Hey look at the big indicator in the pic ;)

;) good luck

Oleg-

I have a question concerning the Mission Builder for Storm of War.

As a campaign maker, I find the single most limiting factor in Il2:1946 is the lack of Triggers. In case I am being confusing, by "Trigger" I mean a way to produce an event only when the player reaches a certain proximity to a marker

For example: A "spawn aircraft" Trigger is placed on an airfield. The "spawn aircraft" trigger would have options such as the type of aircraft, percent chance of the aircraft spawning, the AI's state and skill, and distance at which the trigger will be activated in relation to the players position- 1,000m, 500 m, etc

So in this example, the player flies close enough to the Trigger to activate it. The mission now spawns the aircraft type, at the skill setting and AI state that the Trigger was optioned for

Can we expect to see Triggers in the Storm of War series?

If not, what is the reasoning behind this decision? Triggers are badly needed by mission and campaign developers

I think that triggers have been confirmed in previous news updates. I also think that damage modeling on a "per round" basis has also been confirmed previously, but i don't know if the tiger moth screenshots are done with that method. For example, Oleg said the screenshots of a damaged spitfire a few updates back were not made by aircraft rounds but flak.

I have a question I'd like to see if Oleg can elaborate on regarding the Damage Models for SoW.

Can he give us an example (using, say the 109E4) and compare part of its DM and relative level of detail compared to the damage model of the E4 in IL2:46?

Thanks

You mean like, lets say the Spit compared to what we have in IL2?
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/1...2417c3ess8.jpg


To the details: I bet even if he knew for sure, yet, he'd give us more. And he's answered different aspects allready, e.g. stress on damaged parts will cause further damage, way more complex engine and mechanics failures, possibly even exploding ammo, etc.

Here is some food for thought for the FMB and the AI.

1.) In Il-2 ships do have a speed setting that the mission builder can set freely (within the limits of the ship, that is). On the other hand trucks, cars and tanks do not have such an option which makes "mixed columns" a pain in the rear to create. Usually the result is mayhem on the road with each and every group bumping into the next available.

Suggestion: Standardize AI control settings in the FMB so that all moving AI objects have a modifiable speed setting to allow for an easier creation of road traffic.

2.) In Il-2 road traffic is limited to either single objects or pre-designed columns - and several trucks/cars are only available as single item or as part of a column. This makes creation of non-standard columns considerably tough.

Suggestion: Allow the player to define variable sets of "personalized" road columns (perhaps via a txt file).

3.) In Il-2 all guns are considered "direct fire weapons" and require a direct LOS to the target. While this is true for AAA, AT guns, MGs and tank guns it is absolutely wrong for artillery, rocket launchers and mortars which are providing "indirect fire" by definition.

Suggestion: Have a separate AI mode for artillery guns, rocket launchers and mortars (and also heavy guns on ships if they are used in the fire support role). Allow them to shoot across hills and beyond their own visual range. (see next point for further suggestions)

4.) In Il-2 the mission builder is unable to direct and concentrate fire of artillery units onto specific points (i.e. an enemy position or enemy tanks).

Suggestion: Allow the mission builder to combine artillery units into "batteries" and allow the mission builder to define "fire zones" to bombard. Add several fire modes such as "harassing fire" (low ROF) or "salvo fire" (high ROF) and a way to time their fire.

The same should apply to all warships. Here I'd like to have control over the various gun types (heavy, medium, AAA) and their roles, i.e. I'd like to make a cruiser fire only its heavy guns at the enemy destroyers and keep the AAA for anti aircraft defense.

5.) In Il-2 ships have modifiable settings for AI level and ROF. Land-based artillery as AAA doe not have this setting.

Suggestion: Standardize control modules for all gun/artillery-type objects.

Translucent frame rails and Translucent Gauges?
 

Flying the HUD (wonder woman view) has never been much fun, and having visual ability further impaired by windshield frame rails (especially the big ones like in the FW-190) has never made much sense to me when flying full cockpit views. Flying the HUD the player loses all sense of situational awareness, and only after a lot of experience does the player get a feel for what to do next in air combat.

X-Plane has translucent cockpits, which is not what I'm talking about. It is close, but I'm not talking about seeing through the panel, gauges, or down below. Just translucent windshield frame rails, which normally block player viewing.

Translucent windshield frame rails would make a small allowance for player having no peripheral vision.

I've always thought it would be a plus to just have translucent windshield frame rails, then you still have the situational awareness. Player would still have evidence of windshield frame rails yet could NOT see through the cockpit. Again, player cannot see through the panel, gauges, sides or bottom of the aircraft cockpit.

I noticed in the last update we can expect translucent gauges for HUD view.

What would it would hurt to have only translucent windshield frame rails? All the rest of the panel and gauges would be just like regular cockpit views.

For ONLINE PLAY the translucent windshield frame rails would be considered the same as HUD for fair ONLINE play, yet it would help players to develop their skills before advancing into full cockpit views.

Translucent windshield frame rails always made more sense to me than the HUD with full unrestricted viewing, yet it has never been seriously applied in any combat flight simulator I'm aware.

Some one should go through Oleg's answers and compile some of the features...we are starting to get a lot of re-posted questions.

Maybe if I have some time later...:)

It's very interesting YOU have this idea. :grin: