MultiPlayer Options
 

Does anyone know if players will be able to attach to another player's aircraft in SOW to, say, man the ball turret on a bomber?

Yes. For many years now, Oleg has said that there will be mods on/off systems of play.

Yes. Lol, am I the only one who retains information around here? :lol:

Hi all,
will the flight models of the flyable aircrafts be similar in terms of performance to those in il2's latest official version lets say 4.10?

Ramm

Will we be able to start missions already in the air or will wel have to take off?
Will there be a co-op mode in multiplayer? If so how many players?

Thanks for all the hard work you and your team has done on SOW-BoB, can't wait to start flying.

This is really anyone's guess, but still an informed one can be made from the comments of Oleg and Luthier over the months of development updates. What it looks like is going to happen is that the flight models will be similar but more accurate. Luthier once said that he had to "almost relearn to fly for a while but it's not much harder than IL2". This sounds like a lot of small improvements adding up to change the feel of the FMs in the details, rather than a handful of sweeping changes all across the board that change the fundamental background. For example, we might have more accurate and harder to control effects for torque and p-factor during take-off, but we will be ready to deal with it as we have already dealt with a different simulation of the same effects in IL2...all that we would have to change in this case would be how much to move the controls or how much speed to build rolling on the runway before slamming the throttle to full.

I think that the biggest challenge will come from the detailed systems modelling because it's a completely novel feature for a WWII era combat sim that almost none of us is familiar with, unless we have also spent time with modern/jet or civilian flight sims at some point.

Both the familiar multiplayer modes of IL2 will be featured (DF/persistent environment with respawns and co-op/single mission with no respawns), with a new, third mode of play having being hinted at at various points through interviews and news snippets.

Unfortunately we don't know what exactly it will be (or even if it will be in the release version), but most guesses point to a combination of DF and coop modes in the form of long term online mini-campaigns. This is pure speculation up to now, but it sure would be cool to have.

As for the amount of players possible, if my memory serves me right mr Oleg Maddox said in one of the update threads that the initial cap is going to be set at 128.

Will we be able to change our aircraft indentifaction letters? Will we be able to change the range at which the bullets converge.
Sorry if these have already been answered.

One of the last updates showed lots of options for changing markings and appearance of planes: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...5&d=1291381971

Gun convergence settings were already in Il2 (the first sim in fact to implement this if I remember correctly) and there's no doubt this will be featured in SoW as well.

Lateral convergence. ;)

Thank you sir!!!

Again sorry if this has been asked already: Will there be options on when to start the campaign? Possibly Dunkirk through July?
Personally I would love to be able to defend the evacuation of Dunkirk.

That sounds awesome good call.

So the last 2 updates have shown engine flame colours, and the level of work Oleg and team is astonashing and wonderful. But how long does it take to make these adjustments? If we had the choice of 50 improvements like this, but waiting 50 weeks, would we be happy to wait? Hell no. Unless that was a really quick thing for someone to change, isn't it best for the team to just concentrate on getting SoW released? As long as it's not full of bugs that stop you playing, the improvements can be made after the initial release. I do have faith in Oleg, but this dragging on with no information doesn't seem right.

:D

Hey guys - first post here, but been watching this game for awhile. I am wondering how the game will display gunfire and more specifically tracers. In Wings of Prey (yes I know its more "arcadey") the bullets were bright colors like everyone of them were tracers, but in other games you can see any tracers at all. Will there be a reaslistic ratio? You can see your tracer rounds and where they are going but they are not every bullet, like when you watch the old WW2 footage.
Sorry if I am re asking a question, I havent seen it directly addressed anywhere (unlike engine flames).

Edit: Also anyone know if the game will run on 64bit native? Certainly its dx11 so...

Yes tracers are visible

SOW will not be DX11

What are the plans for the headtracking API or will SOW be restricted to NP's encrypted API? There has been no mention despite questions from the growing number of users of alternative headtracking software/hardware (which Il1946 supports). Thanks.

I've read that SOW is only going to be compatible with 32 bit operating systems. Is this true?

Oleg said a while back that there will be a dedicated 64-bit exe, so no worries on that score. (with (unconfirmed) minimum RAM requirements of 3gig, we are going to be in trouble fairly soon if the game can't handle 64-bit OS)

Too much Christmas sherry nearmiss????

SOW will be DX11 :)

True

SOW is 100% DX 11, its something Oleg has stated many times.

Thank you!!!! I'm about to build my new system and I have Win 7/ 64 bit ready for it................Had me scared for a minute............WHEW.............

+1 to that. I'm afraid. :(

will sow have it's own api, face tracking?

Configuring Axis for look around isn't quite the same has having an open API as opposed to NP's encrypted API for 'Headtracking'. I am fortunate in that I have both NP's TrackIR and Freetrack but prefer the latter. There is a large number of IL2 devotees using and limited to 'freetrack' but will they be able to use it in SOW is what I am trying to establish?

Of course it will, tessalation is DX11 only, as is many advanced physics and shader features, also DX11 is much better for Multi core cpus.

As for comps - if you are going to buy one definitly get Win7 (better by far then XP or vista in performance and accesability) and make sure to get 64bit! 2011 will be the year of native 64bit/dx11 software.

As for running nativly I have never had a problem with running 32bit software, it just seriously caps the ram that the program can address and therefor limits the game (xp and vista 32bit has only 2gb of useable ram unless you go into bios as the max is 4gb and the other 2gb is reserved by xp/vista for itself and often cannot be used). Rams very cheap now though so tbh go for 6-8gb. (also DX11 cards are going to get super cheap as nvidia is dumping the 400s onto market to make room for the 500s).

Just completed my comp this month, got 12gb atm but I can fit in 24! :-P

!Question, I know this is probably unlikely or not going to happen but for MP is there any in game voice chat (like a radio) for players/planes? Or will we have to use TS or Vent?
Edit (again): I cant do it this week but if people are looking into getting computers for the game later on I/people in the community could create a SOW computer thread. Idea would be to say, what comp can run SOW for under 1k, 2k, 3k and such to help people out so they dont go purchase a best buy computer that looks awesome on paper but they forgot to mention it has a i3 processor inside... Probably need to play a demo and or have the game out in beta before we can "really" tell though how demanding it will be on the system. As for now best tip from me is get a cheap i7 (and OC it), get a low end 400 or ati equivalent dx11 card (nvidia atm are better with tessalation then ati) and get 6-8gb of ddr3 ram (1200mhz is good and cheapish). Just make sure to get a mobo that can be upgraded.
Anyway thats my enthusiast view on it :P

Unless of course Nearmiss knows something that we dont?

SoW will not have tessellation. No mention of physics being run on a GPU. No mention of DX11 specific shaders being used. Not even a mention of anything DX11 specific being used. The only enigmatic words regarding DX11 were "supported". DX8 functions are supported by DX11.

Show me quotes that DX11 is needed or desired, besides oracle-like utterings?

That IS an open API. How is it possible to make a simpler and more open API than to consider head position as being emulated by an absolute position on an analogue axis? DirectInput is an API, after all.

:confused:.........so I can use TrackIR or Freetrack? Bloody hope so and thanks for correcting my understanding (limited......:grin:) of an 'Open API'.

Should be able to! I expect that TrackIR will be supported from the get-go by NaturalPoint's API, and Freetrack/whatever other solution (eg. FaceAPI which is also very good) will be able to do so as long as it has a joystick emulation option. It depends on whether Maddox Games have programmed it to control the speed of head movement, or the actual head position of the player character, if you see what I mean. If it's an axis which registers absolute head position along each degree of freedom, it should work. :) If it controls the speed of head movement, it should still work but probably not as well. Like controlling an FPS character with a gamepad instead of a mouse, it's the same sort of difference in the action involved. A mouse has an absolute position on a surface that moves the cursor in the game with the movement of the mouse, whereas a gamepad analog stick only alters the position of the cursor at a particular speed depending on how far you move it. I wouldn't think they'd have done it the 'gamepad' way.

Well to start you may be correct I havent seen anywhere where the devs specifically stated: SOW is DX11 and uses DX11 features and uses tessalation. This may be due to the fact that the devs are Russian and we dont get as much info as we would normally get.
BUT
He has made it clear the game engine has alot of growth ahead of it, alot of potential and future enhancement which has to mean DX11. DX9/10 is not going anywhere due to structural code reasons (the way it handles data, in effect its maxed out). DX11 has many many features DX9 doesnt especially shaders, tessalation and multi layer mapping as well as multi thread operation handling.
DX8 features are supported by Dx11, but so are dx2 = whats your point? It doesnt mean it will or can run on dx8...
If there is no tessalation then honestly the game will end up either: slow and jittery as hell, basically badly coded. Or runs fine but the graphics are 2-3 generations behind modern game graphics and coding.
Tessalation is the only way they will be able to pull off large scale air battles, and realistic sight distances without making the game a slide show, or having textures from 2005. In addition I never said GPU based physics, but if the damage and flying models are accurate/realistic they will need advanced physics (which is a necessity not an option). How they will handle delegation I do not know but DX11 cards are the only ones that will be able to handle the data stream from the CPU cals (assuming its cpu based) which could detract from AI etc.
The fact that they are doing a Nvidia build I think gurantees DX11. If not the game will not have any legs in the long term.

Sorry I desire DX11 as do many other gamers, just because you dont want to update your computer does not mean computer technology should cease to advance in the mean time (dx9 is what 5 years old now?).

But which of NP's API is to be supported- the encrypted API or the 'non encrypted API'?
If its the non encrypted API then FT users will be able to use their headtracking software/clips without need for Joystick emulation.

I highly doubt that NP provides/allows developers to use the non-encrypted version any more, nor indeed does the older version work with TrackIR 4 and 5, if I remember correctly. :(

Looks like I will have to keep my TrackIR Ultra...:( .I was going to sell it as I prefer Freetrack by a long mile and nothing to do with the fact it was cheaper...it's just better! Ah well....I can and will continue to use it on Il2......:grin:

After thought.......Freetrack has its own interface and I see that some recent games are supporting it, SOW should at least do the same IMO given the growing number of FT users.

[QUOTE=Heliocon;207168]
Tessalation is the only way they will be able to pull off large scale air battles, and realistic sight distances without making the game a slide show, or having textures from 2005. In addition I never said GPU based physics, but if the damage and flying models are accurate/realistic they will need advanced physics (which is a necessity not an option). How they will handle delegation I do not know but DX11 cards are the only ones that will be able to handle the data stream from the CPU cals (assuming its cpu based) which could detract from AI etc.
QUOTE]

From my understanding tessalation is only useful for close up items, Anything further away will be scaled back in detail anyway.

It would be useful for texturing craters up close or texturing the leather crash pads in the cockpit but I don't think it would be a make or break addition to the sim.

Hardware Physics would be nice but once again Oleg has repeatedly stated that they developed an have a in house physics engine. Also I don't think the 'Physics API's' Supported by ATI or Nvidia are useful for flight sims. There more useful for modeling fluids, fluttering cloth and particles of exploding bombs. Great for FPS's where your up close and personal but not so good for light sims!

Cheers!

[QUOTE=Skoshi Tiger;207191]Yep you are right. Sorry if I was unclear - PhysX is nvidias physics program, which the GPU does but you can still calculate physics on the gpu or cpu not using the specific program (for example Havok), its an issue because the physics will have to be calculated constantly while flying (I believe they said there would be rising and falling air/turbulance but I may be wrong) and it takes cycles away from the cpu or gpu.

As for tessalation, it depends. If you run the Unigine heaven demo 2 (beutiful engine btw) they use it for the housing and the roads (cobblestones are actual geometry not bump map). But it can be equally useful for distance, for example while flying in the far distance you could render thousands of bombers with no fps hit because the bombers are only a few hundred polygons each. As you get closer (and you can see fewer planes since your vision is limited to an arch (of course) they can jack up the model quality massivly due to tessalation. You could be up strafing a flawless b52 bomber with all its glorious details and a 200m away there is another 100 b52's but they are scaled down models due to tessalation but since they are at a distance you cant see the lack of detail (when you get closer they tesselate).
Same with towns and houses, far distance they can be little boxes and as you get closer the little squares turn into fully detailed towns and streets.

So you would get a huge performance boost, without it they would all have to be lower quality or have the fully detailed model present and kill fps because its rendering much much more detail then you can actually see!

(for those who are interested here is a little youtube video displaying the benchmark. Also note the dynamic lighting and refraction which is DX11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F6zSgtRnkE
Edit 2: Sorry for the wall of text, just wanted to show this water scene, this is compute-shader which is more Nvidia specific but is DX11. Since the BOB was often near the sea/channel I hope they have water life this! :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAsoX...eature=related

Tesselation doesnt mean u get more eyecandy from the same power, it just doesnt.


Use tesselation in say SoW i quarentee u the not a single pc on the market will run it, not one.

I'll just repeat what Oleg has mentioned here in forum posts:

DX9 / DX10 / DX11 will be supported.

No use will be made of tessallation in initial release though but it may be used later.

JAMF, can't help but feel you're being a little pedantic in your interpretation of "supported". If you are waiting for the devs to spell it all out in minute detail you'll be waiting a long time.

He doesn't. I'll bet Zapatista's shorts on it. ;)

My point is simply: Anyone claiming that DX11 is needed for SoW, or any DX11-specific features are being used can not show evidence of this being true. I don't expect Mr. Maddox or Mr. Shevchenko to reply in detail, or even with a "DX11 specific features are used", so I'm not waiting for that.

Just playing devil's advocate. If we see complaints by customers who bought SoW that DX11 features aren't used, they will blame the developers. Mr. Maddox can then answer each of these complaints over and over again with "Show me where I said that?". I for one don't want to see any of that. I'm just trying to warn people that "supported" doesn't mean much and will not give them any basis to complain later.

Wishing... and reading things that "have to mean" something, does not make it happen or make it true on SoW release.

You're half right; I don't want to update(yet)... because I already am DX11 compliant. Windows 7 64Bit and 5870 here, so your assumption was wrong. You know what's said about assuming?

I hope and hoped for many things WRT SoW (as one can read from my questions regarding tessellation and other things in the update threads), but I never expect too much.

Your evidence for this is.... What?
Sorry for being blunt/rude but you dont seem to know much about how computer graphics work do you? Or you didnt read my explanation.
I think I coverd the power vs graphics detail in it.

Yes you are very right, its very much up in the air atm (no pun intended) so maybe I am using wishfull thinking. Sorry for the comment about your computer, I am jaded from forums where people want to go back and play with 2d sprites because they have a 10 year old computer :rolleyes:

I do feel that it will be optional/used on the high end though, the cockpit ligting is just beutiful and I havent seen anything with lighting of that quality in DX9 especially with all the different surfaces (glass,metal panels etc).
*also want to note that earlier I didnt say it would be *only* dx11, just that it would be dx11 and use its features which I assumed from the news I have heard.

It doesn't work that way. If you want that roof or plowed field to look better it's great and saves you cycles, but for other thing like rendering large formations of aircraft. . . nope! You could make that 22 sided circle in the Dornier's engine nacelle look like a perfect circle, or that corrugated metal on the side of a Ju-52 look real, but that's about it.

Tessalation is a fancy mapping trick, not some miracle fix-all.

Oleg said that SoW would make use of DX11 (ie, features etc new to DX11).

PS - just telling you what he said, I haven't got time to search for quotes.

Can

Ok, so I say I haven't got time to check :) Here are a couple of quotes from Oleg:
Saying "We plan the game not only for DX11...." suggests it will take advantages of the improvements made in DX11.

In response to the question "I Hope they will support DX11 as it is DX brakethrough like DX 9 was." he said:
Now that is pretty clear that DX11 will have graphics that are not in DX10 or DX9, so DX11 will be a benefit.

Come on, ok lets make it simple. Run Heaven benchmark without tesselation, then with tesselation.

Notice any differance in, oh i dont know, fps maby?


P.S. As for your explanation, i dont know what i has to do with tesselation perse. Why would tesselation be usefull rendering boxes (bombers) from 4 km away? Thats not what tesselation is all about.

Its not like u get all those thousands of extra polygons for free u know. Tesselation isnt used for extra performance boost, its used to get extra eyecandy with less performance hit than with traditional tecniques, however u WILL have a performance hit no matter how u slice it compared to not running tesselation.

Is it just me who finds the post you just quoted extremely amusing? "Sorry for being blunt/rude but you dont seem to know much about how computer graphics work do you?" Backing up an argument that basically says "Tesselation = magic, be sure!". :)

... Ok no you dont but you need to think through your posts. Oleg can make beutiful and high polygon count models of aircraft, smoot rounded hulls and all. Without tessalation or distance mapping the aircraft is renderd in all its full glory even at 10 miles away where you can even make out what type of plane it is. So 1000 planes in the distance (lets say far enough that you can see there basic outline) are being renderd in full detail (high polygon count). Dont you think this will kill frame rate?

With tessalation, those aircraft in the distance would be low polygon count models, but you would not be able to see that because they are far from you on the screen, this gives a big boost in performance as it has far far far less rendering/polygons the gpu has to work with. As you get closer the tessalation kicks in and increases the polygon count gradually, you never notice the difference but at close range the plane is just as detailed if not far more detailed then it would be without tesselation. You get the quality without the performance hit that the quality would bring otherwise.

And yes I do have the unigine benchmark and have used it extensivly to setup my gpu/overclock. The reason I responded as I did before was because your question was silly, think about it...
Of course it takes a fps hit creating each cobblestone vs flat bump mapped ground. BUT without tesselation you would have the flat ground, or the ENTIRE image would be tesselated, even distant objects you cannot visually see clear enough to see any change. Therefor tessalation improves performance as it phases in geometry when you can actually get close enough to see it.

I have done some graphics work in the past with Maya 7.0 (mostly), including models, texture mapping (photoshop) and alittle animation. As far as I can tell from the Oleg quote I think he misunderstands and or isnt updated on the newest info (from what I have heard). I will look for it but I believe Nvidia advertised multi level tesselation for models with the 500 series release. Therefor the models would not have to be modeled (which they arent) as tesselation extrapolates from the base models (sure its alittle more complicated then that, but thats the jist of what I heard).

Not an amazing video but this demonstrates the difference, pay attention to the geometry mesh (I know its not a great video). As a recap tesselation allows huge polygon counts with minimal performance loss due to it being based on distance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-6lR...eature=related

It is not, that's what standard LOD techniques are for which switch to lower polygon models depending on distance. Unlike tessellated models they can also use GPU features for rapidly processing duplicate geometry parts which further increases performance.

Add the huge overhead of creating dedicated DX11 models for the developers which would only be useful for a small audience and it doesn't look like a good approach anymore. There's a reason why outside of graphics demos, tesselation is restricted to spicing up generic surfaces so far.

Like all new GPU features before it will take a few years and 1-2 GPU generations before this will see widespread use, especially with consoles out of the equation.

Besides the main issue with hundreds of planes is not the rendering, but AI & FM calculations. Optimizing this area would be more important than exploring new graphics technologies that so far only few people can use.

To me, that quote reads as a message to people on DX9/10 hardware to not worry, but doesn't read as a definite implementation of DX11 specific features. Reading it as devil's advocate again and seeing if a lawyer could wiggle his way out of it. :)


That last quote could indeed be the one. I just fear a lawyer could come in and say "D3D9 and 10 'calls' will look different on DX11 hardware than on DX9/10 hardware. :)

Heliocon!!!

Tesselation is not the magic wonder you seem to think it is. From your posts it's obvious that you don't know how it and other features common in computer gaming work.

Heliocon, LOD models (i.e. switching to lower poly models at a distance) have been in Il-2 since 2001, for crying out loud. Never mind SoW. Tessellation is just like normal/parallax mapping in its effects, if not in its inner workings.

Like Oleg said, tesselation can be useful for human body, uniforms, wheels, etc.
I think it would also be great for the railway ballast to look more 3d instead of flat and for the bomb craters. You can't make everything with tesselation because there is only a small number of tesselation units on the GPU.

I think what Oleg was hinting at in one of his posts was that he was going to wait and see if this intonation of tessellation sticks around for a little longer and becomes the industry standard. There are already a few games that use it, but most of those are FPS with established graphics engines that only require a bit of work to implement. SOW is starting from scratch, so it would be a phenomenal waste of time and resources on something that might be dropped next year or DX release for something better.

If SOW is going to be the sim Oleg hopes with some real longevity I'm sure they will implement it into the next release or maybe even a patch later on. I just hope that any patching to the engine they do for future titles is backwards compatible so it can also be done to BOB and people who want to still fly over the channel can benefit as well as those over Moscow or Korea.

LOD and Tesselation are different effects. LOD requires making more then one model, tesselation does not. Tesselation is mapped onto the model, so you could use 1 model and have its polygon count gradually increase as it gets closer. LOD is not gradual it switches out a low count for a high count model at distance which creates often a "popping" effect. Also it should be noted LOD means either the game has to page the harddrive, or you store the models in your ram which takes up space, which tesselation does not.

Mind to provide evidence/what I said that shows I do not know how effects in computer gaming work? Have you ever done any 3d modeling or texturing?

Just parroting - "you think tesselation is magic" people here on the forums are sad, especially because you havent yet told me why what I am saying is in any way incorrect or even advanced your own posts about it (except for the post commenting on LOD which I addressed).

Actually what you describe is using tesselation for continuous LODs in contrast to distinct LODs, which is the classic technique; but let's skip the semantics...

True but irrelevant as long as distinct LOD models are still needed for users without tesselation-capable cards. Also making a model purely out of primitives and surface maps is a nightmare, and that would be required if tesselation is supposed to provide continuous LODs.

RAM is cheap these days, even on the GPU, and tesselation does require memory for its data as well. The difference is insignificant. Popups can definitely be an issue with distinct LODs, but that's again a quality and not a performance issue.

You previously said the game would be "badly coded" when not using tesselation, and that without it all planes would have to be rendered at full quality all the time. That's why the standard LOD approach was brought up, and as it doesn't come with an additional calculation overhead, can make use of geometry instancing for much improved performance, is perfectly compatible with GPUs from several generations and vendors and doesn't need a completely new modeling approach, it certainly looks like the better solution at the moment. Nobody is against tesselation as such, but right now the technology simply isn't mature and widespread enough.

Yep you are correct, the example I used for the tesselation was used due to people saying tesselation does not give better performance for quality then non tessalated models with the same details. Thats why I phrased it the way I did, of course they use LOD but I was trying to explain why tessalation delivers great quality with less performance hits then if it was all high polygon count models. Also LOD has to store all the textures etc (minor stuff), but for high res gaming how many different models do you think they will use/need? What looks like a smooth hull at 50m looks like a octagon at 10m...

Like said though from what I have "heard (as I have never worked wit tesselation or that type of 3d graphics) it should be very easy to convert the models for tesselation (says Nvidia). But going from that you only need 1 model which auto scales. Reason I am advocating for it is because DX9 and DX10 have hit the end of their lives. Windows will no longer support xp in 2011 (I believe, dont know which month it official stops) and vista soon after. DX10 was horribly but Win 7 / DX11 is where everyone is going to, check out steams statistics on users hardware. Win7 64 bit is already the most common, and with the new second gen dx11 cards these graphical effects are the bread and butter of the coming (well actually this) generation.
I am not sure though about LOD and its interaction with lighting vs tesselation over various distances. One thing we havent touched on is the terrain (not planes or buildings). Maybe it would be better used on the ground due to the nature of the geometry (nothing than having a line in your vision where trees suddenly "appear" etc.

Go back and read your post. You might have been meaning something else, but what I took from it, and everyone else is that you didn't understand how it works. This might have been you attributing an ability to tesselation that doesn't exist (for all practical intents and purposes) or just awkward wording.

The technology as it stands right now is for mapping more detail to surfaces, not for replacing LOD stages. Maybe in the future it will do that, but not now. Anyways it's a moot point since it has not been implemented in the code so far, and if it is, it will probably be used strictly for examples other posters have already mentioned.

