S!

So if it is hard and solid info that WoP is NOT based on IL2 engine, then I stand corrected. Might have got wrong info myself then and can admit it if I am wrong :) To my understanding Rise Of Flight is modified IL2 engine though. Has nice self shadowing and lighting on planes etc.

IL2 sure is 10 years old, but it has more content than ANY WW2 game yet. It will take SoW lot of time to bring even a fraction of it, like MTO etc. The curse word "modding" has done that to IL2 and of course Team Daidalos with bringing in new officially endorsed stuff. So it is far from dead :) Some code changes are a dream and sure not priority for OM :(

As of detailed structures or such in landscape. Personally I do not give a damn if the tractor in the field has the Massey-Ferguson stenciled on it when I zoom over it at around 500km/h or if every door knob in a town is individually made..you get the pic. Sure for screenshots or movies fine, but otherwise you do not see it while playing. Immersion does not need all bells and whistles ;)

It is just waste of resources if going too deep to the detail factory ;) I am an online player and there all that matters is PING and PERFORMANCE. You do NOT want stutter from hyperdetailed objects or stuff like that, it kills gameplay. And online you are not there to admire if grass sweeps in wind or the water is exactly the right color..you die if you day dream ;) For an online the dots, plane shapes and such matter more than if a small gimmick is right or wrong on the ground.

Do not get me wrong, I like nice graphics. But they have to serve the game, NOT distract away from the game, replace content or decrease overall performance. SoW will be VERY intensive on your machine because it will have a high fidelity DM/FM + new AI and more planes in the air. Also plane models have far more details/polygons which all take more horsepower.

Even Oleg's team for sure has good programmers, there is a limit what one can do. A constant balance between being playable and just a nice slide show. Oleg would not make a game that would run just OK on today's rig and wait for better hardware to appear. He will release a product that runs on a broad spectrum = SALES and INCOME! Sure with the option for the tech freaks to bring their machines to their knees by turning it all ON in options ;) A plus is that if SoW is DirectX 11 then both ATI(already) and nVidia(soon) will run it fine without gimmicks..Both manufacturers make cards that eat games for lunch.

Oh well, too long rant now. But IL2 is NOT dead, it could use at least some support still. WoP has potential, RoF even more so and is the only WW1 sim at the moment bringing back the bugs between your teeth ;) SoW will start a new era, when released. So times are good for gamers :)

I agree with the points you have made

So yes, focusing on a realistic simulation and not keeping the graphics up to par with current capabilities will most likely result in less sales and a smaller overall community, which everyone has to admit that for the multiplayer to be fun we need a decent pool of players to make it thrive. And for the single player, new campaigns and missions made by interested people. This is the balancing act.

Yes the other big tricky balance, how much of it is going to work in Multiplayer for fps and Pings. #1 Immersion breaker in Multiplayer, how smooth it plays.

Well I'm not sure where you've been looking but I've seen the screenshot of the elevation grid map showing the river banks etc. that will be in SOW.

Also every screenshot of aircraft, buildings, and vehicles of SOW have been more detailed than BOP.

Oleg also says in these forums that everything is better in SOW. I have no doubt with Oleg being a professional photographer, he knows what the terrain in England should looked like in 1939 and should be able to convey this in his sim.

Why should I believe Oleg...well he has already delivered the best combat flight sim in the IL-2 series so has a possitive history. Sure SOW is late but in that time he delivered Pacific Fighters, IL-2 1946 etc...

I have no reason to believe any na sayers who never contributed anything to my sim enjoyment.


I helped beta test WOP and enjoyed it very much. I was blown away with the graphics and thought they were the best I've seen in a combat flight sim. That said theres plenty of room of improvement.

ie. River Banks
Better roads and railways { I don't think I seen a railway track on the BOB map.
Much larger Map {especially the BOB map} this also would facilitate opposition airfields
Clouds
Moving weather patterns

Lighting in WOP killed the game for me in Simulation mode. Aircraft disappeared anywhere in the sky 180 degrees on the side of the sun in many missions. No amount of Nvidia brightness, gamma, etc would fix it.

Like I said earlier WOP did an excellent job with frame rates and LOD's, this will be Olegs toughtest job with the high detail of SOW.

Yes those riverbanks will definitely enhance the feeling of flight ....

In about 3 months there will be an in game movie with some terrain and then some actual comparisons can be made.

Show me ..... that is my motto.

I don't blindly 'believe' in anything or anyone ...... only that game design is a business. ;)

As for how it will run, that is a legitimate concern. There is no excuse for it not being blazing fast. There are tons of code optimizers out there for game designers to take advantage of --- and hardware is plenty fast enough to rip any game to shreds.

It won't be that long now. Will S.o.W be evolutionary or revolutionary. Thats the real question. Wait I guess thats naysaying ....

.
.

WOP looks good, now we should all understand why Oleg hasn't been an open book about what will be in the BOB SOW.

I don't blame him a bit. There is always someone looking to take away your candy. :evil:

...and there's the "surpise" factor.

Would you actually be surprised if they gave away everything we'll have in Storm of War? They want high levels of WTF?!ing going on after the release, and some secrecy helps on this matter.

Just give them time. Anyone remember how surprised you were when you saw some of the interviews Oleg and Ilya gave, where they told little features, nothing really big? Well, if we were that impressed with that, no doubt we'll be even more impressed after the release.

F****** guaranteed, trust me ;).

Good for you lucas

I've been IL2 since 2001 and I can tell you with no hesitation.
Oleg has never failed to deliver far and away more than was ever expected.
A very sincere man about his work, which means the SOW final will probably just blow everyone away.

Well, in the Il-2 years, you never expected to be blown away. When you expect to be blown away, 99% of the time, you aren't.

"Yes those riverbanks will definitely enhance the feeling of flight .... "

I thought your whole argument was the WoP had the best detail/presentation/realism. Now suddenly it doesn't matter? To me this seems self-contradictory. Also, WoP hasn't demonstrated a superior "feeling of flight", especially when it's obvious that a basic thing as recoil is not implemented. Even worse for the 'immersion' are the American pilots who sound like Homestar Runner. I just can't help but giggle.

Well, I guess I'm an Oleg Fanboi for saying anything to criticize WoP.

I do love the urban riverbanks though: They are built up with stones, not flat beaches like in Il-2. Cities are also dense, which is visually pleasing. Graphics in general are eye-candy and the game is fun too.

Well I might get reamed here for some things I'm about to say but what the hay...I gotta get it off my chest :-)....I've been flying sims for atleast 2 decades.I purchased the orig IL-2 when it first came out and was totally blown away by it's realism in all aspects...Sure it wasn't perfect but the numerous 'free' upgrades turned it into possibly the best flight sim ever made and I believe 'still' as people started to push Oleg and team for more planes, more graphics, more planes, more graphics and the whole while nothing was done to improve the important things like FM and AI.I purchased all subsequent versions of the game right thru till 1946 hoping that things other then graphics would change but was dissapointed.I still believe that the original is still the best if you forget about graphics...It sounded better, AI worked better and flight dynamics were way more realistic then any version afterwards....thats why I still play it. :)

So although I understand that "Graphics" are needed to bring in the 'larger crowd', 'younger players'... and Im not against it as it does add to the immersion effect but I just hope with SOW, Oleg and team put 'as much' emphasis on the important things like true FM, AI etc; for us Ol' guys who have tagged along for almost a decade online and offline.

I ask Oleg to go back and play the original and please bring back that feeling again!!

Eye candy is sweet but true immersion is realism in the cockpit :!:

I've also played WOP and BOP and believe me, take away the graphics and they have nothing on IL2 IMHO.


F_3

Well, I'm pretty sure Oleg's team can do both : graphics and sim gameplay. For graphics you need modelers and rendering programmers. And for simulation you need game designers and gameplay + physics + AI programmers. So it's not the same job. Not the same persons.

Actually for the graphics you don't need that much rendering programmers. The engine has to be solid and smart, then it's just a good polish over it.

I'm confident that SoW will be a very good simulation, and perhaps visually nicer than BoP / WoP.

Abou the graphics themselves, I'm unsure of the quality possible for this reason : in order to make a very impressive simulator you need quite a huge amount of power for physics and all the stuff happening while you are flying (AI, vehicles moving all around on the ground, detailed map, atmosphere singularities and wathever I can't think of).
So once you have your simulation all set up, I wonder what's left in terms of ressources for graphics.

WoP is beautifull but doesen't simulate much stuff. Less than Il-2 for sure. And it runs just fine on my Quad Core Q6600 + GeForce 8800GTX. I don't think that it would run correctly with an added layer of heavy simulation and detailed ground objects (tanks, cars, stuff).

In my opinion, unless SoW's engine is a absolute code beauty, on my system SoW won't be as apealing as WoP. Well, that's the price for simulation.

But, I truly hope that the game will be better looking as WoP because one day I'll have a system that will run it a it's full potential. And also because beautifull graphics is overall nice and because people want nice looking stuff with a good simulation!

So... what where we arguing about already?

There is no doubt that we can have both Mind blowing Fm/Dm simulation and amazing graphics.
Grant it ROF is WWI but it is trully amazing on a system maxed out. The FM is the best Biplane model I have ever seen and I have close to 175 hrs logged in flying Biplanes in real life. Most of those hours are in a 87 acrosport 2 and also I have some hours in a custom Stearman,with a Pratt and Whitney 986 (450 hp) engine, that was a down right beast.

Rof does it, almost to perfection. Now yes it has problems and it took me 2 months of tweaking before I got the game to run right. Still the Graphics are amazing on both ground and aircraft and the DM and FM is as real as I have have ever seen in 20+ years of playing flight sims.

There is no doubt in my mind that SOW will pull it off. If ROF can be that good then I can only imagine what Oleg will give to us.
I also believe that if you have a nice quad 3.0 + with a nice middle of the road GFX card(Gtx 260+) or better ,,, you'll be able to really enjoy SOW.

The percentage of people in the world that have a quad pc is only at 28% according to most marketing info. Sure the game will run better and the GFX will increase as PC tech gets better, thats understood, but they aren't going to release a game that even a $1500+ pc can't run on max settings. If they do I will be really shocked. I'm sure the new Sow game engine is so advanced that things will become available in the futre so we can take full advantage of the engine as the pc tech market grows.
DESODE

God, you really love "WoP/BoP" don't you (lol)...I think the point you are missing is that, because Oleg has indicated that he is not using the (Hollywood) "Saving Private Ryan" color-tweaking look for "SoW"...the look of "SoW" is already going to be preferable over "WoP/BoP" for many people here.

I sure hope so!! and I have no doubt that Oleg and team can pull it off aslong as that's thier intention...

My whole point is that because of pressure to increase other things i.e; number of flyable planes, graphics in the game, the FM/DM etc suffered....it actually started going south starting with Forgotten battles!!
Sure it was nice getting all the new planes, cockpits, pretty exterior plane details but alot of the immersion was lost due to all of a sudden Uber performance from all planes, totally screwed up FM model, wacked out AI and last but not least sound realism, which I'll admit has seemed to improve recently.

I am only assuming here but believe Oleg was swayed from his original idea/concept, or dream by the above mentioned pressures and I truly hope he can pull it off but pray he emphasizes on whats truly important in a Flight Simulator/Combat sim which is flight dynamics/gunnery/DM/AI etc; imho....I personally could care less if I can see rocks on the shore or nameplates on vehicles, I'll be to busy trying not to get shot down. :)


F_3

I would argue that the current FM is way better than how it was before. DM has only been getting better, excepting old planes which have not been updated. FM DM, and graphics departments are totally non-related, and with enough work force, good fidelity in both can be achieved.

As usual your behind the curve ...... lol

What exactly do you find 'Hollywood' or 'Saving Private Ryan' about these graphics .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCmMCd6BfJQ

Umm...all of it? :grin:

Again, nice graphics, but not 'realistic' through a human eye. It's 'realistic' through a camera filter.

Not complaining about it, and it is sure better than Il-2. It was smooth, and pretty, but not realistic.

Something is not right with the saturation.

I looks too dull and dingy even in perfectly well lit situations.

Though I will never buy the thing anyway these clips just confirm that fact for me.

I don't know why a comparison was made in the OP post regarding competition for Sow, the two things are miles apart as far as immersion and FM DM from these vid clips.

Yeah your right !! Totally Unrealistic
Perhaps you have something more realistic ?

ahhhh well ..... I got some free time on a friends bird tomorrow afternoon. Perhaps I will be better able to judge 'realistic' better after an hour or so in the air to refresh my memory ???

I definitely need some practice ....... we have some world class 'keyboard' fliers in here ....... got to compete at their high level of realism evaluation :grin::grin:

Considering that your level of realism evaluation only takes into account the amount of polygons and the texture resolution, it's not hard. You only have to walk outside to see how unrealistic WoP is. I'll tell you about something more realistic. Try FSX. I don't even like it, don't play it, but it's more visually realistic than WoP, especially at medium to high altitude.

Well, if you saw the link I posted a while back, you see some scenery without bogus saturation and without appearance of filters. It is still not perfect, but at least it is more realistic.

And be careful about who you assume is just a keyboard flier. ;)

EDIT:
http://www.jaggyroadfilms.com/showFi...rld%20of%20FTX

Here it is again, so you won't have to dig through the thread. Now, I am not talking about LOD, Polygons, Textures, etc. I'm talking about saturation, hues, and filters.

When you go flying, be sure to take some photos and share them with us 'keyboard fliers'. :)

Geez, this thread just makes my day, it never fails. I actually get bummed out when there are no new posts in here for a day.

When I see someone come in these forums and show me a video of them flying a P-51 or FW190 and they say this FM in "that game" is right on the money, then I will start comparing every other game's FM to that one. The truth is No one has ever flown one of these planes. We have some stats in some books and even most of those stats have been contradicted by interviews with real WWII Aces. So who can really say anything about these WWII FMs in any of these games.

WOP visually is almost a form of art. They could change some settings and make it look real as heck, maybe they will.

I will say this the city layouts are more historically correct then any flight sim to date, that I know of. The ground/citys were made with real wwII aerial photographs, and WWII photos of the buildings and citys, the streets are exactly the way they were back then. They spent a long time making it and I for one am very impressed.

I know we have amazing sims with perfect replication of todays places but is there any maps out there that it took a year or more to make, that perfectly match the aerial photographs from the time frame of WWII clear down to each street ? Maybe there are ? As of right now, WOP is the only one that I know of.


Now the closest we have to real flight and FM's is Xplane 9 and it can be certified for flight hours towards your PPL in different aircraft .


I thank you guys for so many great posts !
It beats Tv in my book ! DESODE

Perhaps your sense of color is not "fine tuned" enough see how the game visuals have been "tweaked for effect"...the most noticeable thing they have done is desaturated the colors. This technique was used to great effect in "Saving Private Ryan".

I can see how it might be frustrating for you, when you don't understand what people are talking about. My suggestion is to keep playing "BoP" and don't worry what other people think...Just enjoy your game play... ;)

My vision was good enough to get a private pilots license. 22/20 left eye, 24/20 right.

BTW Its W.o.P -- and I never worry about what fanbois have to say.

It would be quite a feat, for a 'keyboard jockey' to frustrate me. Indeed this thread is proof positive that the reverse is true ;)

Thanks for your concern though.

It would be wonderful if the chaps from Flying Legends, BBMF, USAF Heritage Flight and other companies commented in the game's flight model. Then we'd get a decent veredict.

err, I tried downloading the demo [yuplay download] and my Norton AntiVirus (sonar) ripped it out of the folder the exe was saved in when I tried to run it and stomped on it, as "acting suspiciously on this computer".

is this just one of those "false postives"? the AV lists the actual site as safe


HTTP download wants a premium subscription fee, which is just plain c.r.a.p.
and I won't use bittorrent

I won't sit here and argue FM, but I would suggest flying both the original IL-2 and then anything afterward in order, then tell me I'm wrong!....Flying in anything after IL-2, I can't seem to stall anything unless I pull some truly unrealistic movement or can I get a plane to slow down for the life of me, even with a 30% upward pitch lol without flaps, just to name a couple of things...Pitch, roll especially seem way too easy.Apparently you`ve flown some planes in real life as have I, so I would assume you should be able to feel the difference I`m talking about.

I`m editting this after reading Desode`s comments, I know your comments may not be aimed at me in particular and I`m not saying I could recognize the FM of any plane in particular flown in WW2 but I have flown and can tell the difference between realistic and Uber....As I would suspect alot on here could do the same, even without actual flying time.But if your highly versed in the attributes of some of the fighters simulated on here you would aslo be able to tell the difference in FM....and I agree with you it still beats TV ;-)

F_3

I agree its NOT realistic, but there may be reason for it! I was up just last weekend, midday sunshine with snow covered ground areas, same conditions as simulated in the video and I gotta tell you visibility is blinding!! Ground colors and detail are much filtered as is lighting in the extreme in the game but I would assume this is done for better gameplay as otherwise you`d have a hard time seeing your advesary or anything for that matter.



F_3

Eeeer what are you guys complaining about? WoP is just a half arcade half sim WW2 aircraft game with very nice graphics and a decent gameplay. Leave it as it is! :D

Yes, it's not a sim, so nothing in the game is meant to be 100 or 90% accurate.

But it's a good game to get people want to move further to playing sims! It fills the gap between pure arcade games and sims. Isn't it what was needed to help people cross the bridge towards sims?

Geee.

Well, stall behavior in Il-2 has always been a little wonky, but yaw from engine torque/p-factor/gyro-precession/prop wash seems to only have been implemented after Pacific Fighters. Before it seemed planes were on rails and all I had to do was point a vector and go there.

I'm not saying that FM for specific aircraft are better than before. As I've never flown in a WWII plane, I can't argue about anything in that area. What I was talking about was overall 'feel' and impressions. The latest version seems better than the oldest, but let me be the first to say that it is still very far from perfect.

Sadly, even using a restored plane to base a flight model off of is still imperfect. Today, those planes use different fuels, and are never opened up to full power, to prevent any kind of damage to the priceless and rare engines. It would involve a lot of extrapolation, which may end up being way off, and the costs of taking a WWII plane up with accelerometers would be immense for any flight sim developer.

BTW it's on steam now! :!:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/45300/

someone know when this going to be for sale in a Box??. I don't going to buy a download. I want something physic. and I see a Zero in the preview and in the game download are not the pacific theatre

Wow! Right off the demo if the demo's this good. I like it already; another fine WWII flight sim/hybred for me. I'm buying it off of steam..
I'm just having a little difficulty with the input setting as far as the joysticks concerned. the Trk ir works perfect.

S!

Mastiff, check the ready profiles in setup and work on them. That is how I did it on my Cougar. The demo is nice, gonna get the boxed version. Even if it is not a full blown sim, it is still a WW2 plane thingy = has a place on my shelf.

Impressions of the Demo (long but detailed)
 

I'm a 29 year old Swedish (of Finnish descent) hardcore appreciator of games/sims ever since I was a child (started in 1985, I've gone through many loved flying games in particular since. How about "Ace of Aces" on the Commodore 64 (flying Mosquotos, didn't even know what they were), F/A-18 Interceptor on the Amiga 500, F-19 Stealth Fighter (I still read the manual from time to time, great stuff), the master piece "Their Finest Hour" also on Amiga 500 (the manual was the best I've ever seen, a nicely bounded history book basically, with great pictures, pilot quotes etc). I'm driven by a big fascination with machinery, especially the flying kind, and history. Simming is great. Immersion is the key. I got IL-2 in 2002 but didn't fly it much due to various reasons, then bought 1946 last year. Now I have a TrackIR 5, Logitech G940 (a week old), Saitek Quadrant, decent monitor etc.

Anyway, Wings of Prey looked absurdly good in some of the videos I've seen on youtube. I've read interviews with the developers and comments from many who played it (and who didn't). Here's my demo impressions. I can't call it a review since I did not bother exploring everything.

It is graphically impressive overall. Especially the battle of berlin mission included in the demo. When it starts, and FPS is high, it's absolutely breathtakingly good looking. It's like crysis in the air, with a huge city looking completely convincing essentially and tons of battling going on. It has a large amount of atmosphere. There's so many planes, details, smoke plumes, clouds, etc that it's almost impossible to get a grip on who's who and what's going on down low over Berlin (which is in many ways a good thing). It becomes massively more demanding however as soon as any action/enemies appear, and that real amazing framerate + details is bogged down. There's in general though so many awesome effects that every flight sim should have, graphically. Long rendering distance, nice sun glare effect where the eyes adjust after a few moments, the cloud effects, rain.

However, the graphical effects venture into Hollywood-esque artistic license. The British environment looks nothing like that in real life (the color red appears to have been filtered out, what remains is shades of green and blue mostly). It's like those color filters they put on movies to give them a certain surreal look. It looks impressive but 'wrong'. The Berlin environment did look a lot more like reality however.

I was hoping that the Simulator mode would provide something approximating IL-2 levels of realism, but the game is just too different. The whole design/setup is like pretty similar to the Ace Combat series (which I have not played, but seen videos of and read about). But there's one game that really captures the essense of playing sim mode in Wings of Prey in the sim mode - Codemaster's "GRID" for consoles and PC, with just a tad bit less arcadish physics. It's almost as if they copied the whole concept and applied it to WW2 fighter planes instead of race cars.

It does attempt to cater to even hardcore people, but it fails in this regard. It's sim mode is more like a blend between arcade and hardcore simulation. This is not a bad thing, as I've already seen people gone from the arcade mode to being curious about the sim mode, and how those planes really worked and so on. We all had steps to climb to get to real simming levels.

There's basically no planning, no getting to read about your pilots, no dynamic campaigns, no realistic campaigns either, no choosing load-outs (as far as I'm aware), no flight plans with waypoints, no command structure (you are the leader of a flight and some scripted commanding figure over radio keeps giving you ever more ambitious odd targets), there's only four radio commands that can be given, no clearance to take off or land - just straight to the point. A GPS all-seeing radar map is always available no matter what realism setting, showing the bad guys, good guys and the targets, all clearly marked. You can take off if you want but it's not as in-depth as IL-2.

The mission goals seem to have unexpected elements and vary a lot, which isn't bad in itself, but it's way over the top. Follow the Battle of Berlin mission for example. You set out with a flight to attack an enemy make-shift airfield on the streets of Berlin (cool!). Although it shows up on the ultra-radar it was extremely hard to see it with your bare eyes. I could not despite many passes, and my wingmen eventually took it out (I couldn't tell). This continued being the theme, ground targets impossible to spot in the big real looking city. Before one can get to the airfield one is attacked by a bunch of 109's. Then the airfield. Then unexpectedly assigned to take out Tiger tanks in another part of the city. Then unexpectedly assigned to bomb a a fortified house. Then without any break it turned into flying escort duty for IL-2 Sturmoviks being attacked by more 109's. Actually, the 109's never seemed to stop coming during this whole time. Target after target being impossible to distinguish, as there had been no briefings, flight plans or warnings about what one is expected to carry out. The absurdity is that one was given a single drop of free-fall bombs for use against the airfield. Then what? Didn't have anything left for all the other targets. Kept bailing out and respawning in the air to get more bombs to drop on the targets. I didn't keep playing beyond the escort duty so I don't know how long it kept going with new over the top things. All these missions took place within a 2x2km radius pretty much, hyper intense, not a moment of non-combat or time to gather your wits. The british mission was somewhat similar in how it moved you from mission to mission in a single flight, but one did get the order to land to refuel and re-arm before proceeding to the next step. But everything is very close by, the map is very small. No need for time accel, or to keep a look-out (magic radar).

On to the more technical points:

- No Force Feedback. I had actually been inspired to try it hoping that it would have more proper force feedback than IL-2, which doesn't provide control resistance in the middle 33% of stick motion (what a bummer that is! My greatest wish is that they patch that in, along with twin throttle support).

- Setting up the controls was irritating (beyond the fact that they are lost each time one exits and reloads the demo) - most axis behaved opposite to how they would logically appear. I ended up with almost every axis acting the opposite way of what I intended (i.e. you'd think that seeing your stick move a dot up in the axis setup screen when you push a lever forward would mean that it 'increases' something like prop pitch, throttle, fuel mix, radiator etc, but the game thinks that moving down = more). There's also a whole lot of menus to navigate through back and forth when just doing a single small adjustment, every time.

- The weapons are very seriously different from reality. The rate of fire seems to be extremey low (perhaps 1/5 to 1/20th) of what it should be. The Spitfire has four 7.62mm machine guns that all fire at the same time each at a high rate of fire, with only some bullets being tracers. It's a bullet shower in real life. In Wings of Prey all the bullets that aren't tracers in real life don't exist at all - there's no sound FX for them and they don't seem to be fired at all either - only the tracered bullets exist, hit stuff, make a sound. Also only two of the four machine guns seem to make any sound and shoot things at all. As a result, shooting the four high RPM machine guns looks like and sounds not entirely disimilar to having two wing mounted MG/FF in IL-2, low rate of fire with big tracers, things flying between the projectiles due to low volume of fire. This might slip by people who do not posess any knowledge of firearms and airplane weaponry, but for me it's hard to swallow. My imperssion was that the projectiles moved slower through the air than IL-2. Part of this impression may be from the large size of projectiles and the low amounts of them. Hitting targets was quite difficult, more so than IL-2. The machine guns and cannons also seem to have unlimited ammo.

- The weapon damage to yourself and the enemy is fairly hardcore, but the 'system' seems far less advanced than IL-2. In the Berlin map I was blown out of the sky very quickly by the slightest hits, and enemy fighters and bombers would respond somewhat like in IL-2 to being hit, apart from being much harder to hit due to the extremely low volume of fire your planes output. Damage effects are supremely awesome looking, with great holes straight through the wing that looks convincing, oil spluttering on windshields and tons of things to that effect. Shooting cannons that hit the enemy's wing, you can actually see a nice explosion and completely convincing hole straight through the wing. On the negative side, it appeared to be mostly 'all or nothing', even very large holes and control surfaces missing on your own plane didn't seem to affect the plane much. Flight model seems mostlyunaffected by the large pieces of your airframe missing. I would fly around and not even realize half the wing area was missing until I later noticed those huge holes looking out the side of the canopy.

- Bail-outs are instantaneous. You can respawn instantly near you got taken out whenever you bail out, get killed or whatever. There's no consequences.

- The engines have nice controls assignable to axis. Fuel mix, prop pitch, radiator (axis, wohoo). There's even a supercharger toggle. But no flaps bindable to an axis. None of these things seem to have any use what so ever as the game is extremely(!) fast paced, with extreme amounts of highly varied action taking place within a few square kilometers. Maybe in some custom made more realistic missions if that's possible. There's none of that in the campaigns.

- The engine behaves strangely. It has 'normal' operating range, and then when you reach 75% or more throttle, it snaps instantly into super high RPM with extreme loudness and shaking of the airplane (very cool effect when giving it max throttle chasing bombers or otherwise, gunsights shaking). Something is clearly messed up here.

- The engines itself has a high quality nice sound effect, but as I haven't flown or heard high quality recordings of these engines except from a Bf 109 I am unable to verify how authentic they sound. Sound effects vary in quality overall. The machineguns sound absurd (like a single MG firing when there should be 4 etc), while cannons sound similar to any of the various amount of cannon sounds floating around IL-2 and it's mods.

- Sound effects are 'balanced' so you can hear everything well in the environment, a bit like Call of Duty series. You easily hear enemy engines, their guns and so on as if you were hanging under a basic glider with no cockpits, headphones or anything. As far as I know, this is not how things sound like in real life. Your own engine is extremely loud in real life, and you have vibrations and also a sealed cockpit around you.

- I don't think I noticed sound traveling at the speed of sounds (i.e. watch something happen, hear it delayed after); and I don't recall noticing doppler effect from moving sources. More like instantaneous sound travel. I may be wrong on this.

- Physics: I could not provoke snap-rolls in either the spitfire or the LA-7 (max elevator back, then max rudder to either side). I did manage to provoke spins, but only after trying the snap roll maneuver going nose up for a while until airspeed dropped enough. It doesn't seem to let you pull hard enough on the elevators to get into turbolent buffeting/near stall or stall. Instead the the plane keeps turning and turning, always pulling enough G's to black out the pilot. None of that 'low slow and flapping around helplessly in front of someone's guns'.

- Spins: When spins occured, they could sometimes be prevented from escalating by instant stick forward and opposite rudder (also reducing throttle), but also often they would become impossible or near impossible to recover from. The spitfire would keep spinning like crazy (not a flatspin, a moderate or low nose spin) even when I early in the spin had performed all the correct spin recovery methods (see above). IL-2 behaves very differently in this respect - enters spins and stalls much more easily, but also sorts itself out if you take proper action fast enough. Not having read or flown these planes in reality I cannot say if spin recovery is more realistic in either game/sim, but I believe IL-2 is probably closer.

- Torque effects are very powerful and noticable when in the air, though not as hardcore on the ground (rudder is necessary for take off nonetheless). At least the torque effect of the plane wanting to roll left or right depending on how much the prop is being forced to spin. It is definitely much more of that than IL-2 (spitfire comparison). Again, I don't know which is more real, but the Spitfire was very tedius to try to fly except at the power setting where it didn't want to roll left or right all the time. There is proper trimming just like IL-2 and they work exactly the same.

- I was tasked with preventing Ju 87 Stukas from dive bombing ships on the beach (basically) in Dover. I had large amounts of my wings missing from being shot up by He-111's earlier in the mission, and even at my low speed and the low speed of the Stuka, it started doing constant loops, and I'd follow, with no problems what so ever with stalling out or otherwise. Going from 15m above the water to maybe 100-150, around and around. From having flown the Stuka myself in other sims as well as general knowledge, I do not think there's any chance in hell it could possibly do loops at low speed in tight turning radiuses. The engine is far too weak for those kind of stunts. The spitfire was damaged to hell and yet it did it without any effort or drama. I was just pulling the stuck back and following, shooting whenever I got it in my sights (hard to hit, harder than IL-2, due to earlier stated reasons).

Summary:

And there you have it. Wings of Prey is like GRID: Race Driver meets Call of Duty 5: World at War, but in the air, with an option for semi-realistic physics. It's mindblowingly gorgeous, awesome graphics engine, decent sounds, intensely atmospheric. But it is shallow, lacking depth, authenticity and leaves out that which is not direct combat (well, there is an option for taking off before a mission...). Overly dramatized. Think about the flight scenes from the movie "Pearl Harbor" or "The Red Baron" from a few years ago. Bending the laws of physics, historical inaccuracies, unreal and over the top but impressive effects. For anyone who wants to understand and experience these machines and air combat for what it was, this is rubbish. For those who don't have those kind of interests foremost and can suspend their disbelief easily (perhaps due to the amazing graphics), and just care & want to have action all the time, this is the ticket. Can't think of any better arcade flying game that handles WW2 fighter planes. This game won't teach you anything except how chaotic and emotional something like the Battle of Berlin might truly have looked like - something IL-2 and any other flight sim has been completely unable to convey. I tired of it after a couple of hours, I miss the flight sims too much.

"""GRID: Race Driver is like Wings of prey"""

Grid is the best car simulator that is in the market. the correct is said Grid is like Storm Of war

Not to deviate too far from the topic, it requires some clarification on what it means to be compared to GRID:

GRID is a thorough to the bone arcade racing game (I hold some considerable authority on this topic, as racing/driving sims and real cars has been a significant interest for me since 2001). It's physics have nothing to do with the real world at all, except some basic concept of that wheel turns and pedals go slower or faster. However, it has a nice polished presentation and most of the effort has gone into the audio/visual aspect of the game as well as making it accessible to anyone no matter how ignorant or unskilled they may be of the topic. Wings of Prey shares the basic game approach/design outline closely with GRID.

IL-2 1946's most similar games in the racing side of things may be "iRacing", "Live for Speed" or "Race 07" with it's several expansions.

On a different note, I watched a youtube video after I wrote my impressions of someone flying the Me-262A1 aganist two P-51 Mustangs. Incredible landscape and graphical effects. The temporary switch in FOV to more zoomed in and back is expertly made, smooth panning. However, watching the 262 go around the way he was flying it (turn and burn style more or less) it was running in circles around the Mustangs in their little dogfight, and shot them both down. It's performance looked pretty much like that of a 1970's era jet, like the F-16 Falcon or F-15 Eagle. Not even close to stall, go vertical, down, hard turns, no problem. The 262 is indeed supposed to be awesome but not as a dogifighter. :)

MMM I can't get on there web site it wont registar me..

I need to go to there forums and find out why my setting don't save they change every single time I restart the game!!! This is very bad!!!

@Mikkowl, Turn your sensitivity all the way up in the wop settings. It completety effects the FM of the aircraft. You can adjust it to where there are no spins and stalls or you can crank it and the planes will act completly different. It makes a huge difference, in the FM's.
DESODE

Good man, liking the G940? Love mine, need a bigger monitor though, even a 24" "shrinks" over time. :)

The rest of your post was outstanding.

~S~

Yes , I have the same problem. I download the Demo of Wings of prey and the settings is dont save when i restart the sim , i need config the damn jostick all the time ... this is bull's##t, and in the Berlin Map the russian plane have all the time the Bombs, How I can put Limited weapon? this is like very very arcade if i cant do that oprion. i can't combat in that way

And in some places i read that Stom of War dont will have best graphics that Wings Of Prey...:confused:
http://i970.photobucket.com/albums/a...g?t=1263070721

:confused:

But it is limited. You only need to drop 32 bombs with your La-7, then you run out of them.

If you ask me, first picture looks way better - actually, not better, but realistic. And that's only an old DX8 render without any fancy filters or whatsoever... Oh boy, I can't even imagine how it will look final!

I don't know about the demo but in the full version you can set it to limited ammo and fuel before each mission , both Mp and Sp, Then you only have 2 bombs and the ammo the planes had in real life.

Thanks for the tip. I believe that the default of the sensitivity was maxed out every time I looked through that screen. The planes seemed to respond somewhat similar to IL-2 (from how much you yank the stick around), so what I reported was more of the differences in flight model rather than setup of the controls.

I have a 24" also (16:10) but compared to you I'm satisfied with it (TrackIR5 made the window into the world seem a lot 'larger' if you know what I mean). I do sit pretty damned close to it though, might have something to do with it (maybe 50-60cm?).

I own a CH Combat Stick (F16 clone from my 1996 onwards days) with a CH Throttle but they didn't work anymore due to pots and gameport connector. I flew tons of sims in my earliest days until late 90's, and after trying IL-2 I stopped flying apart from stints in OP Flashpoint and Armed Assault (how sad). This is mostly due to how hardcore IL-2 was and I did not have rudders, nor did I appreciate how important rudders would be. Was more noob than I realized ;) This fall I gave WW2 online a go (again) and got myself a cheap Logitech "Extreme 3D Pro" and rigged my G25 pedals as rudders and the wheel itself like a (very realistic and EXTREMELY well functioning) elevator trim wheel, and the Saitek Quadrant as throttle, prop. pitch and flaps. Also got myself IL-2 1946 off of steam. Totally hooked again! So happy to have found my way back to my beloved flight sims. Ok ok, trying to stick to the topic of controllers :P Needed to explain where I am coming from, no Saitek and recent CH gear experience etc. Read tons of reviews and forums about them though. The G940 is a mixed bag. I now realize I have too much to say about it to fit it here, as it's not on-topic enough and I don't want to bother people who came here to read about Wings of Prey. I will say that the lack of Force Feedback as well as throttle lights support in Wings of Prey is a big letdown and a strong incentive for a G940 owner to fly something else.

Glad you enjoyed the post. :) I'm talkative and extremely analytical, love to evaluate and analyze everything. I did not bother structuring my post well though, could have been much shorter and easier to read. Time to go do a nice post for the G940, I'll post it in the G940 topic that already exists in this forum. I'll write it and post it before posting this post. Here we go: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...2&postcount=17


It is not unthinkable that Wings of Prey will be more eyecatching and atmospheric graphically than Storm of War. I ran Wings of Prey in Dx9 mode and I'm just blown away by much of the graphics presented, though the artistic license taken in places does not belong to a hardcore sim experience.

The image comparison is interesting. I'm a hobby photographer since late 2002 and a freelancing illustrator (drawing/painting stuff on the computer for clients, mostly sci-fi stuff) so similar to Oleg Maddox I guess I have the background necessary to, uh, have an eye for detail? I am beginning to feel like I am presenting myself as some braggart narcissist. In the screenshot comparison:

Storm of War picture appears to be in full daylight, no clouds and no atmospheric effects, or if they exist, it's set to extremely long visibility (not talking about rendering distance in the engine, but how much humidity is in the air limiting how far one can see). The sun gives warm colors. The palette in the pic is not quite right, though Oleg has commented they know this and the work was not yet completed. The terrain is also a test, where they try different ways of doing things to see what works/looks/runs better, and the image itself is now half a years(?) old.

Wings of Prey picture: Looks like the demo mission. Lots of humid atmospheric effects. The general impression is that of a very overcast, humid English weather (that they really do get a lot there, if you are flying below the cloud cover). But no matter where you fly you still get that murky overcast effect even when the sun is not blocked by any clouds, blinding you and casting shadows and reflection on planes and the water. The colours look like one is looking through some green coloured sunglasses (which I used a few years ago). Most likely they took some artistic license (means to alter things from reality/authenticity to achieve a purpose) in order to convey typical English weather/environment. I think they successfully achieve this. But the unreal mix of bright sun and overcast murk coexisting at the same time, and the green coloured glasses makes it feel surreal, or unreal even. It looks like out of some movie production rather than reality. I would like to point out that the other map in the demo, battle of Berlin, seems to look much closer to reality while being hugely impressive in it's details and mood.

The only point I don't agree with is "unreal mix of bright sun ". I take it you don't fly in real life. The sun isn't bright enough in the game. If if was like real life you wouldn't want to play it or all we would hear is complaints from 90% of the games consumers.
I flew yesterday and with the snow on the ground and the glare off the snow every place, you almost couldn't see anything anywhere. Keep in mind to that these planes are single seaters and there is just glass over your head, so it is even worse then what I went through yesterday in my cessna skylane C-182L.
Desode

You misinterpreted; what I was saying was that in the game the palette and shading of the ground implies thick overcast, but at the same time it can be barely any clouds or mist cover at all and sun shining brightly - it cannot be both in reality. If it is somewhat clear weather and sunny, then one gets warm colors and sharp contrasts/shadows. If very overcast and misty murky, then things can look flat, soft, muted colors. But simultaneously? :P

The sun blinding effect in the game was pretty good btw, even looking in the general direction of the sun, the ground/sea was totally overexposed bright for several seconds before the virtual eyes adjusted and some details started coming through. I'm not sure IL-2 is strong enough however.

And no, not a pilot. Flew in a Cessna once in the late 80's as a kid, took a bunch of pictures, and then some airliners. :)

I got ya, thank heavens there are no sun spots. Imagine being in a vertical dogfight in WWII and climbing into the sun. You would be seeing sun spots like crazy ! Then on top of that your fighting for your life. It was no doubt a visual Hell for fighter pilots !

I have flown to New orleans for Mardi Gras a couple of times. The haze and humidity was visually interesting to fly in. Its like a Glaze in the air.

I must say though WOP and ROF give the two best feelings of actual flight out of any other sim, I have played. I can't put my finger on what exactly it is that does this for me, but I think its a combination of different things.
I'm really impressed with WOP's shadow system, Its very good in my opinion, maybe one of the best I have seen.

Here is some info on the Dagor game engine. This engine is doing somethings that have never been done in visual aspects, It may explain why the game looks different then any other flight sim. Check it out and read what all the engines abilitys are. I would say that in certain acpects the WOP Dev team is maybe pushing some of these effects to show off the new engine. I know I hope to see more sims made with Dagor, its a very smooth running engine.
http://www.gaijinent.com/projects/dagor.htm
Desode

Here is a couple of videos of real flights, one modern and one from WWII. I'm wondering what you guys think about how well they match to Wop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIUpv...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0kmUwp1TKk

Now tell me which sims out there looks like this real footage the most ?
Wop or others ?

I'm just curious.

I'd say this footage is a example of what the Wop Dev's where watching & trying to match. The colors are just about a perfect match.
DESODE

I think you hit the point there that everyone is going on about. WOP is trying to simulate the look of 1940's gun and cini camera footage. If that was the intent of the developers they've hit the mark.

This is still not simulating the look of real life, no more than the modern re-coloured B/W WWII footage is life like.

Yes I have my private pilots licence, and even though it's been a while since I've got behind the controls of plane (about the time life caught up with me and I got kids!) the video's I've seen for WOP or even IL2 for that matter, do not match what I saw out the window of the pipers and cessna's I got my licence in.

But like anything, little step's forward and we will get there in the end. It will be a while till we get holo-decks to fly our flight sims in!

Cheers!

Flight sims are few and far between, so them having the latest goodies is a rare occurance. No doubt they set up the engine with a load of effects quite nicely for the most part. Since most of us never flew anything at home with graphics like this, it is no surprise we are so impressed. And let me see if the reasons you think it feels 'real' is the same as I do, especially compared to, for example, IL-2:

- Foremost, the graphical effects and details. The cockpit windows look more stained around the edges of the frames/pillars and there area more shaders at work. Long distance rendering with very well defined atmospheric effects, lots of planes visilbe at the same time, high rendering quality and decent speed doing it, shadows being cast by aircraft parts into the cockpit, higher quality textures of own plane when looking out from cockpit, neat reflective/bump mapping effects. In general, a lot of activity, the world is filled with things going on visibly and aurally.

- Specific immersive additions: The pilot being heard breathing in a strained way when pulling G's, the G-forces acting on the pilot's head being VERY well tweaked (even without headtracking - a real human head is dampened from G-forces and vibrations in a good way due to the neck and it's muscles, giving a bit of a delayed smoothed movement), all changes in field of view (FOV, zoom) take place smoothly without sudden jerky changes, the airframe and view really starts vibrating when going fast, as well as having high throttle setting (got this while trying to catch up with He-111 bombers, tried to shoot like that too, not easy).

- Perhaps the music for some. It's always there. I turned it off however.

