the planes or plane and ground control. Same should be for the game internal voice online channels (at least programmer told me he did it by my request...)

We don't plan to block any of external programs. But there always may present possible conflict with drivers when two programs using it simultaniosly.

Will and not...

We plan to have Polish and some other countries fighting on British side. However the problem at the moment - I don't know if we will be able to record all speeches (especially for example mixed some bad English + Polish speech)

Anyway I will probably post later the request for community to record for us (better to say for users) some waves sounding in Polish, Czech, etc. Of course will need Italian...

Wow!

This would be really cool!

I always felt like: "Hey, give them some time, the longer it takes, the better it will be." Considering your goals, it's really just a matter of time, it seems, and I'm really looking forward, not only to the initial release, but also what things you will add after that, when you and your team have the time and the reassurance, that SoW will be rocking the simulation genre. ;)

What do you mean:
1. Battle order in action?
2. Types of columns?
3. Both?


What I can say for now:

We made the feature that user can build own columns in aditional to standard sets. Almost no limit in amount of units in columns.
We made new AI for the movement, parking, search, fire, etc...
We keep battle order like in Il-2 as it is done using Guderian's tactics... that were in use commonly (Really the basis was developed by russians, however Stalin killed/repressed allmost all real talent commanders before the war.... Germans were learning military skill tactics in Russia for a long enough time before the war... That is not so much widely known fact.)


Why we did so much for BoB, where it wasn't in use?
Simply we should think about online gameplay and future of the project expanding.

He probably means "Боевой порядок"., i.e., relative positions of various units on the battlefield, partitioning of battle force into divisions and etc.

probably I did the answer for his question in edited later message.

I only can say that when columns has finish waypont that don't move in a pre-battle parking - this is too complex to make for the unknown for program locations. This is possible in other types of games like stategy that developed escpaecially for such puropses and have just special fixed locations on the maps for such sets. In our case they may origanize battle order movement right from the columns. And it is the best solution for the fligth sim - free ability to place the AI interacting ground units to any locations of the map.

Hello Oleg,

I just want to confirm if this is accurate, for future reference, as I posted this earlier:

Flyable:
G-50, BR-20
Bf-109 E1, E-3. Bf-110. Ju-87 B-2. Ju-88 A-1. He-111.
Spitfire MkI, Hurricane MkI, Bristol Bolingbroke.
Su-26

AI:
CR-42, Ju-52, He-59, He-115, Fw-200, Bf-108, Do-17 (2 versions), Gloster Gladiator, Boulton Paul Defiant, Bristol Blenheim, Bristol Beaufighter, Avro Anson, Vickers Wellington, Short Sunderland, deHavilland Tigermoth.

You better ask that, when it's clear what will be in the game and what will not. ATM we've still some time to go, so this list may not be definitely set, yet. ;)

Gunnery stats from devicelink
 

Hi Oleg, and thanks for the updates! :-)

I see you are creating a new devicelink that will probably also work online. A question earlier in this thread asks for logs with gunnery stats available offline too...

So my question is:
1. Will gunnery stats be available from devicelink?
2. Will gunnery stats available offline?

I think it will be a nice feature when practicing offline to have this kind of information available. If it is from devicelink even better. :-)

For IL-2 I made a tool to use with the G15 keyboard which has a small LCD screen where I display gunnery stats from the log file. But it would have been much better if it was available directly from the game for example via devicelink...

Something like this :) Close to true.

Can add Tiger Moth as a two seater training aricraft for all users. Means we plan to use this one for trainings for beginners as a basis. And probably for online training with real human teacher inside. We have real pilot(my great friend) who flew and can fly this aircraft in Australia that to make this one very close to real behavior.
No German training aricraft. Even I would wish to have it myself. Probably third party may develop any training piston engine aircraft and training itself later.

I really hope the training-feature will make it into the release. That would be a good start for many players into the simming genre.

Its why we would like to make it. Not like in MS or RoF did. More useful. More real.

Hi Oleg,

Will there be the danger of attack from marauding German fighters whilst on training missions? Would teach pilots to keep a good look out!! :)

these things we keep for the end of development. So I can't tell you what will be there finally. I can tell you that we have done much more then in Il-2 in principle, but what will be with the release at the moment is a question. However always good basis is a success for future additions, like it was with Il-2. With Il-2 we learned a lot.

I like the things shown me here :)