That was a cop out, what did I say exactly that gave you that impression? Tesselation is exactly what I said it was, it increases the polygon count of an object. You are the one who does not understand how it works.

Can it be used to turn a flat plane, with a bump mapped brick wall texture into actual geometry/model = yes
Can it increase the polygon count of a wheel/head/round object so instead of lots of little planes (like an octogon) it creates a round surface (to the eye) = Yes.
Can it be used to give increasingly high detail levels to the geometry of a plane/house/landscape as you approach it, working from a base model to smoothly add more and more detail without paging the harddrive? = Yes

It does what LOD does, but more efficiently, and even if it didnt nothing I have said is false. You are the one misunderstanding its function, it can be used to create geometry from a flat surface or like said tesselate objects as it does in Metro 2033 (albeit badly because it was thrown in late). It does not replace LOD but it adds more geometry as you move closer, so in effect its the next step from LOD as its progressive "intelligent" enhancement instead of just loading a completely new higher def model. Also it has been used for LOD in Civ5, so you are flat out wrong on that (also used for the terrain especially mountains).

As you have said we dont know if it is in the code or not, unless you are on the development team like others made clear earlier we dont have much of an idea of how or what will be in the game or not for graphical features. Who knows, they could of extended release back 2 months to add DX11 features in, why else would they be working so closely with Nvidia?

anyone knows how old this interview is?
(the link is with google translation)

http://translate.google.ch/translate...n&hl=&ie=UTF-8

ignore anything tree says, he doesnt know anything and and deliberately troll's and thread-craps il2 forums with -ve misinformation about BoB/SoW

oleg stated the game engine is designed for dx11, but that not all features will be turned on from the start (mainly to reduce cpu/gfx load and keep fpsec higher). as the game evolves and users have better hardware over the months/years, some of those dx11 elements can and will be turned on (or added in later patches)

additionally oleg also stated the game at release will be mostly dx9/10 to keep it compatible with older systems of potential customers (otherwise those people wouldnt/couldnt buy it), but people with newer dx11 systems will have some eye candy effects/visuals added which the older systems dont display. i suspect this will be fairly minor on release, but will matter more as newer patches/addons get released later

The interview was done after the Russian Exposition, just recently. There were a couple of very interesting screenshots I've never seen before. There is one showing an airfield from a 1000 ft. and another with 110's low over a foggy terrain. In this photo it appears that riverbanks weren't enabled. Hopefully they will make the final or later as they add hugely to the look of depth in the terrain.

I still think the White Cliffs of Dover and terrain color palette need tuning. Other than that SOW is looking very very good.

For the colors/cliff that could also be a lighting effect thats offsetting the colors. From what I have seen I think the colors look alittle too "washed out", but of course this could be due to a wide range of things.

As for Dx11 = people above gave a very good explanation of it so I will leave the beast to slumber :rolleyes:

No, it makes perfect sense. Oleg will build in the latest technology, but he won't implement its features for a few years. The thing most people underestimate about SoW:BoB's engine is that it is meant to be used until at least 2017 and is designed for ongoing development.

There are significant investments in the design and technology that we won't see used for the first couple of years.

For me, it is the clouds - the newer atmospheric engine is the big missing piece visually.

Personally i think the colours are too saturated, that or too fluro, later on this week i plan to get photoshopping and see if i can get the terrain to look normal.

The clouds also look very... il2fb... I hope something is changed before release, i have never EVER EVER EVER seen a cloud that is comparable to a ball of cotton wool in real life :confused:

The whole fluro thing with the ground is probably due to lighting, the afternoon/night shots look fine in that respect.

I think someone does not understand that these are work in progress screen shots. We have not once seen anything in it's final, release ready state.

But go ahead and waste an hour or so photoshopping if it makes you feel better. Not that it will have any effect on what Oleg's team does.


:rolleyes:

The clouds are IL2's clouds. The new ones are still a work in progress and Oleg's latest statement indicates they MAY not even make the initial release. That said even if they miss initial release, I'm sure they will patch them when finished. I have seen many clouds that look just like IL-2's, but there will be many different types of cloud formations when the SOW clouds are finished.

Will there be working windsocks?

With DX11 there will be (or should be because its direct compute is used for cloth, hair and particle physics).

Also hopefully DX11 clouds eventually that are volumetric and interact realistically with light or be able to see the light through the clouds etc.

When asked if it would support dx11 in another thread he said..

That seems like a straight forward answer to me.

In an early interview Oleg said yes to this.

As Oleg has suggested that he wants to market the SoW engine to other games (and it hasnt been released yet) it would make sense to make it DX11 to ensure a long life for the engine.

I've cleaned this up a bit removing some posts. Winny's post has been left there for reference the rest removed.

Please use the search function It took me 2 mins to find Olegs post I have quoted. Its also a couple of pages back in this thread !!!!!

Its a waste of bandwidth and speculating this way does no one any good.

Lets end the DX11 in/out thing now please.