Add it all together and for your eyes and ears, in many ways, it fools you better than the rest. At the same time, there are things which are not there correctly and these break the immersion (depending on the person). Each time I started that Battle of Berlin mission in the La-7, the first few seconds when it flows smoothly and I just look around (trackIR) it is a monumental sight, that things can look 'that good and convincing'.

The footage there is grainy or shot with a not so well set up camera, and neither are a good representation of how things look like in reality. For example, in the Stuka flight, the camera often adjusted its exposure to match the bright sky, and not the (far far darker) landscape, leading to the landscape looking much darker, even underexposed, compared to how it should be (on a side note, I was taken by how similar it looked to looking around with TrackIR, haha, headmounted cam or something). The WW2 era footage (which I have seen many times before :) ) is discolored and of poor quality.

Either way, I don't think any sim matches those clips much. The vibrations from engine and explosions certainly lend themselves more to Wings of Prey, while the colors of the stuka clip (pretty real, at least) are pretty similar to FSX (micorsoft combat simulator).

How about microsoft Flight simulator + FSX?
Holo decks... I want. But then I'd move in there and not want to leave.

Good posting, well done. I knew I wouldn't like it. :roll:

Well the first video is modern with a cam. It is the only Stuka replica flying today.
It was made built by Louis Langhurst, and a guy in maine has it now.


I wish I could take it up for a couple of hours ! It looks like good times :-P

Been thinking about building a WWI replica, I have always wanted to do that since back when I was a kid ! ROF has brought that dream back full force.

I'm still thinking about starting some kind of contest with a leaderboard for WOP's SP. It is the hardest flight game I may have ever played on Sim with Limited F&A and no retrys. I'd really like to see someone beat the entire game like that ! More and more I don't think its possible. The timed missions are just brutal ! You got to be on it and some of them are at night and that is even harder. Thats one aspect of WOP I really like, but then I like really hard games. Yes I have FSX , but I personally think Xplane 9 has the most spot on FM of any modern Sim.



DESODE

I have to say thats the best representation of real flight I have seen on a pc. I cant speak for the FM/DM etc. but as far as the feeling of actually being up in the air, hands down the best. No doubt its leaning in the arcade direction but I hope SOW of maybe even Il2 can adopt some of the smooth graphics and lighting.

Ok, just played the demo, yes the graphics are amazing and smooth. I really enjoyed the La-7 mission, to watch the whole city smoking and so many planes was really neat, really felt like you were there, great feeling of motion and realism. The flight model is def. arcade, as is the gameplay, and there is waaaayyy to much "hud" stuff going on around you (this can probably be turned off), the DM is also poor, and I didn't even know I had been hit until I looked outside and saw holes in my plane. The radio voices are very corny, english with a cheesy russian/british/you name it/ accent, and lots of repetition. The interface is kind of a pain to setup joystick and keys etc. but the cinematics and music are great. On a whole I really enjoyed *watching* the whole sim, all the little details on the ground, enemy encampments, houses, makeshift runways etc, flak everywhere etc. WoP feels much more "alive" than il2. But *actually playing* the sim was lackluster compared to Il2.
An interesting thing was that with all its amazing graphics it still runs faster than Il2 in perfect mode...(but Il2 with water=4 still has better water!). So if we could get the graphics of this with the realism of Il2, that would be great. But Il2 is still much better, I think SoW has nothing to worry about from this sim unless wop really change directions towards realism.

Wow, that 262 flight scene is truly amazing. :grin:
I played the demo but I should order one at Steam.

I'd be disappointed if SOW graphic is not as good as BOPs.
BOP graphic is hands down the best so far. Feels right, scaled right.

Having some real training experience in private plane and tri-axes ultralights, I can say that tinted filters apart (for me a big art mistake), this game have the best immersion graphic ever done in a video game. What is really spectacular with this game is that from one altitude to another, the change is completely flawless, every altitude is really spot on with rich details and effects that really put the player in a cockpit in a very realistic world. It's a real pleasure to do some VFR in this game especially in the bumpy GB coast or the Berlin area.

Having the IL-2 Mdv, the planes behaves in a decent way on sim mode and like in reality, you have to be easy on the stick and know the power and weakness of your plane. The combat part is challenging even with its flaws. Sure it will need some refinement but out of the box, it's pretty dam good!

The big problem of this game is, in my opinion, its original predecessor: BoP on console: this game was created with the console crowd in mind: the mainstream crowd from the 8 years old to gran pa...: little map with few or no place to land, arcade hyper scripted missions, no real career mode, simplified damage and gun accuracy,... and here is the real big tragedy for us, the PC crowd and pilot enthusiasts: That to really change the game to be a better decent simulation, devs will have to redo large part of the original code. Sure it will be easy to tweak the Damages, the MDVs, to add a quick mission editor... but what about the big things like bigger maps with airstrips or a more randomized campaign/carreer mode with more varied and common types of mission (CAP, Scramble, Defense, Escort, Fighter sweep....) ? will it be possible? Do the devs have the will to take their game a little further? I don't think so, unfortunately...

In conclusion, I don't think WoP will ever be a serious match for SoW complexity and depth... at best, it will stay as a good dog fighter simulator with decent simulation parts.

I really hope that for unknow reasons known by Oleg himself, SoW will hide its charms from us to the end, but I doubt it, I don't see it matching the fluid graphic Awesomness of WOP... unfortunately... maybe for the next generation of flying simulator...

I to have played this demo, and its amazing how smooth it does run, with all that is going on around you...(I was playing in sim mode, with the sensitivity up about half way) I am not a real life pilot, so im not going to sit here and say something dosent feel "real". I have played quite a few flight sims though and with the Fm controls set the way they were the plane still felt on the "arcade" side...as many before me have mentioned. I loved the graphics, and the shadows in the cockpit was really well done....that being said, when i think of a great sim, i think of the immersion factor.
As an example, i will throw this out there...In the game European Air War. When you started the game, it felt like you were part of something bigger going on around you. It seems like games these days try to make the war revolve around you...if that makes any sence. In EAW you started off in a squadron, and as you progressed you got to be the squadron leader and got to make decisions that affected what was going on around you. You would feel a bond between you and your pilots that were flying with you. As good as flight sims have gotten graphics wise and FM/DM wise...i still havent gotten that feeling with any other sim. There were alot of times that i would have my engine shot up so bad ,that i would turn back over the channel only to have my engine give up half way across. Instead of ditching... i would do everything i could to glide my plane as far as i could to reach the otherside and desperately find a base to land so i could survive to fight again... :)

It wasnt my intension to turn this into an EAW post, but when i think of immersion/fun factor/realism...its not always just great graphics and realistic FM's. Correct me if im wrong, there is a reason that we are all here discussing realism or the lack there of in some cases... deep down we all wonder what these guys REALLY went through everytime they strapped into the cockpit of the fighter or bomber that they flew.
And another thing that really bothers me! In this day and age, why are we STILL piloting Pilotless aircraft! U look at any of the Racing games out right now and most of them will put you in first person mode where you can see the drivers arms and body. I cant believe this isnt more of an issue than wether the terrains color pallet is closer to Hollywood than real life...Really???
I would also like to see more campaigns in flight sims with pilot career mode, so that players could feel more attached to there pilot. Maybe implement some way of playing your pilot on the ground (after you crash land or ditch)in first or third person mode,to get back to your base safely! I realize that it sounds crazy, but instead of having a ton of flyable aircraft and diffrent campaigns to choose from... i would rather have one map like BOB with a small set of flyable plane sets and implement stuff like what i have mentioned ..how fun would that be? S!

Took some P-51D video to praise the sensation of WOP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kmdwyEZ3ak

One of P-51D single mission in game.
It just feels like 'Dogfight' in history channel.
This is the scene I've been dreaming.
Korean chatter is from my squadmates so plz don't bother.
Forgot to turn off TeamSpeak. :)

S!

More simulator added to WoP and we have another WW2 game to play :D Never too many of them, even quality can vary ;)

I'll agree that the game duz look cool...I'm hoping for something a bit different for "SoW", but the footage duz look pretty cool.

If WoP where a simulation i would be happy.

I'll second that, I used to play Red Baron II a lot and created many new aircraft 3d models for the game, one of the best features was the immersion factor. The enemy fighters scrambling as you overflew their base, the random patrols and the dangers of getting shot down over enemy territory all depended on where you were and what strategy you chose. Also you always had the ability to manage more detailed aspects of your squadron and aircraft. I guess the best point is that FM and DM are only two parts of a whole list that make a great flight sim, Il2 is my fave sim but yes it lacks immersion, the dynamic campaigns are too sterile esp. when compared to RB3d, EAW and others.

The Bf 109 G-6 is ten times best that the Mustang P51D in WOP.
And the He 162, is amazing! so easy

http://i970.photobucket.com/albums/a...g?t=1263871719

but i get bored. I want play Storm of War. wop is so arcade and empty. they miss so many things! Empty is the word. and are not skins and diferent armaments in the aircraft. The FW 190 have not so many variants. wop is a empty sim. is only play for get fun some time and nothing more.

You are right but it is not a sim, just a game.

Its so right, the flying aspect is only part of what i believe makes a game fun. I feel a great sim should'nt end if you get shot down and survive. I would love to be able to see how far through a campain i could make it by evading capture. I realize alot of people think that it might take away from the whole flying aspect of the game...but i think it would only enhance the reality and "immersion" factor of what it was really like to be a pilot back in the day. :)

???
 

hy guys :grin:

I am honest, I did not read the whole thread, but this WOP is the port from the Birds of prey? right?

I bought birds of pray for PS3 just to support the Flightsimgenre in general, so I bought the WoP today and it has the exact same missions..... :rolleyes:

So atually this is a Oleg game?

what ever, I just support every Simulation making company....and thanks for the russians, those are almost the only guys who develop good sims nowaday!

McDan out

Yes, basically a port of Birds of Prey. Some changes and additions.

Not an Oleg game. Wings of Prey team recieved the IL-2 source code and models from Maddox Games (because of 1C Company), and also some consulting. And they got a better graphics engine and made their own flying game based on this.

WoP (simulation mode) and 1946 can be defined as flight sims
 

What defines a flight simulator? We all have our own definition. Is it graphics, FM, takeoffs and landings, complex engine controls, energy management, real maps and planes, historical campaigns, or all of the above? I'm sure I'm missing some additional categories and I'm not going to check the dictionary. But the point is that we "keyboard pilots" all have our own definitions of what is a sim and what is a game. In most games you earn points for achieving objectives. You "win" by defeating your opponent.

Such is the case for WoP AND for IL2 1946. Both award points for achieving mission objectives. Both have plane dependent FM's, take offs, landings, real maps, complex engine controls, available cockpit only views, TIR support, require gunnery skills and allow you to energy fight. These are some of the factors that allow me to "simulate" WWII aerial combat. Since I'm not a pilot (yet) my only frame of reference is WWII movies. WOP's highly detailed graphics make me feel like I'm "in" the movie (I especially enjoy the cinematic replays which look photo realistic when viewed at a normal distance from a 32" HDTV). Ignore the principles of flight in WoP or 1946 and you'll crash and lose.

Men are visual beings and I equate WOP to a young, beautiful model. WoP is drop dead gorgeous and fun to play with. However WoP is a bit shallow and currently lacks the intellectual stimulation necessary for a long term relationship. Whereas IL2-1946 is like a Cougar. Older, more mature, complex, still looks good after a few upgrades, and can teach you a thing or two. Bottom line both will make you feel good doing the thing you want to do most with them, fly;) Both require the same techniques to successfully get up, stay up and get down. So at their core, both are WWII aerial combat simulators. Only time and experience will tell if my affair with WoP will last. Thankfully, 1946 is more forgiving than its other lovers.

I'd love to have cross-platform cross-game multiplayer between 1946 and WoP.

IL2 1946 old timers vs. console casual gamers with their gamepads! :grin:

Third party key commands ?
 

I did a speed read through this thread hoping to find an answer to a question I have. Sorry if I missed it but there is a lot to read here and so much BS, bla, bla, bla etc.

Also, let me say on the topic of WOP vs SOW. I am waiting for SOW. WOP will give me something to do in the mean time :)

My question is:

Does WOP allow 3rd party key strokes to work within the game ?

I fly using home made pit with buttons and toggle switches for flaps, gear etc. They are run by PI Engineering matrix board and x-keys.

These devices work for IL2 but not WOP. Has anyone tried a third party key stroke device to confirm that WOP does not work with them?

In the trailer,BoP looked quite awesome.Why WoP wouldn´t be?
And why?WoP wasn´t meaned to be released?

+1

BOP was the reason I am now playing Il2. It got my attention and when i couldnt program my controler the way i wanted to. I purchased Il2. And yes I think The graphics are pretty damn good in WOP.Those of you with your panties in a bunch grow up, there both games.Were all big kidds sitting in front of a screen.

I too purchased WoP after humming & harring. I've played it a few times, but the dissapointment for me is when it gives you a list of aircraft to fly, you think great, there's a few I would like to try, only to find out you can only fly them from external view a no cockpits view available, ie. the beaufighter.

For me the few factors that make it uplayable/unenjoyable are:

- Just horrible engine sounds (Like a bee with two tones switching almost in an on/off fashion with WEP on/off)
- Huge blurring effect when turning my head using TIR instead of image staying sharp
- Too foggy / uncrisp environment
- Tiny maps

The last time I tried was some months ago so maybe there are fixes for that already?

It's kind of a conflicting experience overall, it tries to be a simulator and arcade game at the same time. You have pretty detailed controls for CEM for example and then your missions are like: shoot down 10 planes and by default they start without takeoff and end without a landing. WTF?

Still happy I bought it as every buck spent on supporting aviation titles is not badly spent. But still WOP is not really fighting in the same category as SOW:BOB, DCS titles etc flight sims. But to be honest the best 'I'm flying' experience I've got so far has been flying low level in WOP, you can really feel the speed and see the details without glitches and FPS issues even when settings are maxed out.

Turn off motion blur to fix that one.

However I have to say that WoP is very unsatisfying indeed, the time limits are a joke as is trying to play the campaigns in sim mode.

You are right about that, when thier time limit runs out on you and you are taken out of the game, that screams ARCADE!