Perhaps a discussion on whether its Win 8 128bit compatible

Just joking of course :)




.

Indeed. Makes you wonder why some people keep complaining about a lack of information, when they can't even handle the information that's given to them...

kraken your my hero :grin::grin::grin:

I just want some system specs for low, med, and high detail settings at say 1024X768 res. Thats not too much to ask is it? And you know they know the specs now. Games basically finished. Cough up the specs already!!

You need to search for the information mate, Oleg has already said, system specs in may 2009.

how about a link if your sure he said them?? And saying a current high end system isnt specs. Everyone has there own idea of high

how would that have any meaning today
its a year and half old if it exists

yes it is to much to ask, and if you are born in 1961 you should have enough brainpower and deductive ability to figure out why. presumably if born in 61 you have come accross gaming pc's a few times in the past, and might have watched the production process of some of the better games and know a bit about the process it goes through ? if not, maybe change your nick to newbie61 and we'll start communicating to you on the level of a fuzzie grandpa who has just discovered pc's and is still using the cd tray like a cup holder.

i'll give you a hint: in the finalization process of the game engine they can obtain significant performance improvements while still adding features and eye candy (or have to remove elements, like they did a few months ago by replacing oleg's nice tree's with the less nice speed-tree's we have now in the current build they are working with).

all this is a fine balancing act in the final months of production. so if right now they give you the exact specs of the machines they are testing on (and luthier said he was running it on a mid level pc to ensure it worked for most of the midrange pc's on the market), and if this doesnt stay the EXACT same by release time, you would just moan more and have another reason to complain.

yes it is enough information to give you a ballpark answer till it goes gold (there is even a thread on this forum dedicated to the stupidity of the question)

and no, there are not 500 different levels for what right now (in dec 2010/jan 2011) might be considered a "high end gaming pc", just check the main high end gaming systems sold by the main manufacturers to get a ballpark idea what the concept means.

but i'll give you another hint on how simple the answer is, take any current high end 64 bit 4 core i7 from intel, add 8 gb of ram or more, and chose one of the top 2 gfx cards from ati or nvidia (either dual gpu on one card, or dual cards with single gpu's). that of course is for driving a single monitor at 1920 x 1200 ( if you want higher resolution or multiple monitors you'll have to add further gfx cards, and bump the cpu)

easy really, aint it ?

but you already knew the answers to this, its just that you'r bored waiting and with tree stinking the place up with his negative crap it puts you in the mood for typing nonsense. you just caught a case of tree'itis, and it aint pretty to watch the effect.

No one should care about system specs. Buy the best system you an afford. Oleg has to meet the requirements of many lower cost sytems. Luthier and Oleg have both said many times they have some "not so fast" computers they are using on the development of SOW.

If you can't afford a new system, you'll still probably do fine with BOB SOW. You might not able to use all the tricked out graphics, but you'll be able to fly and enjoy the BOB SOW. Besides, if you are able to do everything you want with what you have now... stay there until BOB SOW releases. Then if you just gotta have the latest and greatest, bust the cookie jar and update your system.

I've been with Il2 since the start. When I started out... my system was not so hot, but served me well on IL2. Now I have a good system, which is appx 2 years old. I know it will be just fine for SOW.

I don't think some of the afore mentioned malcontents ever do anything with the IL2. All they ever discuss is their whine or rant about something. Never anything about using or improving their install of IL2. In fact, I suspect they are NOT ever running the IL2 at all... they spend all their time here and other forums whining and complaining.

Oleg has always tried to be fair with his users, by letting us use advanced graphics if we had the system capacity.

You may not be able to use a old 64 MB graphics card and a 486 computer. I'd almost be willing to say you can probably still do BOB SOW on such a system. Oleg doesn't pander to the big bucks, gamer elites. Put that in your brainpan and forget about ragging on Oleg for system specs.

The BOB SOW will be released when Oleg is ready, and it's pretty close to ready. Anyone on this forums knows it from reading all the updates and articles we have read from Oleg or Luthier in the past couple months.

I have an intel E6600 processor, 4 gig of ram, 1 nividia GTS 512MB Video card, 750W powersupply, 6 cooling fans in the box. I can do any and everything I want to do with it. I am not anxious about my system when BOB SOW is released. I know I will have a very adequate system.

All the whines about DX11. Oleg has said it, go back and read his postings. In order to implement tesselation and the other tricked out features DX11 supports it would delay BOB SOW considerably. It would require a great deal more work and time than the development team can give now.

The future prospects are good for enhancements of BOB SOW, but getting a release to users soon is the important goal now.

Zap do you have to work at being an azz or does it come naturally??

Honest debate has a certain characteristic...

Respect for the other person's opinion, even when you don't concur.

OldSchool61 - you just personally attacked Zap by saying he is a #$$.

That is a personal attack, not debate, nor does it have any merit as debate.

Name calling and personal attacks are the tools of a poor conversationalist.

Just as profanity is the verbal tool of the ignorant.

It seems our worst dreams come true. As you can read in the link, IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover is announced at an Ubisoft upcoming release list :(

http://www.gbase.ch/Global/news/Stor...992/47703.html

March 2011?

Maby an addon to IL2?

Seems od to show IL2 screenshots (bottom of page)

Translated with Bing...

If that's the cover art it looks good, agree with Oleg about the name and like the fact that it's apparently in final beta.

Actually its not a pesonal attack if its the truth. Which you will find most members will agree with just ask Tree. And I was just replying to his personal attack and insult from several posts aboe this. Perhaps you should give mister negative a vaction as all he does is flame and insult people. And for your knowlegde here is the definition of "insult" because it seems some moderators here dont know an insult if it hit them in the face!

insult
vb [ɪnˈsʌlt] (tr)
1. to treat, mention, or speak to rudely; offend; affront
2. Obsolete to assault; attack
n [ˈɪnsʌlt]
1. an offensive or contemptuous remark or action; affront; slight
2. a person or thing producing the effect of an affront some television is an insult to intelligence
3. (Medicine) Med an injury or trauma
add insult to injury to make an unfair or unacceptable situation even worse


This is a Zap quote which could be used in the definition of insult
"yes it is to much to ask, and if you are born in 1961 you should have enough brainpower and deductive ability to figure out why. presumably if born in 61 you have come accross gaming pc's a few times in the past, and might have watched the production process of some of the better games and know a bit about the process it goes through ? if not, maybe change your nick to newbie61 and we'll start communicating to you on the level of a fuzzie grandpa who has just discovered pc's and is still using the cd tray like a cup holder. "

Perhaps we need some moderators with more than a high school education.

ubi? :( stand by for some loopy drm,and a staggered release date then..

http://www.exlibris.ch/games/pc/il2-...=3307219934469

On the cover is says: "Internet connection required to activate game".

Let's hope that's all they require.

S!

Hopefully so and that the DVD can be put back in the box and on shelf after activation.

and pigs can fly, but just don't want us to know. ;)

But there will be a no-cd crack eventually...

S!

Can always dream..but a pessimist does not get dissapointed though ;)

As its still called il2 (very weird marketing,that one) I suppose thats the reason we don't have a new forum,because this is it!

Wouldn't a new forum require a new hp?

Honestly, I would hate to have Sturmovik an CoD(LOL!) mixed up in one subforum.

Truth has nothing to do with it. A personal attack is what it is, whether "your" truth is absolute or relative.


insult
vb [ɪnˈsʌlt] (tr)
1. to treat, mention, or speak to rudely; offend; affront
2. Obsolete to assault; attack
n [ˈɪnsʌlt]
1. an offensive or contemptuous remark or action; affront; slight
2. a person or thing producing the effect of an affront some television is an insult to intelligence
3. (Medicine) Med an injury or trauma
add insult to injury to make an unfair or unacceptable situation even worse

Yes, I'd say that is very condescending paragraph, which borders on a personal attack.



Your posting is a long-winded circular explanation of what? Then you end it all with another insult. You really don't get it.

Moderators aren't into winning arguments here. We are trying to keep a peaceable forums where people can exchange ideas and have civil discussions.

If you are as smart as you think you are maybe you should be thinking about using your intelligence to avoid "verbal conflict with others". It can be done, if you apply yourself to it.

I've read many of your postings and notice you do appear to have a penchant for taking contrary views on topics. That kind of rhetoric does generate hostility and often opposition.

Read the forum rules - http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=1874 You will find that challenges to moderation are prohibited, along with a few other issues you might want to think about.

Ubisoft - OMG (not Oleg Maddox Games)
IL-2 name - bullsh't to market a new game with completely new engine under a old name which does not even fit at all to the scenario.
Cover - Looks like ice age. I thought it was hot in britain?!
Internet connection to activate - if more, you can keep it

Just too proud of their IL-2 plane, these russians :-x

I wouldn't say that. IL-2 has been the front runner, benchmark air combat flight simulator for appx. 10 years. It is a good brand, and very well recognized as the leader among all air combat enthusiats. It would not make sense to walk away from that kind of reputation and longevity.

It isn't about Russian prides, it's about selling the software.

Look at all the postings on any forums where air combat is discussed.
The IL2 has the largest number of postings continuously. Go to Simhq, leading forums, and you will find that IL2 and SOW have the largest number of posters and viewers constantly.

If you buy any Microsoft software now you have to activate it. I think you can do it by email, phone or internet connection. Most people just use the internet connection, because it is faster and they share the same information regardless of activation method.

I don't have a problem with internet activation. I would have a problem, if I have to be on the internet all the time I use it. Spyware and other malware inclusion would be a stop for me as well. The PE-2 addon had the piracy protection and the addon bombed. I don't think that kind of invasion of our systems will be included with any of Oleg's applications.

We should all favor some kind of piracy protection.